122 thoughts on “General debate, September 17, 2012

  1. National… Masters at passing the buck

    Instead of actually creating enough jobs to ensure there is less welfare dependency by increasing opportunity, National is playing to peoples prejudices and fostering resentment against those they perceive to be inferior. This is ultimately detrimental to the fabric of our society…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 (+2)

  2. We and the wider region are facing a very important period – will China accept rules based restraint as it grows as a regional power, or will it require a level of appeasement?

    {The US defence secretary has warned territorial disputes in East Asia have the potential to become wider conflicts if provocations are not reduced. “A misjudgement on one side or the other could result in violence, and could result in conflict,” Leon Panetta said at the start of an Asian tour.

    Speaking in Tokyo, Leon Panetta said: “I am concerned that when these countries engage in provocations of one kind or another over these various islands, that it raises the possibility that a misjudgement on one side or the other could result in violence, and could result in conflict. “And that conflict would then have the potential of expanding,” he warned.

    The US defence chief stressed that during his talks in Tokyo and later in Beijing he would appeal for restraint. Mr Panetta also said that Washington did not take a position with regard to the territorial disputes in Asia.

    He will also visit New Zealand as part of his tour.}

    Of this Terence O’Brien wrote

    {We are fashioning a de facto military alliance alongside negotiation of Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) that involves as-yet-undisclosed provisions, hailed as ground breaking, for purposeful economic policy integration with the US. America’s geopolitical purpose behind TPP seems intended to challenge China’s place as a pre-eminent force for regional economic consolidation, together with strengthened alliances and greater force projection to augment unrivalled US military superiority.

    China’s consternation is reflected in its absence from the TPP negotiation, which is striking given its vital role as the indispensable dynamo of Asian economic accomplishment – and indeed for global recovery. There is real potential for a split between a Chinese and US-led regional economic order, which is emphatically not in New Zealand interests.

    New Zealand relationships throughout East Asia, which has lived in China’s shadow for centuries, are vital – as are long-established ties beyond the region. We do not want to be obliged to take sides between Washington and Beijing, although New Zealand cannot dismiss the reasons behind their respective attitudes. As Prime Minister John Key says, perceptions have a habit of becoming reality in politics, internationally as domestically.}

    Of this I will note two things.

    First, TPP involvement has problematic foreign policy implications – so if a deal is worthwhile to us, it needs to be balanced by going ahead in tandem with another agreement that includes China – the ASEAN plus one.

    Second, any country worth a place on the UNSC, would be able to make a positive contribution to peace making diplomacy in its own region. And the obvious way to reduce the impasse over claims to sovereignty over uninhabited rocks in the sea – because this enables a claim to the 200 mile economic zone, is to declare them all null and void for purposes of claim to that economic zone (if an island was uninhabited when the 200 mile agreement came into being, – this prevents later efforts to inhabit to make a claim).

    I say reduce the impasse, rather than end, because some of the conflict is about projection of hegemony into the wider region by a rising power seeking to settle historic slight.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. Public subsidizing polluting industries

    National’s Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading and Other Matters) Amendment Bill (PDF) effectively kneecaps the ETS and ensures that New Zealand will fail to meet its international obligations. Giving the public only two weeks to make submissions on that bill, the amendments to the Climate Change Response Act 2002 puts a very flimsy case for economic growth ahead of the environment… In other words it lets the polluters off the hook…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  4. BJ,

    Great article till I read

    Joule Biotechnologies grows genetically engineered microorganisms…….

    GE is off limits. The Greens would have to vote no to that initiative.

    Unless you draw a difference between genetically modified and genetically engineered.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  5. No.. Gerrit, we don’t approve of GM for NZ foods, or GM in the wilds of NZ, but this is GM in a test-tube (a very BIG test-tube, but still a test-tube). As it isn’t something that is growing in the wild it is not I think, going to get the “verboten” label.

    I think.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  6. I would say this is well and truly proven if Audi are now involved. Fascinating stuff!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. It’s 2012, and there’s still dinosaurs out there who think it’s the government who creates jobs –

    Jackal says “Instead of actually creating enough jobs….”

    Jobs are created when companies have good profits.

    The irony is there are people who complain about company profits then complain about not enough jobs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5 (-3)

  8. So my notion of using money that isn’t backed by debt is revolutionary?

    Not so fast there bub… even I am not old enough to REMEMBER stuff like this but….

    http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=3&res=9C04E0D7103EEE3ABC4E53DFB467838A639EDE

    http://prosperityuk.com/2000/09/thomas-edison-on-government-created-debt-free-money/

    So WTF are we still paying the bankers for ? The FOREIGN bankers ?

    Note too that these are not random fools, nor are they anti-capitalists.

    Get this policy on the road!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. When Barrack announced the first round of TARP I was mystified. He was going to print money and give it to the banks, who then did exactly what was predicted they would do, ie, stuff it in the vault. Meanwhile, America and its communities died.

    What Barrack should have done was to bail out the homeowners, which would have saved the communities, kept people in homes, alleviated a housing crises, and rid the banks of their toxic debt.

    Sure, it would be unfair, in that a bunch of folks would effectively get a house for nowt. But that would have been less bad than the wholesale destruction that actually and predictably happened.

    And now the yanks are mystified as to why the turnaround hasn’t happened? They’ve seem not to have noticed that they have not solved the problems they started with……

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  10. What sensible governments do (and have done in every year since this was common wisdom) is up the level of investment in infrastructure when there is spare capacity in the economy. For the right macroeconomic policy is generally regarded as being to smooth out the economic cycle.

    This means puting builders to work – school building/hospital building replacement, new housing – or existing public housing upgrades. And things such as requiring landlords to insulate property and waterway protection standards for farmers. This all creates work when there is spare labour capacity.

    Other options are a second cable link to support local broadband development (it could be sold off to private investors later).

    Optimum efficiency is to prepare the economy for future capacity requirements.

    In the case of housing, lack of new supply (because of finance company, developer bankruptcy and bank prudence) means higher prices and rising foreign debt from the mortgages. This reduces living standards for those buying property or facing higher rents. The government’s failure to create jobs by investing in additional housing is the cause of this. To those who say it could not afford this – well not true, the government can sell some of its existing houses to afford new ones, and if not would receive rent otherwise.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  11. SPC says “…the government can sell some of its existing houses to afford new ones…”

    This is already happening. They are selling some high value homes and the money from each high value house can build 2-3 new homes.

    I think the govt should also put on the developers hat in Chch, and that would help provide affordable new homes, and help keep a lid on house inflation.

    They’re also putting quite a bit of money into broadband, roading, and want to put a lot into school buildings (though there’s quite a bit of opposition to private public partnerships and using money from asset sales to do this, so I think most of the new school buildings will probably go on hold).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  12. Photonz – Government can indeed create jobs, if it so desires. It can build things that benefit future generations.

    It can also PROTECT jobs, if it so desires, and there is a cost to that which the whole of the society bears and it may be “less efficient” than buying things from China… but there is a point to doing it and a balance to be struck.

    Here in NZ under National there is no balance and no point. Moreover, most Kiwis of BOTH major parties react with absolute horror when presented with the notion that they might have and protect and nourish their own economy. They fail to do basic reasoning about the limits to comparative advantage, the results of their non-policies, or what happened to Muldoon’s “think big” projects designed to make us self-sufficient. We could have been. A shame that the wrong lesson is always carried away from that.

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  13. I suspect they are only building to maintain state house numbers overall, not increase them (which means a decline against population growth). Thus would be selling some to simply finance upgrades in retained houses and otherwise building new home replacements to maintain numbers.

    There may also be a reluctance to be seen competing with the private sector in building new homes and then selling them.

    So I think they are being a little timid. They should on-sell some of the newly built houses and build more still until the private sector supply increases.

    The government will surely act in Christchurch to restore its own lost housing stock and hopefully more besides.

    On school building – government borrowing costs are lower than PPP costs, so this option is really silly here. It’s really only appropriate where there is a return to the investor paid for by another user (not the government).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  14. Actually it is that the government borrows at all that is silly.

    See the reference to Henry Ford and Edison a few posts up.

    GOVERNMENT borrowing to do stuff like this is simply a product of the power of Banks to dictate to the government what to do.

    Pun on name is not funny enough though.

    :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  15. BJ says “Actually it is that the government borrows at all that is silly.”

    Printing money has a lot of negative consequences.

    Which is why governments only do it when they are desperate, or really desperate.

    If it was such a great thing, ALL governemnts would do it ALL the time.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  16. SPC says “There may also be a reluctance to be seen competing with the private sector in building new homes and then selling them.”

    I think you’re right. An example of not doing something that could be beneficial, not because it’s wrong, but because it doesn’t fit an ideology.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  17. Actually Photonz, you’ve just bought into the “big lie” that the bankers have been promoting for the past century… and I am not surprised.

    However, I do encourage you to read some of Steve Keen’s work, or just the link to the Times back in the 20’s when those notable socialists Thomas Edison and Henry Ford made the same point that I just did.

    Governments can print money with just exactly the same authority as they can borrow it. There is no difference between the borrowing and the printing except that the bankers get a massive cut if the money is borrowed, and gain power over the government in the process.

    The question of whether a government SHOULD print money for a given purpose is another issue. I pointed out that money needs to represent work done. Made that point MANY times, and again, my friends Tom and Henry are exactly in accordance with me. A government that prints money that does NOT represent work done, is in trouble.

    Governments however, did a fairly good job of keeping control of their money supplies before the banks took over the job. Not any worse than since the banks took over in any case. So why the hell we are paying the banks, I do not know.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  18. Are there still dinosaurs out there who think that business owners create jobs?

    It is demand that creates jobs. Demand that is being reduced by less wealth remaining in the community. To the detriment of both the community and business.

    Or are you saying that a State schoolteacher or construction company staff, being paid by taxes to re-build Christchurch, do not have jobs.

    What about a private prison paid for by the State? Do the warders have jobs?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  19. On the other hand the Government printing money to build State houses or rent to own houses, which I think Photo and I both agreed they should, at cost prices would have a deflationary effect on our housing market. Especially as the building labour market is underutilized at present.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  20. photon

    It’s 2012, and there’s still dinosaurs out there who think it’s the government who creates jobs.

    Tell that to the thousands of public workers National has recently sacked. A government can create jobs by ensuring the system promotes business growth in the right areas. National hasn’t and that’s why we have 160,000 in need of employment. Only a complete ignoramus would think that the government has no effect on the economy and jobs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  21. Jackal says “A government can create jobs by ensuring the system promotes business growth in the right areas.”

    That’s funny, coming from someone who complains about anything that’s pro business, and wants want to bring endless policies that stiffle business.

    You continually blame the govt for lack of jobs, but ignore the fact our unemployment is lower than most of the world, regardless of whether their governments are left, right, or middle.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  22. BJ says “Actually Photonz, you’ve just bought into the “big lie” that the bankers have been promoting for the past century… and I am not surprised. ”

    Ooooooh – the conspiracy!!.

    If we print money, the total sum value of NZ doesn’t change, so the value of our dollar goes down. This is good for exporters, and the govt.

    But the negative effects are –
    – because the NZ$ goes down, investment is pulled out, and the NZ$ goes down further.
    – the NZ$ is currently 27% above it’s historic average. If it goes back, there will be a massive rise in petrol ($2.80 litre), deisel, cars, parts, tyres, tools, clothes, appliances, anything that has plastic or metal in it, and EVERYTHING that needs to be transported. i.e. EVERYTHING

    When money is printed, the total sum value of NZ does not change – all it effectively does is take wealth off individuals because inflation devalues their assets, and transfers it to the govt in the form of their newly printed cash.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  23. If we print money, the total sum value of NZ doesn’t change, so the value of our dollar goes down. This is good for exporters, and the govt.

    True photonz1. But that would not be the case if the printed money was spend on massive capital projects which do increase the nett ‘value’ of the country / potential economic output.

    Though it might not be directly expressed in terms of any given good or service, efficient and infrastructure most definitely does add to aggregate GNP.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  24. Yup… IF we don’t actually build something useful with the money then it is purely inflationary, and your schtick applies. Dumb to think that’s the only way it can work though.

    If we build something useful like housing, hydro-dams, wind-farms, Aluminium mills, electric cars, electric trains… and the list is a lot longer than either of us have time for… our overall wealth increases in ways that match the dollars created and invested. In other words, the money represents work done. It is invested in New Zealand itself.

    Moreover, as the NZ $ declines in value overseas, the RELATIVE value of work done here increases and we can afford to make tools, clothes, appliances… because EVERYTHING doesn’t actually need to be transported into this country. In spite of your prejudices to the contrary.

    When money is printed, the total sum value of NZ does not change

    Bad assumption. It MAY not change, if all that is done with the money is to print it and give it away. If it is used to buy tooling and energy supplies and to make us more productive as a nation, that assumption does not hold.

    You have the Kiwi disease, but you have yet to explain to me how borrowing money to invest in NZ is any better than or substantially different from, printing it (apart from the enrichment of bankers).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  25. photon

    That’s funny, coming from someone who complains about anything that’s pro business, and wants want to bring endless policies that stiffle business.

    What absolute rubbish!

    New Zealand needs job growth in areas where investment pays off socially and environmentally. It just so happens that green tech creates more jobs per dollar of investment than the polluting industries you’re so fond of. We also don’t run the risk of an environmental disaster either.

    You continually blame the govt for lack of jobs, but ignore the fact our unemployment is lower than most of the world, regardless of whether their governments are left, right, or middle.

    The government is to blame because it’s their policies (or lack thereof) that has caused an increase in unemployment. New Zealand currently ranks 75th in the world in terms of our unemployment rate. If you think that’s something to crow about, you’re clearly off your rocker photon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  26. Gregor says “True photonz1. But that would not be the case if the printed money was spend on massive capital projects which do increase the nett ‘value’ of the country / potential economic output.”

    IF true, the govt could just print money and build us all a mansion.

    Then we’d all be richer, and no one would have had to pay anything to do it.

    It would be magic, and the whole world would be doing it.

    But the countries who print money to any great extent fall into two categories – those in financial trouble, and total basket cases.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  27. jackal says “It just so happens that green tech creates more jobs per dollar of investment than the polluting industries you’re so fond of.”

    Yeah right. It’s a highly competitive sector where few companies come close to even covering their R&D costs before their technology is obsolete. The world’s top new energy companies are struggling just to survive.

    In NZ, our listed new energy companies are only a fraction of the size they were a few years ago. A fund in the worlds top 50 or so new energy companies is not even worth half what it was a few years ago.

    The greens plan to make NZ a major centre for new energy companies to supply the world is dreamland – it’s empty words. They think we can import materials from across the world, make them into new energy technology, ship them back to the other side of the world to where the people are, and do it better than companies with decades of experience, tens of thousands of workers, who live where the demand is.

    The impossible task of resurecting car manufacturing would be far more viable.

    Jackal says “New Zealand currently ranks 75th in the world in terms of our unemployment rate. ”

    Only if you are fool enough to believe countries like Tonga and Cambodia have 1% unemployument, and Vietnam, Ghana and basket cases like Liberia only have 3% unemployment, Cameroon and Sri Lanka have 4% etc.

    Europes average is over 10% unemployment. We are miles better off than that.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  28. photon

    Yeah right. It’s a highly competitive sector where few companies come close to even covering their R&D costs before their technology is obsolete. The world’s top new energy companies are struggling just to survive.

    Your argument couldn’t be further from the truth.

    Clean industries continue to grow and by 2018 it is forecast that the three main clean technology sectors, solar photovoltaics, wind power, and biofuels, will have revenues of $325.1 billion.

    However you are right in a round about way… governments need ensure there are market signals to increase demand for renewable energy and low-carbon alternatives. This means reducing subsidies for polluting industries and ensuring they pay their taxes so there’s an even playing field. National is currently restricting growth in the clean technology sector by giving an unfair advantage to unsustainable industries.

    The Political Economy Research Institue at the University of Massachusetts has categorically proven that clean tech creates more jobs in comparison the dirty industries. For every million dollars invested in coal, 7 jobs are created, while the same amount invested in wind and solar creates 13 and 14 jobs respectfully. In other words clean tech creates twice as many jobs as polluting industries.

    But don’t let your ignorance of reality get in the way of your beliefs there photon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  29. IF true, the govt could just print money and build us all a mansion.

    Then we’d all be richer, and no one would have had to pay anything to do it.

    It would be magic, and the whole world would be doing it.

    Uh no Photonz… you aren’t quite understanding.

    MONEY does not build mansions or houses. People do, and the value of having a place to live isn’t zero to either people or the society. So printing money, spending it on employing people to build houses and cutting the banks out of the process would save us a few billion in interest? All paid to overseas banks. It would employ a fair few New Zealanders. It would improve and expand the housing stock. We would spend less on houses and have more to spend on other things.

    One could employ them longer building mansions of course, but the added value of having a mansion to live in vs a merely adequate house is zero to the society. So the mansion is wasted money, it does NOT add further to the net wealth of the society to spend more, just to the GDP.

    It isn’t magic Photonz, it just seems like it to people who haven’t ever seen it done. It isn’t wrong, and it HAS been done for centuries prior to the advent the fatal mistake made by nations, of putting their fate in the hands of the bankers.

    I cited Edison and Ford earlier, here’s Jefferson…

    “I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
    Thomas Jefferson, (Attributed)

    Really… the world did just fine without fractional-reserve banking and its debt-backed money for centuries. The debt backed money you so love is the sacred crap of bankers and you think it doesn’t stink.

    Debt is what we actually have – and the stench is overwhelming.

    http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2009/01/31/therovingcavaliersofcredit/

    What has to be applied to the government is of course, the discipline of having to back the money with something. One cannot just print without being able to define what the money represents and it has to represent work done in some form. Taking this power out of the hands of the bankers however, is THEIR worst nightmare.

    …and it would probably collapse the economic house of cards that the world is precariously supporting now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  30. Jackal says “Your argument couldn’t be further from the truth.”

    I own a shares in a fund of the top global new energy companies, so I’ve been following their performance for several years – the combined capital value of all these companies isn’t even half what it was five years ago.

    And these are the top global new energy companies

    NZ has fared even worse. Wellington Drive Technologies markets itself as a world leader in energy efficient electric motors. It’s capital value has plummeted by 90% in the last two years. Also losing 90% in the last five years is NZ Windfarms.

    No doubt some companies somewhere will make a lot of money, because they will be the ones who come up with the best technology. But of course that means all their competitors technology will be obsolete.

    We have green industry groups saying we should invest heavily in these new industries, but they fact that they are NOT investing heavily themselves tells you a lot.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  31. There is no price on Carbon. Until there is the market distortion will make it hard for Green to succeed and here in NZ the lack of any realistic support for industry as opposed to farming, means that ANY manufacturing (Green, Blue or Purple with polka-donts) will suffer, and has. Which is why we have lost Fisher-Paykel, Aircraft maintenance, Rail car manufacture.. the list goes on and on.

    The problem THERE is that there is a worshipful reverence for the principle of comparative advantage TO THE EXCLUSION OF EVERY OTHER CONSIDERATION. Which is common to both major parties and most New Zealanders, and a lot LESS common anywhere else I have ever been. You have an industry you fight to keep it… except in New Zealand where you turn your back on it. If it can’t make it without any help it failed the “comparative advantage” test.

    Which is why current policy has the entire country trending towards a nation of tenant farmers, living in rental housing, growing GE crops on the land we once called our own.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  32. BJ – where your arguement falls down is that every country who is doing what you say is a good thing, is either in serious financial difficulties or a total basket case.

    Where it also falls down, is that New Zealand has ALREADY TRIED doing what you want, and nearly went bankrupt when Muldoon printed money to pay for think big infrastructure projects.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  33. BJ gets it really wrong “Which is why we have lost Fisher-Paykel,”

    A price on carbon would make F&P even LESS viable.

    It would make it more expensive to get materials from the far side of the planet, ship them to NZ to be made into appliances, then ship them back to the other side of the planet again.

    That’s about as green and sustainable as sending our milk to Europe so it can be packed into bottles and sent back to sell on our local market.

    Beside which, if Haier hadn’t bailed out F&P a couple of years ago, or if they hadn’t shifted their factories offshore, it would have already gone bust by now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  34. Muldoon didn’t print money. You can’t GO bankrupt if you have control of your own currency. You can destroy the value of your money but that was NOT Muldoon’s mistake. It is yours.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  35. What I am describing is a redeemable currency, not a debt backed currency, nor a pure FIAT currency. Some FIAT currency implementations might approach it, no current ones do. My apologies to your asserted expertise but there are NO countries currently doing what I describe.

    You haven’t bothered to read the link to Steve Keen either. I know because it would take longer than you’ve left between posts (it is a long article) :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  36. The printing of money occurs now.

    In the USA the printing of money delivers ownership of an asset to the Federal Reserve (the bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other private institutions with newly created money, in order to inject a pre-determined quantity of money into the economy) but it in no way improves the position of federal government as to its deficit, thus the debt grows despite the money being printed.

    All this enables is more money in circulation for those commercial institutions and private institutions to buy up some new public debt to finance the deficit (at a later date the Fed would sell its assets to restrain inflationary demand).

    Whereas printing the money and giving it to the federal government would reduce the need for new debt to finance the budget deficit.

    And we could do this here too.

    The current system leaves a worse political problem over the budget during recession than is necessary. It is unlikely to be very inflationary to print money when an economy is in recession.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 (+4)

  37. photonz, Muldoon borrowed money from overseas. You should review the Fred Dagg records of that era – we can always go cap in hand and borrow a few million more … . Why do you think we had the IMF on our backs in the 1984-1990 period? If we had printed money this would not have happened.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  38. Fisher and Paykel was OK here and in Oz… raw materials did not come from the far side of the planet, they came from Oz which is not all THAT far away, and ships are quite efficient at moving tonnage of stuff that isn’t all that perishable, like bauxite and iron ore.

    F&P supplied the Australian market nicely. I know because I used to have one of their dryers back in Adelaide. It made decent appliances, but could not continue to compete on price with the Chinese goods, here or in Oz. With a tax on CO2 there would also be a tariff on the stuff unless the country we trade with has an equivalent CO2 tax or trading scheme. Which would leave us trading with Oz still.

    More to the point, we were ill-served to NOT support F&P to remain a manufacturing entity here. Not just for the jobs but also for the money we’d not spend on the foreign goods and the quality and having the spare parts here to fix stuff if it broke, which used to be a less often.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  39. Photonz – The fact that I am for the most part RIGHT and you aren’t paying a lot of attention except to the ideology you think is driving my statements, makes your repeated statements that I am wrong look increasingly lame.

    Let’s clear something up. I recognized the problem with the banks, with debt backed currency and with the bankers control of governments because I am an engineer and I understand thermodynamics (well, as much as any no-longer-practicing engineer can be said to understand that subject).

    It has nothing to do with my political views. It is simply impossible for what we are doing to work in the long run. It CAN’T work… and so it will fail. No matter what trix the Fed or the NZ Reserve Bank come up with.

    There is no excuse for a nation to NOT have control over its own money. There is little reason to trust politicians with that control, but there is no excuse for us to pay bankers to take over government on that account.

    Now… you want to argue about stuff, fine. I just thought I’d make sure that THAT bit was really clear. Has nothing to do with politics. Just that the economists are trying to break the laws of thermodynamics and the only thing amusing about it is to watch them try.

    Because it can’t be done. There are no perpetual motion machines.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  40. National’s protection racket

    The Prime Minister is running the risk of losing all credibility in trying to protect Banks as everyone can see right through his disingenuous semantics. It seems inevitable that the Act “leader” cannot hide forever behind the slippery John Key, who is obviously losing patience and would rather that the whole damaging affair just went away. That will only happen when Banks is sent back down the river on the next cabbage boat…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  41. Muldoon did not print money. He borrowed it from the IMF and offshore banks, same as our present fuckwits are doing to pay for rich peoples tax cuts for Hawaii holidays.

    He paid a premium for overseas banks to add the zeros.

    At least Muldoon did borrow for infrastructure which would have returned a profit if oil prices had kept rising. Much of it has anyway, but for the private owners another bunch of thieves sold them to, in the 80’s and 90’s.

    Muldoon wasn’t to know that the USA would just precipitate some regime changes to get oil prices back down.

    Unlike the 30’s Labour Government which printed money for infrastructure and resource development we are still using today. And, by the way, got us out of the great depression ahead of most of the rest or the world, who were still fucking about with austerity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  42. SPC says “It is unlikely to be very inflationary to print money when an economy is in recession.”

    If we print money, our dollar goes down, and everything goes up, recession or not – petrol, deisel, trucks, machinery, raw materials, cars, parts, tyres, appliances, and every product that is transported (i.e. everything including food) will go up. Bus, train and plane fares will go up. Cell phones, cameras, tablets and computers will go up. Clothing, material and shoes will go up. Holidays will go up. Mortgages interest rates will go up.

    Almost everything you spend money on will be more expensive.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  43. bj says “Fisher and Paykel was OK here and in Oz…”

    Yeah right. I’m sorry but that comment shows total lack of knowledge of what was happening.

    FPA went from $3.42 a share down to around 30 cents. It lost 90% of it’s capital value.

    It was half a billion dollars in debt, which was more than the company was worth.

    If it didn’t get the cash injection from Haier in 2009, or if FPA manufacturing stayed in New Zealand, there wouldn’t even be a Fisher and Paykel Appliances by now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  44. No Photonz, you merely misunderstand the timeframe I am discussing. Not that many people who vote National actually have any perception of time at these scales. I am going back through to the late 1980’s.

    By 2009 the damage caused by our LACK of support for F&P (from BOTH parties due to what I refer to as “the Kiwi disease”) was already LONG done.

    The “Kiwi disease” is that absurd emphasis on comparative advantage that you exhibit here. The misinterpretation of the problems that Muldoon faced owing to the fact that we were forced to be BORROWING money from overseas banks rather than having control over our own financial system.

    His mistake wasn’t trying to make NZ independent. His mistake was not making NZ independent of foreign bankers FIRST.

    New Zealand can, it absolutely can, have industry here. It can produce things here and it can manage its trade so that some manufacturing is always done here. It isn’t going to be a Japan anytime soon, but it doesn’t have to become foreign owned farmland that we till as tenants.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  45. If we place the well-being of consumers buying cheap imports over the well-being of those who invest to produce and export, then we get an economy that has is not sustainable. A growing BOP deficit would undermine our credit rating.

    A lower public debt (printing money to finance some of the deficit) and lower dollar (a consequence) is clearly in our best interests.

    Given we would only be matching similar moves in the USA and Europe – we would be maintaining dollar parity and keeping the currency value stable – rather than inaction that would lead to a continuing rise and and a future fall (when their QE period ends) – instability is not good for investors.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  46. Photonz

    If the price of the subsidy that keeps things cheap from overseas is no jobs or meaningful work for New Zealanders, then that subsidy is TOO DAMNED EXPENSIVE FOR THE COUNTRY!!! We cannot afford to be a nation of farmers any more than we can afford to NOT farm the good land we have in a sustainable manner.

    You think that how cheaply you can buy a cellphone. or petrol, is more important than how much work we have? Our economic health is measured by the low prices of foreign made goods? You need another drum mate, marching over a cliff like that isn’t my style.

    I am getting really tired of dealing with insane priorities that National has promoted in its mad quest to turn us all into serfs, assume our sickness beneficiaries are criminals and banish our best and brightest to foreign lands if they want decent jobs.

    I don’t blame you entirely. Part of this IS common for most New Zealanders. A lot of it has to do with a policy that is common to both major parties.

    That doesn’t make it RIGHT, it just makes it difficult for you to escape a prejudice that has been hammered into a generation of New Zealanders. Easier for me to see and say.

    Not supporting NZ industries (except through the suppression of wages here in NZ) is a built in bias. The New Zealand disease. I think it exists because you learn the wrong lesson about Muldoon’s failures and ignore his successes… and New Zealand’s natural advantages when carbon pricing is actually put in place. I could be wrong about the cause. I am quite certain about the effect.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  47. I don’t think QE is going to “end” so much as it is finally going to crater. Right now Europe, the US and Japan are all in a competition to squeeze the juice out of their savers and destroy what remains of their economies.

    The Chinese have other problems, serious ones.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/how-chinas-rehypothecated-ghost-steel-just-vaporized-and-what-means-world-economy

    …not to mention threatening to dump 230 billion worth of Japanese bonds over the matter of who owns a couple of islands.

    So I think “crater” is an apt description of the end game that will be played using the current monetary and economic models.

    …and being dependent on them for ALL our goods is apt to end badly for us.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  48. Kerry says “And, by the way, got us out of the great depression ahead of most of the rest or the world, who were still fucking about with austerity.”

    And yet today, we have an austerity programme, and are doing substantially better than those printing money.

    Kerry says “At least Muldoon did borrow for infrastructure which would have returned a profit if oil prices had kept rising. ”

    Muldoons think big projects were pretty much universally considered to cost more than they will ever return.

    Clyde Dam cost more to build 20 years ago than it’s worth now. Even before you take inflation into account, it was a massive waste of money.

    But ‘think big” is from your “rose tinted” era, which magically removes all the bad things from memory, like
    – NZ was on the brink of bankruptcy,
    – inflation was so out of control that the govt made it illegal to get a pay rise.
    – it was illegal for businesses to put up prices, even if it meant selling things for less than they cost.
    – it killed manufacturing, because they couldn’t pass on their rising costs
    – which increased unemployment, and sent many manufacturers out of business
    – it was illegal to drive your car 7 days a week.
    – an average new medium sized car cost equivalent of over $100,000 in todays money

    Ahh – what a great time that was.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  49. BJ says “Our economic health is measured by the low prices of foreign made goods?”

    If petrol, deisel, transport, cars, food, mortgages etc go up in price massively – then we will have LESS jobs – not more.

    You complain about low wages compared to Australia, yet what you want to do will make them lower still.

    You complain about poverty and cost of living, but what you want to do will make more people poor and put up everyones cost of living.

    When our industries were heavily protected the price of eveything was horific (over $100,000 in todays money for a basic car, $5000 for a microwave or basic tv), and nobody bought much cause they simply couldn’t afford it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  50. Photo. Those printing money are doing substantially better than those with austerity programs you mean.

    Those who did not allow the very wealthy to run off with all the wealth are doing even better.

    How is Greece doing again?

    Why do you keep referring to the Muldoon years. We had many successful years previously. In many ways they were yet another National party fuckup. Muldoon did do some good things though, and his motives weren’t to plunder NZ for his own benefit.

    I know you cannot read, but the reason why “think big” projects didn’t make the money expected, which I showed above, (though Clyde dam has many more years of use so it is really to soon to call) is that the USA moved quickly to subsidise oil to keep the price at the pump low for US consumers. One of the subsidies being to the US military and the spooks to ensure the supply.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  51. Heaven help us if we do anything to grow local industry, like Singapore, Korea, Norway, China. Their economies are much less successful than ours. Yeah right!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  52. Photonz

    First:

    On what basis do MORTGAGES go up in price massively? Nothing in a mortgage requires an overseas component. If we are too stupid to alter the equation you’d be right, but since we would be regaining OUR financial independence I don’t think that your assumptions hold at all.

    Second:

    If the price of imported components of the economy goes up in NZ dollars, the RELATIVE price of substitutes that are locally produced in NZ dollars goes down. We wind up building more things here. This is something you apparently regard as a “bad” thing.

    ++++++

    For instance, and this is ONE instance: We raise the price of petrol. People adapt to that price by doing what? Come on now, I know anyone with your superior grasp of economics can answer that… it is one of the many things that economists generally get right. God only knows how they managed to mess up the definition of money given their abilities.

    If my wages are low compared with Australia, but higher compared with my debts and obligations I am ahead of the game Photonz. I really don’t need the latest car or fondleslab. I need some of the capabilities they represent.

    Raise the price of diesel ? Finish electrifying the main trunk between Auckland and Wellington, buy locally made wind turbines to populate the grid and put the freight in containers that are driven by that electricity rather than a truckie. Get it? The economy CHANGES, it isn’t destroyed, and it winds up with more jobs for New Zealanders, not fewer, and a more equal society, not a rising GINI.

    When industries here were heavily protected they weren’t vertically integrated. The aberrations caused by the labour union’s control of things in that prior era are not necessary or desirable. Again, you refer back to a SPECIFIC history which holds only how not to do this… yet virtually every successful developing economy has used protections judiciously to get and keep their industry competitive.

    We’d have to redefine our society on a much more radical level to do away with the need for people to work. That isn’t what we’re talking about so

    There IS no such thing as a post-industrial economy.

    Protections do work. Private foreign debt is the poison in the current system and it would be pushed into the weeds.

    Do we have ways and the understanding to do “protections” better than we did back then? I think so. A “cost of conversion” that actually transfers work back into our economy, is important. You have fun thinking about that notion.

    I have to go.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  53. IF true, the govt could just print money and build us all a mansion.
    Then we’d all be richer, and no one would have had to pay anything to do it. It would be magic, and the whole world would be doing it.

    @ photonz1

    I think BJ has probably covered this off but to elabourate;

    Yes, in any given fiscal year building mansions for everyone would increase GNP – purely as a measure of output (that is, the actual bulding of the mansion).

    However as a house is not a productive asset, no further gain would be obtained. It would not make everyone richer. It would merely provide a larger dwelling.

    Your example is not comparative to infrastructure that improves or increases economic output (roads, powerplants etc.) which was the point of my comment.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  54. Kerry says “In case you havn’t noticed Photo. Most New Zealanders have had pay cuts ever since the 90′s.”

    Here we go yet again with your tedious negativity cult. You must live in such a terrible world.

    Reserve Bank’s figures show inflation has gone up 65% since 1990, and wages have gone up 93%

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  55. Wages at the top went up 17% this year alone. Most of the rest got 1.5%, or less, which does not keep up with food inflation even.
    I should not need to explain how a big rise for a very few can translate into a large rise in the average even though the median and low wages/incomes are going down.

    Those for the majority have gone down. $900 off the median family income this year.

    Talking of bludgers, what about someone, who cost his employers 34 million recently, remaining in a job being paid 750k.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  56. BJ asks “On what basis do MORTGAGES go up in price massively? Nothing in a mortgage requires an overseas component. ”

    When the govt prints money, two things happen. The NZ$ becomes worth less relative to overseas currencies, and inflation rises.

    Most mortgages are held by overseas banks, whose reaction to taking a double hit on their returns is to raise interest rates.

    BJ says “If the price of imported components of the economy goes up in NZ dollars, the RELATIVE price of substitutes that are locally produced in NZ dollars goes down. ”

    But the ACTUAL price of NZ goods goes up. What you are proposing is nothing new. We’ve had protectionism, and it failed badly.

    It resulted in NZ companies inefficiently producing overly expensive goods of lower quality that fewer people could afford, and no one over seas wanted.

    BJ asks “For instance, and this is ONE instance: We raise the price of petrol. People adapt to that price by doing what? ”

    By putting up the prices of EVERYTHING to compensate for higher tranport costs.

    For EVERY person and every dollar spent in NZ, MORE ends up in the pocket of a foreign oil companies, with less left over in NZ businesses.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  57. Photon

    Here we go yet again with your tedious negativity cult. You must live in such a terrible world.

    After tax income for 16 to 20 year old males has declined from an average of $11,079 per anum in 2009 to $10,663 in 2011. That’s a reduction of 3.9%. Inflation over that timeframe is 6.6% which means the income of males aged 16 to 20 has effectively fallen to below 2005 levels.

    For a lot of people things have got worse since National gained power. The facts and figures do not lie. It seems that whenever you don’t like something, the person telling you is from a cult… Please come up with some new material photon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  58. Oops! Made a mistake. Incomes for 16 to 20 year old males fell to an average of $10,563 per anum in 2011 not $10,663… A decline from 2009 of 4.9%. I don’t have figures that go back any further than 2005, but it could be that adjusted income for young males is now back to 90’s levels.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  59. Most mortgages are held by overseas banks, whose reaction to taking a double hit on their returns is to raise interest rates.

    Cripes… you can’t even BEGIN to consider doing things DIFFERENTLY… can you. Foreign banks won’t be giving us mortgages. WE will. We’ll be paying them off in those dollars that have been reduced in value though.

    Sigh… you REALLY have had an overdose of “contemporary economics” haven’t you… and you almost certainly have NOT visited Keen’s website either.

    We’ve had protectionism, and it failed badly.

    The way we did it then? Yeah… we were doing some really dumb stuff. Yet the history of the world contains many examples of it working well for creating and maintaining productive industries. Once again, you take the wrong lesson from a bad example.

    We raise the price of petrol.

    By putting up the prices of EVERYTHING to compensate for higher tranport costs.

    Geez… what sort of economics do they TEACH here.

    The first thing they do is look for ways to transport things that are cheaper, and do not involve using petrol. Substitution.

    Then for the things that still need that higher price they look for substitutes for those as the prices go up.

    By putting up the prices of EVERYTHING to compensate for higher tranport costs.

    EVERYTHING? Only when the first two things are done.

    For EVERY person and every dollar spent in NZ, MORE ends up in the pocket of foreign oil companies

    No – only for the ones that don’t make the effort to work out more efficient transport arrangements… without using so much petrol.

    I’ve come to the conclusion that you can’t actually make a tightly reasoned argument here.

    All I get back from you is basically of the form “if we change the status quo, the status quo won’t work”. Well yes. That’s the point to changing it, because it DOES NOT work and it IS NOT sustainable and it relies far too much on outside sources and forces and makes this nation VULNERABLE.

    Don’t bother responding until you’ve read at least the link to Keen that I posted. Debt backed money doesn’t work. There is a good reason it does not. There is a good reason why the giants of history looked askance at the process of governments borrowing money from banks. You look to your extreme and singular and wrong examples and continue to derive the wrong lessons. I don’t think you have quite understood the degree to which the banks have bought this and other governments. They own the US government. They own this one… and Labour is not really different from National in that regard.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  60. Kerry, if every arguement didn’t always revolve around your unhealthy obsession with a tiny number of rich people, you’d be able to see a much clearer picture of everything else.

    Like your claim that it’s only because of really high wages that have increased wages by 93% since 1990 (compared to 65% inflation).

    When in fact the minimum wage went up by a full 27% MORE than the average – 120% over the same period that inflation was 65%.

    1990-2012
    65% inflation – from Reserve Bank inflation calculator
    120% increase in mimimum wage ($6.12 to $13.50)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  61. One of the problems with your cherry picked argument photon is that it doesn’t account for actual rental cost inflation. It isn’t based on the Index Actual rentals, which is the highest weighted class within the CPI. By comparison the purchase of new housing (Your inflation calculator uses the House Price Index), usually ranks third behind petrol.

    Therefore your calculation is largely meaningless in consideration to all the people who rent the house they live in (approximately 38.2% of households in New Zealand). With housing becoming less affordable to the average Kiwi family and some incomes declining in real terms since National gained power, rental inflation should be included in any calculation to see whether the minimum wage on average has kept up with general inflation.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  62. @ photonz1

    While CPI is a fairly good measure of consumer goods/services inflation, it’s important to note that since 1999, mortgage interest and land prices have been excluded from the annual calculations.

    I’m not sure if petrol is in there either – could be wrong though.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  63. Jackal scores another own goal –

    “One of the problems with your cherry picked argument photon is that it doesn’t account for actual rental cost inflation. It isn’t based on the Index Actual rentals, which is the highest weighted class within the CPI.”

    My figures are from the CPI, which as you note above, include actual rental costs.

    Gregor – as Jackal noted, housing costs make up the largest CPI sector – around 1/4 – and include the cost of rents and new houses.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  64. photon

    My figures are from the CPI, which as you note above, include actual rental costs.

    You clearly didn’t understand my argument?

    In consideration to all the people who rent the house they live in…

    In other words increases in rental costs disproportionately affect those on low incomes i.e. minimum wage. The housing and household utilities group was more than three times as much as the CPI in the June 2012 quarter, mainly due to rental inflation. Therefore your calculation to try and show increases in the minimum wage have matched general inflation is meaningless!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  65. as Jackal noted, housing costs make up the largest CPI sector – around 1/4 – and include the cost of rents and new houses.

    That may be photonz1 but as I stated, the cost of INTEREST and LAND is specifically not counted.

    Given that the big proportional increases in housing costs have been in these two areas – particularly since 1999 – then the figures may well be skewed, though to what degree I couldn’t guess. I’m sure some bright wonk at Treasury has though!

    What I can’t work out from Treasury’s numbers is whether interest and land costs are somehow calculated into the Housing group for rentals, or whether an estimated cost proportion is excluded to level the cost of ‘consuming’ a domicile over new and old builds for statistical purposes.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  66. Jackal says “In other words increases in rental costs disproportionately affect those on low incomes i.e. minimum wage.”

    Wrong – minimum wages have gone up 120% since 1990. Rents alone are only slightly higher than the CPI which went up 65% over the same period.

    Jackal says “The housing and household utilities group was more than three times as much as the CPI in the June 2012 quarter, mainly due to rental inflation. ”

    You expect anybody to take you seriously when you use stats from a mere 3 months but leave out the other 99% of the last two decades?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  67. bjchip – “The first thing they do is look for ways to transport things that are cheaper, and do not involve using petrol. Substitution. ”

    Easy to say. What are you actually suggesting – solar powered trains to every supermarket, horse and cart, tuk tuks, coolies,..?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  68. Photon

    Wrong – minimum wages have gone up 120% since 1990. Rents alone are only slightly higher than the CPI which went up 65% over the same period.

    ? Total percentage of housing change is 223% since 1990 for the House Price Index. What you’re saying is that landlords have only increased rents around a quarter as fast as the value of their properties increased… You’re clearly wrong!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  69. Not so sure about that. One has little choice about rentals. The market does NOT support unlimited increases. The people doing the renting are not borrowing to do it, they have to pay the rent out of actual income and balance their budget in that environment. Someone can overspend on a house massively and the bank picks up the tab… the mortgage stretches out forever and the rental can lose money, which for most of the time has been deductible through a LAQC, which was a favored way of structuring things.

    What is possible now ? I don’t know for sure. Just that one of the few things this government got sort of right was to take up the notion of tightening the rules around this mechanism for using tax advantages to pay for property.

    Property is still the favorite investment as it is still capital gains tax free if it is done right and it is still able to be bought with other people’s money. Rental accommodation on the other hand, has to be paid for with YOUR money.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  70. BJ

    The people doing the renting are not borrowing to do it, they have to pay the rent out of actual income and balance their budget in that environment.

    Not necessarily. According to Quotable Value, Since early 2007, rents have increased at a faster rate than dwelling values. On a gross basis rental yields across New Zealand were averaging 4.9% positive cash flow in 2009. That means on average rents are covering expenses (including mortgages) of rental properties in New Zealand. This is only possible when rents increase at a faster rate than property values.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  71. I know, but the different time frames and different tax rules and changes in them make it difficult to actually make ANY valid comparison or gain any reasonable sort of understanding about how the CPI changes are related to the changes in the minimum wage which isn’t actually the median income or directly related to it, and there were changes to the youth wages too. You have to look for all the missing pieces here.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  72. Jackal says “What you’re saying is that landlords have only increased rents around a quarter as fast as the value of their properties increased”

    There’s two reasons why rent inflation has been only a fraction of house inflation.

    First, house inflation as reported is far higher over the last 20 years than the inflation on a typical 40 year old 3 b/r bunglow that might be rented.

    That’s because the set of houses in 2012 being “averaged”, is quite different from the set of houses averaged in 1990.

    The houses we’ve build since then are now 40% bigger, and cost twice as much to build (2x more allowing for inflation, or 3x more in dollar terms).

    Since 1990 we’ve increased our housing stock by a third, with bigger houses that cost on average double what they used to.

    Locally, almost every new house built costs 200-300% more than our average house prices – and many cost much more than that.

    So when housing inflation is looked at over a longer term like 20 years, it is not measuring the same set of houses, and as such the housing inflation rate is always much higher than the increase in value you get from a typical older 3 b/r bungalow.

    Secondly, in the 90s, you didn’t even look at buying a rental ptroperty if you couldn’t get a double figure return. Now it’s more likely you’ll get less than half – often around 5%.

    So by looking at rental returns alone, it’s very easy to see that house prices inflation is double rent inflation.

    I could rent my old flat for around 70% more than it cost me in the early 90s, but to buy the flat would be 150% more – which is still 73% less than the increase for the “average” house.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  73. photon

    Secondly, in the 90s, you didn’t even look at buying a rental ptroperty if you couldn’t get a double figure return. Now it’s more likely you’ll get less than half – often around 5%.

    Quotable Value disagrees with you. Did you not read my comment above?

    According to Quotable Value, Since early 2007, rents have increased at a faster rate than dwelling values.

    Should people trust what QV says or what you say photon?

    So by looking at rental returns alone, it’s very easy to see that house prices inflation is double rent inflation.

    Which would be 111.5% since 1990… That means you’ve contradicted yourself again photon. Don’t you recall writing just yesterday:

    Rents alone are only slightly higher than the CPI which went up 65% over the same period.

    So what is it… Only slightly higher than the CPI (65% +) or is house price inflation double rental inflation (111.5%) ? You’re so full of shit photon it’s not funny.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  74. sprout – but the results were pretty bad weren’t they. Especially since these results weren’t even independently moderated. Is this why the teachers unions were so much against National Standards – they knew we would get the “wrong” answer and the pressure might go on the teachers to actually teach stuff that matters, rather than “fun” stuff the kids “enjoy”. Kapa haka and “enviro” and, of course, protesting school mergers (aka political training) is much more important and fun than boring reading, writing and arithmetic.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  75. Jackal – you repeatedly show you are not particularly good at figures or economics.

    Here are some figures for 1990-2006 from Treasury and Reserve Bank

    – rental inflation was 63%
    – CPI was 52%
    – minimum wage increase was 83%
    – average wage increase was 63%

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  76. Kate Wilkinson – Asshole of the Week

    Election to power shouldn’t allow a government to do anything it likes. Consideration must be given to New Zealand’s interests, our environment and especially what the general public wants on any given issue. National has arrogantly ignored both the economic benefit and our conservation ideals by voting not to save the Maui Dolphin, and that makes them a bunch of assholes through and through…

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 (-4)

  77. BJ – wow – what a revelation you’ve given us.

    During the global financial crisis, more people out of work has meant the median income has dropped despite wages having risen (because median income include all those people who don’t work – students, DPB, unemployed etc).

    So in the debate on if wages have kept pace over the last two decades, at least you only miss out 75% of the period. Much better than Jackal who used a single quarter and missed out 99%.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  78. photonz1:

    It all just looks like a way of letting children now their place in society – all this ranking and comparison stuff. The truth is they learn sweet f a in any school, regardless.

    School is a junk show of mindless trivia, where all the kids really learn is how to be completely dominated by authority. And so they don’t grow up. And so we get kiddy culture, and the like, which is a curious result of that deep normalisation to a severe form of state sanctioned domination. But alas, it’s been with us for so long we can’t see it for what it is. We think it’s normal to be “kiddy” – because, I suppose, it now is.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  79. photon

    Here are some figures for 1990-2006 from Treasury and Reserve Bank

    Which has nothing to do with the fact that since 2007 rents have increased faster.

    According to Quotable Value, Since early 2007, rents have increased at a faster rate than dwelling values.

    You’re guilty of missing out the important bit yourself photon… What the stats are showing is that rents have started to increase at a faster rate since National gained power. That’s because they’ve done nothing about the shortfall of affordable rental accommodation, a shortfall of 10,000 houses per year in Auckland alone.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

  80. Photonz, if I could have found a longer “median” income measure I would’ve used it. It isn’t a popular statistic, particularly for the rignt wing.

    http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/no-recovery-real-median-household.html

    http://www.brookings.edu/about/programs/metro/metroamericachapters/poverty-income

    It reflects the increase in the GINI index, which continues. You can find all the cherry-picked stats on the planet Photonz, but you can’t argue to anyone who actually lives on these incomes, that things have gotten better. That is YOUR story and it is your imaginative use of statistics that makes it true for you. It isn’t real.

    More to the point, it is very uneven. The old white guys did good, most of the rest of us took it in the shorts.

    Rich people did well… the rest of us took it in the shorts.

    Here is the sorry story in longer form. I STILL can’t get either a reliable GINI indication year-on-year OR median data that spans that sort of time frame, for NZ.

    http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=333

    Go push another barrow Photonz. WE know we’re being hurt. We also know who is doing better at our expense. The problems come from NATIONAL’s ideology and the NZ disease that prevents us from having any sort of industrial base here, which is common across the major parties.

    The accepted views and solutions to economic issues here in NZ are utter rubbish.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  81. Jackal spouts complete and total nonsense….

    “What the stats are showing is that rents have started to increase at a faster rate since National gained power”

    Average weekly rent for a 3 bedroom house in NZ
    2003 – $240
    2008 – $320 (= 33% increase over 5 years)
    2012 – $350 (= 9% increase over 4 1/2 years).

    It just shows how brainwashed you are that you’ll make up total nonsense, no matter how false it is, as long as it fits your cultish beliefs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  82. photon

    It just shows how brainwashed you are that you’ll make up total nonsense, no matter how false it is, as long as it fits your cultish beliefs.

    Firstly you’re assuming that there’s a mechanism to brainwash me with… There isn’t and I am not a part of a cult btw. Are you aware that your accusations just make you look like a pathetic tory fool?

    But let’s take your latest cherry picked data (just three bedroom houses?) and provide it some context. Now you’re saying that there’s been an increase of 40% in rents since the housing bubble, largely due to a lack of a workable CGT… Compared to an increase of rents of 63% between 1990 and 2006: 16 years at 63% compared to 7 or 8 years at 40% in fact proves my point.

    I find it amusing that even the cherry picked stats you provide show you are wrong photon! BTW what is the story with the confusion as to whether HNZ needs more two bedroom houses and then changing it to needing more three and four bedroom houses… Can’t you guys even remember your own propaganda?

    BJ

    I STILL can’t get either a reliable GINI indication year-on-year OR median data that spans that sort of time frame, for NZ.

    Well yes! As somebody who like numbers I’ve noticed that statistics are missing from a lot of important areas, particularly since 2008. In fact New Zealand is one of the only developed countries that hasn’t provide relevant statists on various indicators to show our comparativeness to other countries.

    One can only assume that the data that isn’t being provided is being withheld because it’s truly damning of the current direction our government is undertaking.

    It’s apparent that National is only concerned with increasing the wealth of the 1%… Nobody else stands a chance. Basically the poor can go shit in the woods according to the rules that govern #PlanetKey.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  83. Jackal thinks a 9% rent increase over 4 1/2 years under National is a faster increase than 33% over 5 years under Labour.

    Then he tells us he’s not brainwashed – yeah right.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  84. photon

    Then he tells us he’s not brainwashed – yeah right.

    Clearly you’re living on #PlanetKey if you think a 40% increase translates into 9%… But nice try tory propagandist!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  85. Jackal – you are completely brainwashed (or totally off your tree) if you expect people to believe a
    – 9% rent increase over 4 1/2 years under National is a faster increase than a
    – 33% rent increase over 5 years under Labour.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 (-2)

  86. photon

    Jackal – you are completely brainwashed (or totally off your tree).

    I presume that by continuing to insult me National propagandist, you want me to track you down and teach you the error of your ways?

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  87. Photonz – I will assume that that wasn’t sarcasm, so I can go do something else :-)

    My perception seriously, is that the statistics in the USA have been “impaired” since the middle of the Vietnam war. I have no reason to trust that numbers here any are any better.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  88. photon

    Jackal – as I suspected – you’re off your tree.

    I’m not “off my tree” photon and have merely given you an ultimatum… I can understand why you don’t like it coward!

    Have a nice weekend.

    As usual you’re a condescending dickhead!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 (-3)

  89. BJ – considering that out of 4 million people you’d be hard pushed to find someone so negative about NZ as you, I often wonder why you bothered coming here.

    Though to be fair, there are probably a few others here who are desperate to be as negative as you.

    You are all obviously highly motovated, focused and tenacious. If you put the SAME effort into improving your lives instead of putting it into whining and complaining, you would be very high achievers.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 (-2)

  90. If you put the SAME effort into improving your lives instead of putting it into whining and complaining, you would be very high achievers.

    I think a certain level of frustration is setting in with Green bedrock supporters in that the party is becoming “lightweight” in terms of raising the debate about sustainable living.

    Just look at the doom, gloom and despondency posts by the Green MPs, it is no wonder visitors here (and the Green party vote as by poll results) is dropping.

    Used to be the go to party for forward thinking and deliverable action plans but lately we have lightweight discusssion regarding “Planet Key” or increased New Zealand’s ETS taxation to pay for Russian methane reduction programme, and the like.

    If you want robust voting have robust New Zealand focussed plans.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  91. Photonz –

    If you think I am “negative” about NZ you should consider how “negative” I am about everywhere else. I LIKE New Zealand… after all, most of our wounds are self-inflicted… we CAN do things that most other places cannot, and I am pushing as I can, to get us to do them.

    However, if one does NOT observe what problems there are and how to fix them, things cannot get better.

    Gerrit –

    The party is working on its policy documents… and its policies. Such things take us time to do because we need to agree on the changes. The other part, we are not a party in power, we cannot introduce a lot of bills and we cannot directly block even the worst of National’s notions, we have to force a referendum, get another vote by “everyone” to push the nutjobs back. Which is a large part of what we have to continue to do right now.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  92. My life is “improved” enough thanks.

    Unlike some I appreciate the role of our, almost, free education system, child support and healthcare in my success and I want to leave the ladder there for others.

    I oppose those who want our society to become like others I have seen around the world, with people living in cardboard boxes on the streets, with no hope of getting ahead, no matter what effort they put in.

    I know a lot of Indian migrants. The attraction of New Zealand is not high wages, most of them were in the upper classes in India earning more than they can here, it is the social wage/public utilities and the availability of education/upward mobility compared with India.

    A situation NACT, and Photo, are hell bent on reversing.

    And. Gerrit, an ecologically sustainable society is not possible without an economic system that allows sustainability. A steady state, not a constant growth economy.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  93. People on the whole are not going to vote for a party that says they should tighten their belts, and remain poor, to allow 20% increases in wealth for the already wealthy, so can we reduce our total resource use.

    In Britain during WW2 part of the success was that, on the whole, they were all in it together, all levels sacrificed something for the war effort. The ones that did not were, rightly, vilified.

    We now have our own equivalent of war profiteers. 17% increase in wealth for the richest while the rest of us were expected to take cuts, 3 billion bank profits in a recession!

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 (+2)

  94. However, I am not actually negative about anything, just not optimistic. A policy that keeps my surprises pleasant ones and my mood is anything BUT negative. Quite cheerful about most things… but unwilling to delude myself that everything is perfect, or that it would be if only I lived on planet Key.

    I would see the things that are hidden from the tourists AND their minister. The people tasked to clean up after the inhabitants(owing to there being no toilets) and the people who actually tend the mystical grass of the golf courses. People that he has practiced NOT seeing for so long that he no longer can open that eye.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  95. photon

    If you put the SAME effort into improving your lives instead of putting it into whining and complaining, you would be very high achievers.

    Says the resident troll who replies to nearly every comment made on frogblog… Anyone would think you’re getting paid to peddle your propaganda here photon?

    Calling people who highlight some of the problems the neoliberal agenda is causing a bunch of whiner’s, barking mad, cultist’s, watermelon’s, depressed, brainwashed etc because you don’t like the light being shined on National’s failure is pretty pathetic! Instead of debating the issues you’re trying to discredit the argument through personal abuse because you’ve ultimately lost the debate.

    Such accusations are even worse when the topic is an important one like child poverty. The abuse of people who care and are speaking up for the rights of children in my opinion is about as low as it gets… Only a true sadist would promote falsehoods to ensure nothing changes. Only a true sadist would support a system that allows 270,000 children to not have enough food to eat in a country that is abundant. If that’s not something to get pissed off about I don’t know what is.

    It appears that the right doesn’t want to do anything about the inequality in New Zealand that is ruining people’s lives… Clearly following the same old right-wing agenda isn’t working.

    Right-winger’s should understand that there will be repercussions to the suffering they’re causing… New Zealand is too small a place to hide.

    Gerrit

    I think a certain level of frustration is setting in with Green bedrock supporters in that the party is becoming “lightweight” in terms of raising the debate about sustainable living.

    I doubt that’s the case Gerrit, considering the Greens haven’t really changed their position on sustainable living.

    Public frustration however at New Zealand’s declining standard of living can sometimes be directed (wrongly in my opinion) at the opposition, when in fact it’s a National government that’s overseeing the degradation of our society. That’s where the blame lies, but I can understand why you feel the need to pass the buck.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 (-5)

  96. BJ,

    The other part, we are not a party in power, we cannot introduce a lot of bills and we cannot directly block even the worst of National’s notions,

    That is not what I see the primary focus of an oppostion party. It should be offering alternative policy to the one introduced by the government.

    Voters need to see what the other options are. That way you get double the whammy as the constituents go to their representatives and voice their opinion on your better option plus the parliamentary wing gets the inhouse lift to the policies.

    I think the Greens are loosing focus on the first rule of selling. Be you selling a policy idea to gain votes or a kilo of cheese, the rule applies each and every time.

    Dont Rubbish The Opposition.

    Voters (or buyers) wont change if you keep harping on about how bad their initial choice was. Instead you point out how much better the alternative (your policy or kilo of cheese) versus what they have voted for or purchased in the past.

    You absolutely must get more votes and there is only one way, offer better policies, that are presented in an easily understood format, to be sold to the voter.

    When that happens you will be in a position to warm the treasury benches.

    But to continue in a whinging whinney way the Greens have been, wont increase the vote, nor provide the treasury benches.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  97. Greens have very good alternative policies, but the media are only interested in publishing petty fights between politicians, Greens de-criminalising dope, National party propaganda and celebrity boob jobs.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  98. Gerrit

    The theory that politics has to do with the marketplace of ideas is, I am afraid, a bit too idealistic. I understand your point, and to an extent I agree, but there are two factors militating against it.

    One is the degree to which National can cause permanent damage to the country. Something they have repeatedly advocated in the interests of short-term profit.

    The other is the fact that the marketplace is seriously distorted by the money used to promote particular points of view AND DISTORT OTHERS.

    You may recall I had proposed a complete blackout of any third party adverts for a part of the run-up to the election, and fixed media access for the parties themselves in that period. It needs to be a marketplace of ideas and it isn’t, it is just a market and money can distort it, and does.

    I think we’re going to have a couple of new policy announcements going into 2013, but I don’t think that that will matter as much as our presentation. Because it isn’t yet a marketplace of ideas, and maybe never will be.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 (+1)

  99. If the media are only interested in petty fights between politicians then simply dont get into a petty fight.

    The reason the “planetkey” stuff is so negative, trivial and petty.

    But if that is what the party thinks are flag waving activities, it is not the medias’ fault that they become head lines. Look in the mirror. Similarly the stupid stunt of the billboard defacing episode, at the last election, ended up as negative headlines.

    Greens must be upfront with their policies and be 100% prepared to back them up with accurate facts and figures.

    Dont fall into the trap Labour has set for itself by bringing out policies that have no costings, no measureable outcomes, no planning, etc. Like feed every kid breakfast at school.

    The other is the fact that the marketplace is seriously distorted by the money used to promote particular points of view AND DISTORT OTHERS.

    Rubbish, if we look at the money poured into the anti MMP cause, it shows that small voices will be heard.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 (+2)

  100. Unfortunately Gerrit, people do not listen to facts and figures and when they do National has a huge store of cherry picked, fudged or misleading (lying) figures to draw on. At the same time detrimental facts from MSD, Stats NZ and the universities are being buried.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  101. MMP is one policy of ours that got in.

    Money is not the only determinant of what people believe, the people have to find their lies believable. No amount of money can unmake the sort of evidence that people’s own experience provides.

    We promoted efficient light bulbs and they lied about the policy and the people believed the lies. The examples are many, the exceptions few.

    We have to do more than just provide the good policy basis, we have to avoid things that make us easy targets and we have to go right back at the bastards. You cannot fight liars unless you show them as they are. People must understand that they are not to be believed because the saying about the lie being half ’round the world while the truth is still tying its bootlaces has no small truth to it.

    Only a population inoculated against the lies can defend itself against them… as in the case of the MMP campaign… and with respect to the way the Greens are treated in both parliament AND the press, there is no point to turning the other cheek. We have to make it clear that our opponents are just as childish, selfish and untruthful as they actually are. We are not really being nasty… merely promoting the truth.

    Our political milieu is not a “marketplace of ideas”… not yet… maybe not ever… we are after all, humans and imperfectly capable of dealing with self-governance.

    Which is why I am not entirely in agreement with your prescription.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  102. At the same time detrimental facts from MSD, Stats NZ and the universities are being buried.

    Again more whining. For goodness sake who “buries” these facts?

    Defeatist attitude, stop blaming others. Take responsibilty for self promotion.

    There are enough media methods and avenues to bring out any fact (to support policy) into the public domain.

    We have to make it clear that our opponents are just as childish, selfish and untruthful as they actually are. We are not really being nasty… merely promoting the truth.

    Problem is that as you promote that childish, selfish and untruthfulness in the “enemy”, it is not likely to persuade the voter to switch camps.

    It places you in the gutter with the others so why should a voter change?

    The lightbulb and showerhead episodes in Greens history are two perfect examples of how inexperience they are in how to promote policy. The Greens were unable to counter even the smallest objection.

    Result was a deafening defeat in what could easily have been a victory, if the policies where promoted correctly with measureable positive outcomes for the voter.

    Instead, as soon as the objections came in, the Greens retreated into confused statements and ended up with the proverbial egg on face.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 (0)

  103. Jackal says “Instead of debating the issues you’re trying to discredit the argument through personal abuse because you’ve ultimately lost the debate”

    That’s hilarious coming from someone who has an “asshole of the week” – talk about a hypocrite.

    Ultimately you have to decide whether you want to do something with your life,….or or waste it away whining and complaining, until before you know it, you’ve spent 40 years bitter and twisted like someone else we know.

    (how many years have you already wasted being bitter and twisted?).

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 (0)

  104. Gerrit.
    A while back on my blog I linked to statistics on median incomes from MSD. They were picked up by a Greens MP in theirs.
    Shortly afterward they were no longer on the site. Coincidence??

    When those in power are being criminal, untruthful and devious it is the job of the other parties to call them on it.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  105. photon

    Gerrit

    Again more whining. For goodness sake who “buries” these facts?

    Pointing out the fact that important statistics are not being released because they make the government look bad is not whining! A corruption of the democratic process should be highlighted and not tolerated, even by right-whinger’s.

    Defeatist attitude, stop blaming others. Take responsibilty for self promotion.

    What has self-promotion got to do with the corruption of democracy? You guys are really starting to look a bit stupid trying to say all criticism is whining.

    Are you saying that the government should be allowed to hide information that makes it look bad and nobody should complain? Perhaps you also agree with photon’s method of manipulating data to promote falsehoods Gerrit?

    photon

    That’s hilarious coming from someone who has an “asshole of the week” – talk about a hypocrite.

    The difference is that people who win the Asshole of the Week award have done something to deserve it. The post makes it very clear as to why they’re assholes! Whereas you resort to name calling because you lost the debate concerning wage and rental increases.

    Your anger is because of your own failure photon. But instead of admitting you’re wrong and owning that failure, you vindictively blame others. Talk about pot calling the kettle black. As I said before, only a true sadist would support the current destructive regime by promoting lies… I suggest you get some help.

    Ultimately you have to decide whether you want to do something with your life,….or or waste it away whining and complaining, until before you know it, you’ve spent 40 years bitter and twisted like someone else we know.

    (how many years have you already wasted being bitter and twisted?).

    None! You’re confusing justifiable anger for depression and whining photon. Anger can be a negative or positive thing. I’m currently using my anger at the destruction the neoliberal agenda is causing New Zealand to do something constructive.

    In comparison to your disinformation and personal abuse, I’m far more constructive than you are photon.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 (-1)

  106. Confusion reigns amongs the plumbers.

    Noone is asking for repressed information to continue to be repressed. What is being pointed out is the presentation of that repressed information by opposition parties needs to be done in such a manner as not to appear to be whinging.

    The repressed information should be presented with opposition party policy so as to explain to voters what you are proposing to adjust so as improve the voters understanding of the issues.

    Simple complaints about a statistic is whinging, adding a costed, voter beneficial policy to correct a “bad” statistic builds credence.

    Very simple, maybe even plumbers will understand.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  107. Jackal – as I said – it’s your choice to do something with your life, or waste it being continually bitter, twisted, negative, a conspiracy theorist, and now perhaps deluded as well (if you think you are constructive).

    It’s your life. You’re allowed to choose to waste it.

    Unfortunately that becomes a burden for everyone else.

    You obviously have drive and tenacity. If I were you I’d use it to your advantage – to achieve something for yourself – instead of using it to dig yourself into a hole of negativity.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  108. should be presented

    Presented often, reported seldom. A more robust, nay belligerent repartee seems to be in order. I haven’t enough time left on the clock to be patient with patently idiotic misrepresentations by either press or political opponents.

    I wonder how many pejorative words starting with ‘P’ I could get into that sentence if I actually tried :-)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 (+1)

  109. Ignoring child poverty won’t make it go away

    Unless you’re an Ostrich with your head firmly buried in the sand, you’ll be aware that New Zealand has a pervasive and growing poverty problem that is largely being ignored by the current government…

    photon

    You obviously have drive and tenacity. If I were you I’d use it to your advantage – to achieve something for yourself – instead of using it to dig yourself into a hole of negativity.

    I’ve actually achieved a lot today… Have you?

    It amuses me that you think I’m not being constructive by pointing out the failures inherent in the neoliberal agenda. It’s your choice to not see it as constructive criticism photon. I presume that you think I’m only being negative because you don’t want to change your ways.

    The best way of not receiving my criticism is to do things properly ie don’t lie and promote failed policy that is detrimental to the majority of my fellow New Zealanders. Until then, you’re going to have to live with my opinions photon… In other words the burden you carry is of your own making National propagandist.

    BJ

    I wonder how many pejorative words starting with ‘P’ I could get into that sentence if I actually tried.

    Well you could have put photon in there… But that’s more of a pfft really :)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 (-1)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>