Yesterday was Budget Day; one of the annual highlights of the Parliamentary Year.
I had been working up all manner of epithets, mots bon, and suitably cynical ripostes for my response to The English Willie's first budget of this new centre-right government.
However, I have to confess to some pleasant surprise!!
I had anticipated much of what was in the Budget, but suspected (as any good cynic should) that the bad news being broadcast was a smoke and mirror concealment for far worse; whether a massive overspend on "anti-recession" programmes, or a slash and burn on government services a la the Mother Richardson of all Budgets from the early '90s would be equally disastrous.
No, I confess to pleasant surprise.
The English Willie has taken an amazingly pragmatic stance. No dramatic tax cuts, no borrowing money to make saving for the future.
The Big Bill is for the future - an estimated $20billion shortfall in the Cullen Fund in 10 years time, an estimated 10 years before the short term borrowings already in place are repaid in full.
But, it could have been a whole lot worse. That is for sure, a huge amount worse.
Friday, May 29, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
It’s a strange old world –
- when those who promote and persuade on behalf of “free trade” start paying market subsidies to support specific producers.
This time around (again) it was kicked off in the EU when the French government started buying dairy products from their farmers and selling it at a loss in the international market. That mechanism, while providing price support for their farmers and depressing the international market prices through increased supply, at least is allowing the market to operate openly and without direct influence.
It is the follow-up from the US that has that rank stench of market manipulation and bare-faced subsidy. And, as is usual in these arguments the cause might well be the EU but the enemy is “in fact” New Zealand. Why? Because after a major drought last year the production levels in this country have reached the same as four and five years back. Those fluctuations have all reflected directly in our supply to the international market.
The problem for the US, and the EU come to that, is that NZ dairy farmers get no government support; there are no export tax breaks, there are no production subsidies, there is no government tariff relief on imports such as equipment, fertilizer or fuel. The truth of the matter is that NZ makes the best product, and does so cheaper than most (if not all) other contributors to the international market. That “cheapness” is due to two major factors; NZ ingenuity (the number eight wire factor) and the fact that our climate allows for year-round open grass grazing. What is biting the bum of the US and the EC is that NZ is expanding its market influence into other producing countries; specifically at this time into Uruguay where Fonterra is buying large acreages, providing New Zealand management and training skills, and growing their production as a result.
What is becoming abundantly clear is that “top end” producers – both the US and EC in particular – are ignoring the principles of free and open markets when it suits themselves and insisting that the Rules are applied very strictly to others when they are winning; and that is a hypocrisy that has applied to products as diverse as steel, electronics, agriculture, timber and grains.
There is a very interesting analysis of the EU dairy market – both production and consumption - here and follow the .pdf link at the bottom for the full report showing amongst other things that between 2000 and 2008 one country increased its share of the total import to EU from about 19% to over 37%. No, not NZ but Switzerland. NZ increased from 10% to 13%.
Why do the “Free Trade” negotiations at the WTO keep stalling, as the current Doha round has once again? No, it is not just because of India, China, and Brazil. It is also the US (in particular this time around) trying valiantly to make sure that there are Rules that they can manipulate to protect their own from the fact that internationally they are price uncompetitive.
Oh, and “who” is Fonterra? You want to buy shares in Fonterra?
Come to NZ, buy a dairy farm, sign up as a Fonterra supplier, THEN you can buy your shares – the number of which will be based upon your contracted supply volume…
This time around (again) it was kicked off in the EU when the French government started buying dairy products from their farmers and selling it at a loss in the international market. That mechanism, while providing price support for their farmers and depressing the international market prices through increased supply, at least is allowing the market to operate openly and without direct influence.
It is the follow-up from the US that has that rank stench of market manipulation and bare-faced subsidy. And, as is usual in these arguments the cause might well be the EU but the enemy is “in fact” New Zealand. Why? Because after a major drought last year the production levels in this country have reached the same as four and five years back. Those fluctuations have all reflected directly in our supply to the international market.
New Zealand milk production is forecast to increase 8% in MY 2008/09 compared to the drought affected MY 2007/08. New Zealand dairy export volumes fell 9% during the first seven months of MY 2008/09 compared to the same period last year.
The problem for the US, and the EU come to that, is that NZ dairy farmers get no government support; there are no export tax breaks, there are no production subsidies, there is no government tariff relief on imports such as equipment, fertilizer or fuel. The truth of the matter is that NZ makes the best product, and does so cheaper than most (if not all) other contributors to the international market. That “cheapness” is due to two major factors; NZ ingenuity (the number eight wire factor) and the fact that our climate allows for year-round open grass grazing. What is biting the bum of the US and the EC is that NZ is expanding its market influence into other producing countries; specifically at this time into Uruguay where Fonterra is buying large acreages, providing New Zealand management and training skills, and growing their production as a result.
What is becoming abundantly clear is that “top end” producers – both the US and EC in particular – are ignoring the principles of free and open markets when it suits themselves and insisting that the Rules are applied very strictly to others when they are winning; and that is a hypocrisy that has applied to products as diverse as steel, electronics, agriculture, timber and grains.
There is a very interesting analysis of the EU dairy market – both production and consumption - here and follow the .pdf link at the bottom for the full report showing amongst other things that between 2000 and 2008 one country increased its share of the total import to EU from about 19% to over 37%. No, not NZ but Switzerland. NZ increased from 10% to 13%.
Why do the “Free Trade” negotiations at the WTO keep stalling, as the current Doha round has once again? No, it is not just because of India, China, and Brazil. It is also the US (in particular this time around) trying valiantly to make sure that there are Rules that they can manipulate to protect their own from the fact that internationally they are price uncompetitive.
Oh, and “who” is Fonterra? You want to buy shares in Fonterra?
Come to NZ, buy a dairy farm, sign up as a Fonterra supplier, THEN you can buy your shares – the number of which will be based upon your contracted supply volume…
Sunday, May 24, 2009
Legitimate protest? Or mob rule?
Auckland has its “Harbour Bridge”, a miniscule equivalent of the Golden Gate, or perhaps one of the Manhatten Bridges.
For the past few years there has been a campaign to provide for bicyclist and foot access to the bridge. A proposal for a maintenance access to be upgraded for the purpose was declined as too expensive – around $1.5 million and the security (of users) too difficult to provide. There was then, and still is from time to time, considerable heat in the debate.
Today there was to have been a “protest walk” from Auckland to the North Shore. The requisite applications were lodged and declined. So, the protesters lined up as arranged and eventually “broke through” police there to stop them.
The news this afternoon has the organizer and leader of the protest telling Auckland that while they are “sorry” for any inconvenience caused to people using the Bridge legitimately, “it was all the fault of the Road Transport Authority for preventing the legitimate and right to protest by walking the bridge".
This is what the same section of the bridge (looking in the opposite direction) looks like at rush hour...
giving some idea of the magnitude of the "problem". (the news photo from today is looking back down the four lanes on the left side of the bridge in the second photo.)
OK, so normally I would side with "legitimate protest". This time, no.
What is more, I do not particularly care if they do have to wait about 30 years. There are far more important public transport projects to be undertaken before the Bridge is opened to foot and cycle traffic. Projects such as; light rail to the Airport, reinstating rail access to Fergusson Wharf, public transport that does not presume everyone works in the CBD.... And perhaps by the time we are through the next 30 years we will have run out of oil.
So is it legitimate protest? Legitimate use of civil disobedience?
Or is this another instance of mob rule?
For the past few years there has been a campaign to provide for bicyclist and foot access to the bridge. A proposal for a maintenance access to be upgraded for the purpose was declined as too expensive – around $1.5 million and the security (of users) too difficult to provide. There was then, and still is from time to time, considerable heat in the debate.
Today there was to have been a “protest walk” from Auckland to the North Shore. The requisite applications were lodged and declined. So, the protesters lined up as arranged and eventually “broke through” police there to stop them.
The news this afternoon has the organizer and leader of the protest telling Auckland that while they are “sorry” for any inconvenience caused to people using the Bridge legitimately, “it was all the fault of the Road Transport Authority for preventing the legitimate and right to protest by walking the bridge".
But NZTA says the protesters will not get what they want any sooner.
Mr McDonald says there are plans to provide access for bikes and foot traffic, but it will be 30 years before it is complete.
This is what the same section of the bridge (looking in the opposite direction) looks like at rush hour...
giving some idea of the magnitude of the "problem". (the news photo from today is looking back down the four lanes on the left side of the bridge in the second photo.)
OK, so normally I would side with "legitimate protest". This time, no.
What is more, I do not particularly care if they do have to wait about 30 years. There are far more important public transport projects to be undertaken before the Bridge is opened to foot and cycle traffic. Projects such as; light rail to the Airport, reinstating rail access to Fergusson Wharf, public transport that does not presume everyone works in the CBD.... And perhaps by the time we are through the next 30 years we will have run out of oil.
So is it legitimate protest? Legitimate use of civil disobedience?
Or is this another instance of mob rule?
Monday, May 18, 2009
Lessons learned...
If you have a (fairly expensive) digital camera, and you make a practice of downloading images direct from camera to pc...
AND
if you are the live-in servants to a 6Kg cat...
THEN
it would be a very good idea to invest in a remote SD card reader so that the cat will not knock your (fairly expensive) camera off the desk during the 15 minutes it takes to download the images and thus damaging the (in this case very small) data outlet plug that is part of the camera motherboard.
AND
if you are the live-in servants to a 6Kg cat...
THEN
it would be a very good idea to invest in a remote SD card reader so that the cat will not knock your (fairly expensive) camera off the desk during the 15 minutes it takes to download the images and thus damaging the (in this case very small) data outlet plug that is part of the camera motherboard.
Monday, May 11, 2009
On Feminism - and a response to the Teflonman
My wife “lived” through the feminist years of the late 60s and the 70’s. She was directly involved (at a personal level) in gaining pay equality, and work equality.
To explain.
When she became pregnant with our first child she held the position of City Treasurer’s Secretary; a very senior position, one which these days might carry the title of “Executive Personal Assistant” or somesuch, with commensurate salary. In that position she was one of the top four Secretaries in the organisation. But the rules were that if you got pregnant you had to resign. “Why?!!?” was the immediate reaction. That policy of “not employing” pregnant women was almost universal at the time and was one of the primary targets of the feminists.
Prior to that the City – as employer – had made some moves toward the totally radical idea of equal pay for equal work. If you were comparing the salary for a male clerk with that of a female clerk, the solution was quite simple; and in some cases the simple solution led to male clerks having their pay held at the same rate for some years while the women “caught up”. At the level of trying to set the salary of an Executive Secretary it became somewhat more difficult. So difficult, that SWMBO was told she would have to wait three years for the full value of her personal increase – like about 8% per annum for three years gives a clue. In the meantime she had corporate authority that (in some detailed instances) exceeded that of an accountant.
The point here is that “feminism” at that level was a very admirable thing. As an executive responsible for the selection and appointment of staff in my department it gave me almost double the population from which to select and I had an excellent team of eight women and one man under me. Oh, and if I recollect the man was third ranked in the pay scale. Even better, I could pick the best person for the job to be done and pay them accordingly.
The experiences my wife had at that time were frustrating in the extreme (“Why should I give up my job just because I am three months pregnant??”). She was not a member of the “militant” feminism movement but certainly she was well supported by people who were.
The difficulty then, and now too it seems from your (the Teflonman's) article, was the impact of opposing propaganda. So we get the idiocies of the “woman God”, the “Chairperson”, the “person-hole”, “post-person” and all of the other stupidities. At least in our Parliament, “Mr Speaker” became (quite correctly) “Madam Speaker” despite the efforts of some (male) members to attach other connotations to the title. I suspect that the similar rebuff of “Male members” would have been sufficient to quiet that line of thought. The idea of androgynous descriptives and nouns seemed to disappear out of the window overnight; driven out of the room, not least by the strident voices of extremism on both sides of the fence.
That feminism was one of the major and better social changes of the twentieth century – at least in the western world – should now go without saying. When you consider that it came less than 100 years after universal voting rights (at least in this country) shows that the rate of change was not exactly fast. That it came within ten years of the acceptance of the contraceptive pill is of no surprise and shows the speed with which society can change when even relatively small changes are made.
That feminism should still be the butt of jokes and politicised propaganda from a small (predominantly male) section of society is hardly surprising. Those that fall into the category would also, I suspect, feel hard done by immigrants “who work for low wages and take the jobs of more deserving people”.
It just seems to run through the territory.
Actually this whole change of social attitudes is, in my opinion, a very good thing.
I was interviewed for a position (some years ago, and I was not successful) when I was asked whether I would have difficulty with the fact that I would be working with a boss who was homosexual. My response was “Not unless the fact I am hetero becomes a problem with her. Otherwise why should it matter?”. Did that affect my chances? I was thanked for my honesty at least. Was I upset not getting the job? No, not one bit.
Back to the start -
How many "advanced" nations are now giving as of right maternity leave? How many are providing paid maternity leave? That change, as much as any other single instance signals just how far the Feminist movement has taken societal attitudes. To those who crow the old "feminist mantras" (and remember that very few hens crow) I say, "Grow up just a bit. Perhaps then you might earn the respect of a lady."
To explain.
When she became pregnant with our first child she held the position of City Treasurer’s Secretary; a very senior position, one which these days might carry the title of “Executive Personal Assistant” or somesuch, with commensurate salary. In that position she was one of the top four Secretaries in the organisation. But the rules were that if you got pregnant you had to resign. “Why?!!?” was the immediate reaction. That policy of “not employing” pregnant women was almost universal at the time and was one of the primary targets of the feminists.
Prior to that the City – as employer – had made some moves toward the totally radical idea of equal pay for equal work. If you were comparing the salary for a male clerk with that of a female clerk, the solution was quite simple; and in some cases the simple solution led to male clerks having their pay held at the same rate for some years while the women “caught up”. At the level of trying to set the salary of an Executive Secretary it became somewhat more difficult. So difficult, that SWMBO was told she would have to wait three years for the full value of her personal increase – like about 8% per annum for three years gives a clue. In the meantime she had corporate authority that (in some detailed instances) exceeded that of an accountant.
The point here is that “feminism” at that level was a very admirable thing. As an executive responsible for the selection and appointment of staff in my department it gave me almost double the population from which to select and I had an excellent team of eight women and one man under me. Oh, and if I recollect the man was third ranked in the pay scale. Even better, I could pick the best person for the job to be done and pay them accordingly.
The experiences my wife had at that time were frustrating in the extreme (“Why should I give up my job just because I am three months pregnant??”). She was not a member of the “militant” feminism movement but certainly she was well supported by people who were.
The difficulty then, and now too it seems from your (the Teflonman's) article, was the impact of opposing propaganda. So we get the idiocies of the “woman God”, the “Chairperson”, the “person-hole”, “post-person” and all of the other stupidities. At least in our Parliament, “Mr Speaker” became (quite correctly) “Madam Speaker” despite the efforts of some (male) members to attach other connotations to the title. I suspect that the similar rebuff of “Male members” would have been sufficient to quiet that line of thought. The idea of androgynous descriptives and nouns seemed to disappear out of the window overnight; driven out of the room, not least by the strident voices of extremism on both sides of the fence.
That feminism was one of the major and better social changes of the twentieth century – at least in the western world – should now go without saying. When you consider that it came less than 100 years after universal voting rights (at least in this country) shows that the rate of change was not exactly fast. That it came within ten years of the acceptance of the contraceptive pill is of no surprise and shows the speed with which society can change when even relatively small changes are made.
That feminism should still be the butt of jokes and politicised propaganda from a small (predominantly male) section of society is hardly surprising. Those that fall into the category would also, I suspect, feel hard done by immigrants “who work for low wages and take the jobs of more deserving people”.
It just seems to run through the territory.
Actually this whole change of social attitudes is, in my opinion, a very good thing.
I was interviewed for a position (some years ago, and I was not successful) when I was asked whether I would have difficulty with the fact that I would be working with a boss who was homosexual. My response was “Not unless the fact I am hetero becomes a problem with her. Otherwise why should it matter?”. Did that affect my chances? I was thanked for my honesty at least. Was I upset not getting the job? No, not one bit.
Back to the start -
How many "advanced" nations are now giving as of right maternity leave? How many are providing paid maternity leave? That change, as much as any other single instance signals just how far the Feminist movement has taken societal attitudes. To those who crow the old "feminist mantras" (and remember that very few hens crow) I say, "Grow up just a bit. Perhaps then you might earn the respect of a lady."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
