. . . promoting capitalist acts between consenting adults.
Saturday, May 19, 2012
NZ Music Month: “Travellin’ On”
Remember this? Midge Marsden, Murray Grindley from the Underdogs (and countless TV jingles) with the late great Stevie Ray Vaughan roped in to set the song afire.
Not bad for a TV ad!
Another one-NZ-music-post-per-day for NZ Music Month.
Winston is going gaga? Or Winston always was gaga? No matter, the evidence is now more clear. Lunch with Winston Peters – Stephen Stratford, Q U O T E U N Q U O T E
Dunedin’s “stimulus” stadium continues to weigh them down. (It’s like the sovereign debt crisis in microcosm.) Stadium blew budget by millions - S T U F F
Every time the NZ Parliament passes a new act it costs the country an average of $3.5 million, according to a new study. And even just a piece of regulation costs around $530,000. They included the cost of Parliamentary time and the cost of the policy analysts’ time. What they didn’t include was the effect of every piece of new legislation, and every new regulation, in slowing down and making it harder for the folk who actually get things done to get things done. Cost of legislation – V I S I B L E H A N D O F E C O N O M I C S
Despite his many errors as a commentator Brian Gaynor is without doubt one of the country’s most successful fund managers. So when he notes the widespread impact of the Commerce Commission’s wealth destruction, it’s worth listening. Shaky telco regulation spooks investors – Brian Gaynor, N Z H E R A L D
Set up by Roger Douglas, the culture of the Communist Commerce Commission needs to change. And the simplest way to change it is to close it down. Sadly, a slap is all it gets. Auditor General letter slaps Commerce Commission – W H A L E O I L
The Green Party took forty years to gain currency. Lesson for those who choose to take it: in politics, ideological victory is a marathon, not a sprint. Beyond Today: a values story, and the Greens’ story - Claire Browning, F R O G B L O G
There is no such thing as ‘rational’ debate. Well, certainly not at the Labour Party blog The Double Standard. "There's no such thing as 'rational' debate!" – T H E C O N T R A R I A N
“Sin taxes” on cigarettes and alcohol are not designed to create abstinence. “Taxing goods which are price inelastic, especially those which are addictive, is far more likely to impoverish consumers than it is to turn them into abstainers.” Sin taxes – Paul Walker, A N T I D I S M A L
I hear folk screaming about the undue influence of Murdoch et al on politics. “What I am suggesting though is that those screaming about how awful it is that a private sector company should try to suck up to those with political power is, well, what the fuck did you expect? Your permission to run a newspaper business is dependent upon those politicians. Your spectrum allocation is dependent upon those politicians. How much domestic shite you’ve got to pump out over that spectrum is dependent upon those politicians. Which sporting events you’re even allowed to bid for is determined by those politicians. Whether you’re allowed to buy out the other shareholders in a company you already have management control of is determined by those politicians.” When legislators decide what can be bought and sold…. – T I M W O R S T A L L
In the USA we don't have a dictator controlling thought; we have a culture of conformity that gets people to censor themselves. - William Greeley
“The nature of the regime created by Hamas in Gaza, and its strength and durability, has received insufficient attention in the West… An Islamist one-party quasi-state has been built in Gaza over the last half-decade. The prospects for this enclave and its importance in the period ahead have been immeasurably strengthened by the advances made by Hamas' fellow Muslim Brotherhood branches in Egypt and elsewhere in the region.” A Bracing Look at the Reality of Hamas - Jeffrey Goldberg, T H E A T L A N T I C
Why is Louisiana the “prison capital of the world”? Simple: A majority of Louisiana inmates are housed in for-profit facilities, which must be supplied with a constant influx of human beings or a $182 million industry will go bankrupt. Incentives matter: prison file – Paul Walker, A N T I D I S M A L
A plea from a European supply-sider: Couldn’t every economy be more like Germany's - by embracing radical supply side reforms? The importance of the supply-side – Ryan Bourne, C E N T R E F O R P O L I C Y S T U D I E S
"[T]he present breakdown of America is not the failure of Capitalism, but the result of men abandoning the principles of Capitalism...." - Ayn Rand
Political leaders are always saying we should follow Sweden. This is what happened in Sweden following the GFC under Premier Anders Borg: “His ‘stimulus’ was a permanent tax cut. To critics, this was fiscal lunacy — the so-called ‘punk tax cutting’ agenda. Borg, on the other hand, thought lunacy meant repeating the economics of the 1970s and expecting a different result…. He continued to cut taxes and cut welfare-spending to pay for it; he even cut property taxes for the rich to lure entrepreneurs back to Sweden. The last bit was the most unpopular, but for Borg, economic recovery starts with entrepreneurs.,, Three years on, it’s pretty clear who was right.” The Swedish model – Steven Kates, C A T A L L A X Y F I L E S
“Senior politicians must realise that hard work cannot produce prosperity without the right institutions. In addition to Adam Smith’s “peace, easy taxes and a tolerable administration of justice”, hard work must be rewarded with honest money which holds its value, not money which the commercial banks and the [central bank] can produce at the touch of a button.” Hard work needs honest money – Steve Baker, MP, C O B D E N C E N T R E
“The economics and politics of the West are being ruined by the 101%, that brigade of citizens who feel it is their right to consume at least 101% of the value of the taxes they have themselves contributed. And, of course, we are not really talking about a mere 1% above their contributions but vast amounts beyond anything they have contributed themselves.” The 101% - Steven Kates, C A T A L L A X Y F I L E S
If there is one thing about which to be happy: at least Greece is not Japan. Japan's WTF Chart – Z E R O H E D G E
Greece's tragedy should be a lesson in reality evasion - there is no alternative to living within your means. Greece's tragedy should be lesson to all – L I B E R RT Y S C O T T
If you think this will be the first time there is a break-up in Europe, think again.
“Serving others, I believe, is the highest calling for a person in our society.” Bollocks. Don’t serve: create.
Obama might yet regret making up his little state-worshipper, Julia.
What would Chicken Littles do if enough resources existed to fuel the world for a thousand years even with our present technology? Better not tell them about methane hydrates then. The World Is Running Out Of Energy Scares – Stephen Milloy, J U N K S C I E N C E
Meanwhile … last winter, on several occasions, Germany escaped only just large-scale power outages. Next winter the risk of large blackouts is even greater. The culprit for the looming crisis is the single most important instrument of German energy policy: so-called “Renewable Energy.” Germany Faces Energy Disaster Next Winter – Stephen Milloy, J U N K S C I E N C E
Disobedience is not an issue if obedience is not the goal. - Daron Quinlan
From an interview with a safecracker: Q: How realistic are movies that show people breaking into vaults? A: Not very! Interview With A Safecracker - G E E K P R E S S
Life’s too short to read some books. Like this latest piece of excrement by Sam Harris. Life’s Too Short to Read Some Books - T H E P U R P O S E F U L R E A D E R
The Auckland Philharmonia were immense last night playing Dvorak’s New World Symphony. Best I’ve heard them. But the Vienna Philharmonic are no slouches either.
Donna Summer has died. She did one sixteen-minute song every teenage boy loved, whatever his musical persuasion—supposedly containing the sexiest "simulated" orgasms ever found on vinyl.
Your NZ Music for today is “Humanised,” by Sola Rosa (although Tommy Dorsey would recognise the main riff):
Oops. I just remembered that May is NZ Music Month.
And since I’m really enjoying The Verlaines’s new album* ‘Untimely Meditations,’ here’s the album’s closer. Bastard has been stuck in my head for a week.
Maybe I’ll try to post one great piece of NZ music a day to make up for my oversight. Feel free to make suggestions in the comments, (which, of course, I’ll feel perfectly free to ignore).
* Well, new to me ‘cos it’s been sitting around waiting for me to start playing it.
There are certainly things about which the media should be attacking John Key. (Me, I’ve been doing it for years.) But attacking him for attacking them? Well, I heard Key’s interview on Leighton Smith’s show—heard it at the time—and I heard no attack. No whining. No slamming of the media. None at all. Just comments about how the media seemed to have ended their love-fest with him, and a few (accurate) remarks about how the Herald and Sunday Star Slime have gone tabloid.
So subsequent stories and press suggesting there was a tantrum looks like a clear case of Key Derangement Syndrome.
Mind you, it’s not a bad thing that the media’s rose-tinted Smile and Wave glasses have receded if it means we’ll now see honest criticism of the man instead of the hagiography we’ve been served up over the last four years.
Because there is so much to criticise--and you do not need to make it up.
* * * * *
* Mind you, Ralston is completely wrong in that same post in defending Murray McCully. Not just because he’s defending a turd like McCully (something that should revolt every human being). But, well, what exactly would be wrong with Foreign Ministers having meetings on Skype? Eh?
The philosophical baby: What children’s minds can teach us about the big questions
Here’s an event tonight worth putting on your winter coat for. A lecture on what children’s minds can teach adults.
Until recently, researchers thought that babies and young children were irrational, egocentric and amoral. But the last 30 years of scientific research has completely overturned that view - in some ways children are smarter, more caring and even more conscious than adults are. This new view of babies and young children has brought new and sometimes startling insights about some of the Big Questions of philosophy: questions like How can we find the truth? Where does consciousness come from? What is the nature of morality?
Professor Alison Gopnik from California is a world leader in this research, which she presents in Auckland in three lectures tonight and next week.
Babies aren’t just defective adults, her research shows. Children are for learning she says, and—and this might surprise you—baby’s minds are the most powerful learning machines on the planet. This confirms some of what Ayn Rand observed, based on Maria Montessori’s work:
At birth [observed Rand], a child’s mind is tabula rasa; he has the potential of awareness—the mechanism of a human consciousness—but no content. Speaking metaphorically, he has a camera with an extremely sensitive, unexposed film (his conscious mind), and an extremely complex computer waiting to be programmed (his subconscious). Both are blank. He knows nothing of the external world. He faces an immense chaos which he must learn to perceive by means of the complex mechanism which he must learn to operate. If, in any two years of adult life, men could learn as much as an infant learns in his first two years, they would have the capacity of genius. To focus his eyes (which is not an innate, but an acquired skill), to perceive the things around him by integrating his sensations into percepts (which is not an innate, but an acquired skill), to coordinate his muscles for the task of crawling, then standing upright, then walking—and, ultimately, to grasp the process of concept-formation and learn to speak—these are some of an infant’s tasks and achievements whose magnitude is not equaled by most men in the rest of their lives.
What’s it like to be a baby? Says Gopnik, “It’s like being in love in Paris for the first time after you’ve had three double espressos.”
So maybe instead of getting children to be more like adults, we adults should become more like children.
It could be the pathway to genius.
* * * * *
See Alison Gopnik tonight and next week at Auckland University:
Thursday 17 May 2012 to Wednesday 23 May 2012, 7pm Venue: Fisher & Paykel Auditorium, Owen G Glenn Building, 12 Grafton Road Cost: Free admission and all are welcome. No booking required Contact info: For further information phone 373 7599 ext 87698 A series of three lectures by Professor Alison Gopnik. 17, 21, 23 May 2012. More details here.
And until then (or if you can’t make it), enjoy her recent T.E.D. talk “ What Do Babies Think?:
Q: What do you get when two economists argue about global warming?
But the answer is less of joke than you might think. In fact, in the exchange between William Nordhaus and Bob Murphy there’s more way more light than heat—much more than any exchange, rare as they are, between climate scientists who hold different views.
Nordhaus, a professor at Yale University and “one of the pioneers in the economics of climate change” took it upon himself to write a piece in the New York Review of Books answering—or attempting to answer—the claims of 16 skeptical scientists published in the January 26 Wall Street Journal as “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.”
Murphy takes up the cudgels against Nordhaus because, he notes, “the article was an instant hit in certain circles [because] of Nordhaus’ stature in the profession, and because of his supposedly definitive claims.” Supposedly definitive claims which Murphy proceeds to demolish: “What Nordhaus gets wrong about climate change.”
Nordhaus identified six allegedly misleading claims made by the skeptics in their WSJ article, and proceeded (in his mind) to dismantle their bogus views. In the interest of brevity, I will in this post focus on just four of the claims. As we’ll see, it is Nordhaus who is playing fast and loose with the readers. Many of the objections raised by the skeptics are indeed legitimate.
Murphy proceeds to dismantle Nordhaus’s arguments on
climate models (climate models continue to be unable to accurately replicate the climate behaviour of the observable past, instead—and virtually always--predicting more warming than has actually occurred. “It is foolish to think that they will produce reliable climate projections of an uncertain future… Consequently, it is reckless to go forth with trillion-dollar taxation schemes on the basis of our limited understanding.”)
economic damage from global warming (the very study on which Nordhaus, “one of the pioneers in the economics of climate change,” relies is shown to assert the opposite to that which Nordhaus claims for it: quite clearly indicating the consensus of economic studies finds that global warming would be on net beneficial to human welfare, at least through 2C degrees of warming.” On this basis, using Nordhaus’s own preferred studies and the standard IPCC simulations, “the best estimates currently predict that unregulated greenhouse gas emissions will provide net benefits to human welfare for at least the next sixty years”)
the benefits or harms of carbon taxes (Nordhaus’s very own model demonstrates that, even is the threat is as alleged, the dangers of an overly ambitious or inefficiently structured policy can easily swamp all the alleged benefits of even a perfectly calibrated and efficiently targeted tax of Emissions Trading Scheme. And a perfectly calibrated scheme does not exist. “The worst is Gore’s 2007 proposal to reduce CO2 emissions 90 percent by 2050; Nordhaus’s own study estimated that Gore’s plan would make the world more than $21 trillion poorer than it would be if there were no controls on carbon.”)
But perhaps the soundest thrashing is on global temperature, where Murphy takes to task the “gee-whiz graphs” used by Nordhaus and so beloved by his warmist colleagues.
It’s also interesting that Nordhaus invites his readers to not get caught up in the tiny details, and instead to take a step back and survey the grand picture of global temperatures. I agree. In that spirit, I suggest it can be misleading to focus—as Nordhaus does—on deviations of temperatures. Instead, let’s look at a graph of actual global temperatures, using the same three standard data sets that Nordhaus used for his own graph. (All we’re doing here is adding a base of 14 degrees Celsius to the deviations that Nordhaus plots.) The graph looks like this:
SOURCE: Data sets cited by Nordhaus, with 14C base global temperature added to deviations.
Seen in this light, it’s still true that temperatures of the last decade are higher than at any point since the late 19th century, yet this chart isn’t nearly as scary as the one Nordhaus showed.
It’s hardly scary at all, is it. Which is no doubt why warmists prefer the “gee-whiz graphs” and the tricked-up hockey sticks. Sinclair Davidson has his own plot of global mean temperature, with his source being the US Bureau of Meteorology:
‘Actioni contrariam semper et æqualem esse reactionem: sive corporum duorum actiones in se mutuo semper esse æquales et in partes contrarias dirigi.’ – Law Three, Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis, Sir Isaac Newton
Or to non-Latin speakers (including your editor)…
‘To every action there is always opposed an equal reaction: or the actions of two bodies upon each other are always equal, and in the parts directed to contrary.’
Apparently, this is a new idea to the guys and gals at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). But thanks to ‘three decades’ of research, the boffins at the IMF have finally found out what Sir Isaac Newton knew 325 years ago.
That is, every action creates an opposite and equal reaction.
It’s Newton’s Third Law.
OK. Newton’s third law doesn’t directly relate to house prices. And strictly speaking, he’s not saying that what goes up must come down.
Even so, you can easily apply the words from the Third Law to asset price action. And we strongly suggest you pay close attention to them.
Because the latest IMF report (World Economic Growth 2012: Growth Resuming, Dangers Remain) reveals the central bankers’ plan to ignore the laws of maths and physics. Instead, they’ve got their own ideas on how things should work.
Only this time, they assure you, things will be different…
We were stunned when we read this statement buried on page 89 of the latest IMF report:
‘Based on an analysis of advanced economies over the past three decades, we find that housing busts and recessions preceded by larger run-ups in household debt tend to be more severe and protracted.’
Really?
They’ve only just figured that out?
It’s taken them ‘three decades’?
Oy vey.
But that statement was nothing. We read on…
‘Based on case studies, we find that government policies can help prevent prolonged contractions in economic activity by addressing the problem of excessive household debt. In particular, bold household debt restructuring programs such as those implemented in the United States in the 1930s and in Iceland today can significantly reduce debt repayment burdens and the number of household defaults and foreclosures. Such policies can therefore help avert self-reinforcing cycles of household defaults, further house price declines, and additional contractions in output.’
Bottom line: it’s not the job of the State and the central banks to prevent asset bubbles. It’s the job of the State and central banks to inflate asset bubbles and then make sure they don’t burst.
How?
By implementing ‘bold household debt restructuring programs…’
You understand that’s shorthand. It means using private savings and taxpayer dollars to bail out those who get over their head in debt.
Of course, as we see it, the State and central banks cause the asset bubbles in the first place. So it’s no wonder there isn’t a peep from the IMF about government and central bank interventioncausing price bubbles.
No, in their view the market causes all the problems and so the government must intervene.
Bubbles are good…busts are bad. That’s why they’re so keen to keep the ‘good’ stuff and get rid of the ‘bad’ stuff. Trouble is they ignore the fact that too much of the ‘good’ stuff causes the ‘bad’ stuff.
But the IMF commentary is more than just about house prices. It gives you a sneak peek inside the maniacal mind of central planners.
The Market is Sending Warning Signals
All around you, the market is screaming out. It’s sending warnings left, right and centre that something isn’t right. The message?
That the market needs a natural purge of all that’s bad…bad banks…bad economies…bad governments…bad central banks…
The whole darn lot needs a dose of economic Metamucil so world economies and the free market can start from scratch.
But that won’t happen anytime soon, because, as the IMF notes, it has a different take on things:
‘We also highlight the policy implications. In particular, we explain the circumstances under which government intervention can improve on a purely market-driven outcome.’
This morning Bloomberg News reports:
‘Spain said it would take over Bankia (BKIA) SA and may inject public funds into the banking group with the most Spanish real estate as the government prepares the fourth attempt to overhaul the financial system.’
According to the report, Spain will use 4.5 billion euros of taxpayer dollars to buy a 45% stake in Bankia.
And as the chart below shows, Spain’s biggest bank, Banco Santander, S.A. has fallen 64.2% since reaching a post-bust high in 2009:
Meanwhile, in the U.S., JP Morgan Chase & Co. [NYSE: JPM] announced a USD$2 billion loss due to… ‘synthetic credit securities…’
The banks will never learn as long as they know there’s a government and central bank to provide the ultimate backstop.
And finally, Bloomberg News reports the following comments from U.S. Federal Reserve chairman, Dr. Ben S. Bernanke:
‘If no action were to be taken by the fiscal authorities, the size of the fiscal cliff is [so large that there's] absolutely no chance that the Federal Reserve would have any ability whatsoever to offset that effect on the economy.’
In other words – you got it – the government must spend more so the economy keeps growing. And as a result, they delay the necessary bust yet again.
We’re not a fan of former U.K. PM, Margaret Thatcher, but she got one thing right: ‘You can’t buck the market.’
It’s just a shame to see so much taxpayer money wasted in order to refute her—or rather, to save the bacon of politicians, bankers and other vested interests.
But the real reason [for the gagging] was the party’s reaction to a ‘positioning’ speech given by Cunliffe to the New Lynn Women’s Branch of the Labour Party on 29 April. Judy and I both considered the speech brilliant… Anyway, ‘the top team’ didn’t like Cunliffe’s brilliant speech and he was apparently bawled out by Shearer and others and told the speech was’ naive and stupid’ … This is so utterly stupid that it beggars belief. Cunliffe is not only intellectually brilliant, he is by far Labour’s most accomplished debater in the House and on television and radio.
I love it. Did you spot the use of the word “brilliant”? Brilliant, isn’t it.
And not only is The Great Man intellectually brilliant (and it’s the way the “not only” is used that really gets me—like “not only is Antarctica cold, it has penguins as well!)--not only is The Great Cunliffe intellectually brilliant but he can talk as well! My god! ( Can he can walk on water too, Brian? Be sure and let us know, won’t you.)
And that speech! Not only brilliant, but doubly brilliant.
- We both considered the speech brilliant!
- Yes! Both me and my wife!
Boy, oh boy! You can just feel the puppy dog’s tail wagging, can’t you.
It’s just possible the only one with a higher regard for Cunliffe’s brilliance than Cunliffe himself (and that’s saying something) is Brian. And his wife.
But seriously, Brian (and Judy, if you’re reading) you surely both have to be kidding.
Because if your evidence for this “brilliance” is that speech you and your wife both loved (“we both considered the speech brilliant”), then I hate to break it to you. Because of brilliance or vision there was none.
UPDATE: It gets even more hilarious. Chris Trotter goes in to bat for the “compellingly radical” Cunliffe, concluding “this sort of overt factional squabbling has not been seen in the Labour Party for more than fifteen years.” Just imagine: not since Helen Clark started squatting over the Labour Party’s tribal divisions like Marshal Tito once squatted over the traditional tribal conflicts in the Balkans.
And it’s taken a few years, but just as when Tito’s dictatorship collapsed (in his case with his death) the scab was well and truly ripped off every tribal and fratricidal conflict in the Balkans, so too with Clark’s departure the scab has been well and truly ripped off every tribal and fratricidal conflict within Labour.
Which, this time, is fun to watch.
PS: Has it ever struck you that David Cunliffe looks like a hairy gibbon?
“The Arctic is screaming!” screamed Mark Serreze from the US govt’s snow and ice center in Boulder, Colorado.
“At this rate the Artic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012,” hyped the delightfully-named Jay Zwally, a “climate scientist” employed by NASA.
More and more these “predictions” by alleged climate scientists look like the predictions made by those who formulated the Soviet Union’s Five Year Plans, when very five years they would announce the last five years went poorly, but this five year plan would take the Soviet economy to new heights. Five years later: rinse and repeat.
These days, with these alleged climate scientists, they just shrug, say their models have “improved,” and continue taking government money for pouring out bullshit.
I’ve been interested at all this talk of rising house prices—houses, in our little economy, being one of the main reasons for which New Zealanders borrow money.
Or to put it another way, one of the main reasons for which debt is created.
In our system—and in most of the western world—the way new money comes into the system is by means of this new debt; debt organised into currency. An elastic currency:
And in New Zealand in recent years, new debt has been coming into the system at an increasing rate in recent years—almost at the pace it was coming in during the 2003-2007 boom. Which is to say, the year-on-year growth in our elastic currency is taking off again:
Growth in M2 and M3 Money Supply, 2003 to March 2012. Source: Reserve Bank: C1, Monetary Aggregates
So no wonder folk expect house prices to keep growing at the rate they were then.
Or to put it another way, no wonder some folks expect to see anther unsustainable “boom” in the housing market. And few, if any, affordable homes for a very long while.
It’s worth noting there is no social benefit whatsoever from attempting to accelerate economic growth by inflating the currency. Never has been; never will be:
PS: It’s not an ideal graph by which to compare the year-on-year increase in money supply with the year-on-year increase in house prices, but the match between the two over the last decade (with a slight time lag to allow the money to flow from the money spigots into the market and do its inflationary work) is unmistakable.
PPS: Yes folks, this is what inflation always looks like. In fact, this is what inflation is: the organisation of new debt into new currency put into new buyers hands for new purchases--as this study of American inflation across the whole of the last century fairly clearly demonstrates:
John Key’s party didn’t make too many promises when they got elected in 2008 (their promises were as blancmange as their campaign), but these were two of them.
You didn’t get lower taxes—instead, GST was put up.
And we didn’t see fewer people leaving the country in disgust—instead, we’ve had more.
A brighter future? More than 40,ooo people every year since John Key took office have been saying “No.”
In 2008 John Key stood in Wellington’s Cake Tin stadium lamenting the departure of a stadium-full of good New Zealanders every year under the stewardship of Helen Clark.
Yet very year since John Key took office, the numbers leaving for better things elsewhere have failed to reduce. Instead, they’ve climbed. And now with 53,330 New Zealanders last year seeing more opportunity overseas than here at home—a record high number at a time when things overseas are hardly optimistic—it’s clear that more than a stadium-and-a-half full of NZers have looked at what John Key’s government has done to New Zealand and concluded they have done nothing to give them any hope.
We’ve all heard the “Catch up with Australia” mantra. But with govts like we’ve endured in recent years, NZ can’t even catch up with Tasmania! We’re clearly going to need some actual ambition for New Zealand, and damn so0n.
Or else with figures like those below, we’re going to need a bigger stadium.
NZ Music Month: “Travellin’ On”
Friday Morning Ramble #666
NZ Music Month: “What Sound is This?”
Dunedin Sound 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry_GXKMpGe8
this is not Music PC it is a message, and Musicians are boring messengers.
Awful. Bloody Awful.
Having said that, the Verlaines were one of the best bands of that 80's Flying Nun era (with songs like Death & The Maiden, Pyromaniac & Doomsday) in a field littered with no-talent shoe-gazing dirge merchants that the wanky, lefty music press still fawn over today (like Shayne Carter). Many a good Radio with Pictures episodes in the 80's were ruined with that Flying Nun shit.
Key Derangement Syndrome... if it means we’ll now see honest criticism of the man instead of the hagiography we’ve been served up over the last four years.
Except it won't. All that will happen (if history is any teacher at all) is that "everyone" will just swing back to the red team again, forgetting they were just as unprincipled and completely fucking useless. That precise attitude is all over twitter, and sadly, that's from some of the more intelligent people I follow.
Honestly, it's enough to make one give up on caring and just join the mindless horde.
honestly its good
John Key is in fine shape. NZ itself is in trouble.
I think that NZ Govt will be John Key lead for quite a few years; And this is good. Answer here
How (not) to design anything
nicee!
The Whole Earth Catalog, The North Face, Pritzker Prize–winning architect Thom Mayne, and Calfiornia Governor Jerry Brown have all cited Fuller as a key influence on several projects.
institute of design
The philosophical baby: What children’s minds can teach us about the big questions
Gopnik has jumped on the Bayesian Epistemology bandwagon. Bayesian Epistemology says that we can evaluate the truth of theories by weighing probabilities. But that is profoundly wrong. Probability is a physical concept and so it belongs in the domain of physics and not in the domain of epistemology. To apply probability theory to epistemology is a category error.
In reality, we evaluate theories according to the explanations they contain. What is important is content, not some probability associated with the content.
Bayesians like Gopnik think that the distinction between human and animal learning is one of degree. She thinks animals have some ability to learn (e.g., crows). But there is a very sharp distinction between humans and animals, as Ayn Rand was well aware.
Humans are universal explainers and it is our ability to create explanations that sets human learning apart from animals for animals have no ability whatsoever to explain anything. All animals can do is fill in parameters on algorithms that were handed to them by their genes.
Gopnik also thinks that learning in babies involves something special. But it does not: it involves exactly the same processes that adults use. The main difference is that the damaging effects on creativity of coercive child-rearing practices have had longer to run their course by the time one is an adult.
I didn't pick up any reliance on Bayes in last night's lecture. And while she certainly recognised a distinction between animal and human brains she didn't identify the difference as being our possession of a conceptual faculty--which is what explains the essential difference in both our brain development and our use of it.
Mind you, even if she's fifty years late (in the case of Rand), one-hundred years late ( in the case or Montessori), or 2400 years late (in the case of Aristotle) in this day and age it's astonishing to see someone linked to the philosophy faculty at Berkeley talking about causality as if its existence were uncontroversial, about humans' ability to understand the world around them as if it were never a matter of debate, and the fact that all knowledge comes through the senses, as if alleged philosophers had not been battling the obvious for two millennia.
But in any case, you err, sir. Learning in babies certainly is something different. If we could emulate their ability to absorb, we would be geniuses. But we can't, so most of use ain't.
The difference is nothing to do with "coercive child-rearing." The difference is in the brains.
Maybe she'll bring up Bayes in the subsequent lectures? I wouldn't hold too much hope for the philosophy faculty at Berkeley just yet!
The idea that children have some special ability to learn is tied up with the notion of critical periods. But if you do a quick google you'll see there is a lot of controversy about whether they actually exist. Do you have a (philosophically sound) scientific paper defending critical periods which you stand by?
Gopnik is right in that children learn using exactly the same processes that scientists use to develop and test theories. In fact all human learning involves these exact same processes. The reason is that there is no other way to learn.
Also, if you have the ability to learn you have the full universal ability: you are capable of learning anything that can be learnt. There is no such thing as a learner that has only a partial ability to learn. You either have the full ability or you do not. This is tied up with the nature of universality, which doesn't come in degrees. For example, in the context of universal computation, there is no such thing as a computer which is 50% universal.
So, babies have exactly the same universal ability to learn that adults have. They cannot be more or less universal than an adult.
And an adult doesn't lose any ability to learn. What happens is that they learn to dislike learning and they no longer have the time or motivation. The difference is ideas and circumstance, not brains.
Note that Rand doesn't attribute the difference to brains. That would imply that babies have innate abilities that adults do not have. But she explicitly repudiates innate abilities in the quote you put up (and elsewhere too). According to her, babies have no innate ability to walk or to focus their eyes and must learn these things without any genetic assist whatsoever.
So Rand is not saying the difference is brains (genes), the difference must be to do with ideas and knowledge you have acquired. An adult genius is not a genius by good fortune of having the right genes but by having acquired better knowledge than the rest of us. Including better knowledge of how to think.
BTW, I'm surprised by the number of Objectivists who think genius and talents are innate to some extent or other and think that Rand could not have meant what she said about no innate talents.
Yet, Rand's view is to take the highest view of what it is to be human. We are all capable of soaring, it just takes the right kind of nurture.
Rand says we have no innate ideas. Which is a completely different thing to what you imply.
A brain still being "wired"--in Montessori's words, an absorbent mind--is a very different brain than one in which myelinisation has already taken place.
Not to say the latter brain can't be changed thereafter--as the work and experience of Barbara Arrowsmith-Young demonstrates--but to do that one must first recognise that the brains are different.
From "We the Living":
No one is born with any kind of “talent” and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired. Writers are made, not born. To be exact, writers are self-made.
Talents include talent to learn. If babies and infants have critical periods that give them special talents to learn then where did this special talent come from: it can only be from genes.
Adults who put their mind to it in fact learn faster than babies. The reason is that they have much more accumulated knowledge. Languages seem harder for an adult because adults want to express more complicated ideas.
In the realm of the mind, the underlying details of the hardware are irrelevant: they have been abstracted away. What is important are ideas. Ideas give us our power to learn and to think. How can a baby have better ideas about how to learn and to think than an older person?
I would have thought you would welcome this. It is inspirational whereas your view Is much more limiting.A brain still being "wired"--in Montessori's words, an absorbent mind--is a very different brain than one in which myelinisation has already taken place.
This doesn't explain how an infant brain has the special learning abilities you maintain it does. Being good at learning means having good knowledge about how to learn. So how does myelinisation (or lack of) give one that knowledge? Does it make one more creative? How?
Your assertion has similar logic to thinking certain drugs make one more creative. But how do drugs contain the knowledge to affect human behaviour like that?Learning in babies certainly is something different. If we could emulate their ability to absorb, we would be geniuses. But we can't, so most of use ain't.
I just realised that this is another excuse for not learning. That's what the critical period hypothesis does: it provides us with excuses.
No doubt parents also use it as an excuse to coerce their children.
@Brian S: You seem to be laden with misconceptions, including the strange notion that the brain is whatever you want it to be.
I'll respond to just a few of your more outlandish claims.
** You say "Maybe she'll bring up Bayes in the subsequent lectures?" Maybe she will and maybe she won't. Maybe she'll also fly in on a broomstick singing "Brian S. doesn't even know me." Because "maybe" is not evidence. It's just speculation without evidence. Which is to say it's just a purely arbitrary claim. Which is to say it's no more than noise. I say all this only because you seem to demonstrate in other comments that you think your "maybes" adduced without evidence are the beginning of knowledge.
** You say "In the realm of the mind, the underlying details of the hardware are irrelevant." What an utterly preposterous claim. It is the nature of the brain that allows the brain to function as it does. Change it, damage it, and you change the way it functions. Understanding what it's made of and how it's made up is teh very key to understanding how it functions.
** You say "I would have thought you would welcome [the idea that brains are whatever I say they are]. It is inspirational whereas your view Is much more limiting."
There's no kind way to say this. This is total bollocks. You must understand that the brain is not whatever you want it to be; the brain is what it is. This is not a "limit"; it is reality. And the reality is the child's brain and the adults brain are what they are. Which is very different.
What nonsense. An infant's brain is not "good at learning" because the baby has some prior knowledge about how to learn. The baby absorbs dats because the baby has an absorbent mind allowing it to absorb by wholesale all the sensory data about the world around her: this provides the data integrated by the brain to begin forming knowledge, and at a rate not possible to adults. To put it bluntly, "It's the hardware, stupid."
** You say "Being good at learning means having good knowledge about how to learn. So how does myelinisation (or lack of) give one that knowledge?"
Myelenisation does not "give knowledge." (Sheesh!) Myelin is a white gelatinous substance that begins forming a "sheath" around neuron axes to protect the integrity of signals from one part of the brain to another. The process begins about fourteen weeks after conception and continues until adolescence. It is this process that explains so much of the developing brain. Brain that is myelinated is functional; brain being myelinated is being ordered. The whole process is part of the ongoing neuroplasticity of the brain.
** You say "The critical period hypothesis provides us with excuses."
I have no idea what you mean by your "critical period hypothesis." But I suspect again your problem is that facts are getting in the way of your wish to have things any way you want them to be. The fact is that as the brain develops the child has what Maria Montessori identified as "sensitive periods" during which particular areas of learning are especially easy. Neuropsychologists now beginning to understand that what underpins the sensitivities she observed are the result of changes occurring in the brain as a result of ongoing neuroplasticity. To read more about this, including the research on the neuropsychology of sensitive periods, I recommend Angeline Lillards book "Montessori: The Science Behind the Genius".
Re, the brain and the mind, I think Brian S means something like:
Computer programs are independent of the computer they run on. All that matters is that the computer supports universal computation. Tetris is Tetris whether you run it on a Mac or on a PC.
@James: No, I don't think he's saying that at all.
But in any case, I doubt that the metaphor of "running programmes" works, even in jest. Especially not with a baby's brain.
Because the difference between a baby's brain and adult's brain is not like the difference between a Mac and a PC. It would be more like the difference between a computer and something growing into a computer.
Or the difference between a sponge, and something growing into a totally neurally wired network.
(Or in my case, an increasingly rusted-out network.) :-)
Here are some useful links that may be useful in the discussion:
#1) "Neuroscientists Identify How the Brain Remembers What Happens and When" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110804141701.htm Based on original peer review : ["Integrating What and When Across the Primate Medial Temporal Lobe"]
#2) "What Do Infants Remember When They Forget?" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/09/110927155220.htm Based on : ["What do infants remember when they forget? Location and identity in six-month-olds’ memory for objects"]
#3) "Forgetting Is Part of Remembering" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111018111938.htm Based on : ["The Benefit of Forgetting in Thinking and Remembering"]
#4) "New Research Shows That We Control Our Forgetfulness" http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110705091115.htm
There are obviously more articles on the topic from the sciencedaily website.
@PC: Did you read your own blog post where you quote Rand saying*:
Speaking metaphorically, [at birth, the child's mind] has a camera with an extremely sensitive, unexposed film (his conscious mind), and an extremely complex computer waiting to be programmed (his subconscious).
She doesn't speak of a child's brain growing into a computer. She recognises that the computer is already there at birth. It is just waiting to be programmed.
A young child's brain is already fully universal and in more than one way. It is running a universal knowledge creator (software) on a universal computer that is instantiated in the brain.
Without these types of universality the child would not be able to learn anything. Do you see this?
And do you see that there are different levels. The hardware implementation of the universal computer is abstracted away by the software of the mind. Like a computer program abstracts away the details of its implementation on a particular machine.
The thing that changes as a child grows is software as the mind programs itself. Concomitant with this are changes in the brain, as one would expect. But you can't understand what is going on by looking at the level of neurons: you have to look at things from the level of the mind (software).
* As well as not noticing what Rand said, it seems you did not watch the TED talk you linked to. Yes, that is Bayes she is talking about.
@James: Yeah, you got it.
Have you heard of the Turing-Deutsch principle?I have no idea what you mean by your "critical period hypothesis." But I suspect again your problem is that facts are getting in the way of your wish to have things any way you want them to be. The fact is that as the brain develops the child has what Maria Montessori identified as "sensitive periods" during which particular areas of learning are especially easy.
Um, well, apart from a change of emphasis to "sensitive" that pretty much is the critical period hypothesis:
If you read the wiki page, it's clear that critical/sensitive periods are highly controversial.
Attributing a child's ability to learn to a "sensitive" period which makes learning "easy" is demeaning to the child. It diminishes their accomplishment,
Professor Alison Gopnik's comment in that T.E.D. talk video saying that Bayesian learning is the best machine learning (ML) scheme/algorithm available today. The best & more popular ML algorithm today is the SVM (support vector machine). SVM can learn both in a linear & non-linear manner, which is actually closer to how human brain works. The brain process information both in linear & non-linear mechanisms.
Her error is not a big deal anyway (ie, its unimportant - very minor) because she's a neuro-scientist specialist and not a machine-learning expert (which is my domain).
Brian S said... In reality, we evaluate theories according to the explanations they contain. What is important is content, not some probability associated with the content.
Can you give an example here? I mean a concrete example of something which shows a task that one does or performs which clearly describe your scenario. The content you're talking about is simply probability as Prof. Gopnik was talking about in how that kid was performing experiments (bliket detector).
That kid didn't have a calculator to compute various probabilities outcome, but the way how human brain reasons it uses various mechanisms such as probabilistic reasoning, Dempster-Shafer evidence-based logic, Possibility reasoning, including others with various combinations and extensions of the ones listed above.
FF, consider Objectivism, for example. How does one even begin to assign a non-arbitrary prior probability that it is true? And why would you want to? You evaluate Objectivism according to the explanations it contains. Like its explanations about altruism. If you find a flaw in one of the explanations then that explanation is not true. Truth is binary, it does not come in degrees. An explanation that is false in reality cannot have any objective probability of being true.
Right now you are thinking about my paragraph above trying to see if it makes sense. Are you calculating probabilities?
If you are interested, read the Choices chapter in _The Beginning of Infinity_ by David Deutsch (who, as you know, is one of my favourite philosophers). There is also a gmail list:
In computer science and quantum physics, the Church–Turing–Deutsch principle (CTD principle) is a stronger, physical form of the Church–Turing thesis formulated by David Deutsch in 1985. The principle states that a universal computing device can simulate every physical process.
This what you mean, yeah?
@James: Yes, that's the Turing-Deutsch principle.
I was going to explain why it is important to this discussion, but Deutsch himself has just put up a post on The Fabric of Reality list that covers my point, so I'll just quote that instead:
On 21 May 2012, at 2:26am, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote:
> Hi FoR folk, > > I thought you might be interested in the first signs of the impact, on science itself, of 20 years of a 'science of consciousness'. The ignition point for the change is obviously in the neurosciences.
I think that isn't obvious. It depends on the answer to this question:
Is a computer program that is accurately emulating a conscious process, necessarily conscious?
If no, then it seems to me you have a *philosophical* problem reconciling that with the Turing principle (that a universal computer can perform any information processing task that any physical object can perform). And neuroscience could only begin to be relevant once that problem is solved and we know why the process of introspection to detect whether one is experiencing qualia isn't an information processing task (or how the Turing principle is false -- which would at a minimum require overturning quantum theory, as Penrose hopes to do).
If yes, then consciousness is an attribute of computer software only, not hardware (provided it is universal) and therefore neuroscience has nothing whatever to tell us about consciousness, so again the problem of consciousness is a purely *philosophical* one.
Do you have an obvious way round this dilemma?
-- David Deutsch
It is the same for things like intelligence and learning. PC's position that "It's the hardware, stupid" is therefore untenable. The hardware is important only in that it is universal.
Brian, what is learning? (Choose anyway you wish to define it, be it the psychologist's, information theorists, mathematician's definition, etc,...). The wording of the defintion of learning may be different in semantics from different disciplines, but they all boil down to one meaning only.
Brian said... In reality, we evaluate theories according to the explanations they contain
That very explanations you're quoting above is prior probabilities the very same thing that Dr. Gopnik's description of Bayesian learning. Bayesian algorithm is a supervised learning type algorithm (ie, learn by example or learn from a teacher or learn from a coach), ie, learning by induction.
There's no escape from that. You can't have explanations until the event (where one is trying to learn) has already happened and to note of what are the outcomes that have been produced. You can't explain the outcome/s of an event unless it has taken place as apriori, otherwise one can have psychic power to foresee the possible outcome/s of a future event before it even takes place. That's why bayesian learning requires conditional (prior) probabilities to be known in advance.
That's exactly of what that kid was doing in performing experiments & evaluating hypothesis (bliket detector). He didn't foresee the correct way via psychic power before he even started. His evaluation was based on trial and error , ie, he needed to fiddle (event) with the blocks first before he evaluates the outcome (continue on with the current hypothesis but try and improve the conditional probability of the event or dismissed his current hypothesis and formulate a new hypothesis and then try again to see if the conditional probability is higher compared to previous attempts). He won't keep going on forever. Once he reached a solution then he will stop (generalization is being achieved).
As I have stated above, we humans don't use a calculator in our daily life to compute bayes probabilities every time we're evaluating a hypothesis. That nature is already being built in to how our brains work and that mechanism seems pretty much universal.
@Falufulu: Learning is the process by which we acquire new *knowledge*. It involves using creativity both to generate ideas and to try to find mistakes in them.
You can't have explanations until the event (where one is trying to learn) has already happened and to note of what are the outcomes that have been produced.
When you read a book -- for example, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology -- and create your own explanations of what the book is saying, how did you do that?
Brian said... Learning is the process by which we acquire new *knowledge*. It involves using creativity both to generate ideas and to try to find mistakes in them.
Semantics is correct but that's not a formal universal definition to be used as generalization, which you seemed to favour (ie, universal explained).
I'll give you a hint, since you're a mathematician.
Learning is simply a function relational mapping.
X - inputs (can be multivariate)
F(X) - functional relation that takes X as input
Y - output (can be multivariate)
F maps input X into output Y. If changes in input X leads to zero changes in output Y, then there is no learning at all taking place. On the other hand, if change in X leads to change is Y, then there is learning in the system being taking place. Knowledge comes from learning (storing & retrieval). See if there is no change in Y when X changes, then there is no knowledge to retrieve because there wasn't anything to store in the first place.
This is the formal definition given in the mathematics and machine learning literature. This is how the information processing in the brain is being modeled.
X and Y are physical inputs (neuronal electrical signals). The process of mapping X into Y is what learning & information retrieval process (memory) are about. The function F is not some sort of a coordinator, since neuron themselves are self organized, but their actions seems to obey a certain functional mapping relationship.
Brian, a good description of the formalism of learning process, be it animal, human or machine can be found in one of the leading machine learning researchers, Prof. Tom Mitchel, book with title Machine Learning.
There is evidence in recent years from experiments by researchers at IBM & Berkeley where they build some robots and when they observed those robots in the lab they did something very unusual. They think that the robots exhibit some sort of conscious learning because some of the robots perform actions that were not written to the original software, but because the robots were programmed with various learning schemes to allow them to adapt to their external environment by sensing it (input X) on the fly. The corresponding actions (output Y) are then observed to be unusual. Something they didn't anticipate.
When one learns an explanation, one is not learning a function mapping inputs to outputs. What functional relationships does one learn when, for instance, one learns about the explanations for why capitalism works?
I'm skeptical that any current computer program can learn. The reason is that there is an unsolved philosophical problem, namely an understanding of how creativity works.
Current "AI" programs do not create new knowledge, the knowledge is always somehow (maybe unintentionally) inbuilt by the programmer by their judicious selection of the fitness function or whatever. That may be the case in your example but I'd need to look at it more closely.
Because of the nature of universality, we won't approach an AI by degrees. We will go from no learning ability whatsoever to a fully universal learner in one jump. This is a consequence of the *reach* of knowledge and again I'd recommend "The Beginning of Infinity" if you are interested. You'll see there that a jump to universality can occur because of a small change in something (it doesn't require large changes).
Still no need to panic about global warming
You can download Niwas 7 Station record of a similar time frame and get almost the exact near flat graph as above.
Its when people start spouting "anomalies" and chopping the timelines up to produce graphs which produce rises in temp that we have a problem. Being selective like this I can show a more substantial fall in temp 1998-2010 than the entire rise in temp over the whole 160 year record and even graphing the previous 30 years produces a fall in temp.
Incidentally, a warmer climate is one of the most common reasons given for migrating to Aussie:)
JC
Europe on the edge
See you next Thursday? http://www.eventbrite.co.nz/event/3549008179?ebtv=C
@Greg: "See you next Thursday?" I trust you aren't name calling? ;-)
Perhaps we could meet up at Galbraith's after to compare?
If I correctly interpreted the Newspeak of the EC official, he said, "there are [financial] statistics and then there are politics"...and don't expect any promise based on the former to be honoured by anyone who practices the latter.
At least he is honest.
What Isaac Newton Knew About House Prices …That the IMF Should
Here's an article that point to QE causing JP Morgan's $2B loss.
Basically, they sensibly hedged their hedge, then QE happen and reversed the market trend causing them to double down and get into real trouble.
I do hope Kris has a brother called Simon.
So what if they lost $2.5B. Does that not mean that other parties gained that amount?
@Greg: No, not every investment is a zero-sum game. Foreign exchange is one of the few that is. But most investments that go south represent an absolute loss of value to everyone--and particularly to investors.
Would you care to show your workings on that conclusion PC?
@TWR: I don't pretend to know the details of the JP Morgan stuff up, so I won't comment on that.
But if you take resources worth, say, $30 million and put them into a project that buyers decide is only worth $15 million--let's say it's a large housing project in Orewa or Tauranga or Queenstown--then if the developer goes bust before it's finished you're left with a money loss, an unfinished project worth bugger all, and resources that could have been used elsewhere poured instead into something of lesser value than when you started.
(And even it were finished as planned, in taking resources from higher value to lower value it still represents an overall economic loss to everyone.)
In microcosm, that's what happened in the crash. People paid money for things which they quickly discovered weren't worth what they paid for them. That's a dead loss for them, and for everyone else.
(And because so many of these projects were financed largely by money created out of thin air, when the projects crashed so did the money supply. But that's another story.)
Now it's true that someone can now pick up that losing project for a song and carry on and complete it--if by the time it's completed there is still demand for it at that or any price.
But no-one has gained what the developer lost. We've all lost out.
Investing, for the most part, is not a zero sum game.
I guess gregster's point is that those hypothetical $30m of resources "went in" to something. So maybe they bought Gib board or solid gold taps, or something, but the vendors of those items have the money, rather than the investors. The market value of the finished product may be less than the cost of the resources used to produce it, but the money hasn't disappeared into thin air.
The JPM issue may be different of course as that doesn't relate to bricks and mortar, and I don't know the ins and outs of that either.So what if they lost $2.5B. Does that not mean that other parties gained that amount?
Yes, in this case that is quite correct.
The money went to other banks and traders, and it's not difficult to lose such amounts. They simply did not have a good risk manager.
@PC Yes, OK, I know what you mean in those cases. I'm no expert.
Wall Street Journal: "this was not a loss to the taxpayers of America. This was a loss to shareholders and owners of JP Morgan and that's the way America works Some people experienced a loss in this case because of a bad decision. By the way, there was someone who made a gain. The $2 billion JP Morgan lost someone else gained."
And: http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/05/16/romney-j-p-morgans-2-billion-loss-is-someone-elses-gain/
Brian Edwards gets a puppy dog [updated]
if you quote Bernard Hickey as an authority, you lose all rights to your work being called 'brilliant'.
insider
I've always had the impression that beneath that urbane Anglo-Irish exterior, Brian Edwards is a seething mass of absolute contempt for humanity.
Economically illiterate social commentators should never pass judgement on economically illiterate politicians. It has to all end in tears.
Actually, the only one who does come from this looking better is Shearer. If he understands the harm of Cunnliffe's cult Keynesian nonsense, then perhaps he does have a glimmer of economic nous?
So hows that new "freedom" party coming along, PC?
It's back. Thought you "didn't have time" to troll here.
It's depressing how people have become so low they mock at the notion of freedom. What the hell happened to us?
Skimming through Cunnliffe’s speech again suspect he has had some sort of mental breakdown. A reaction to losing out to that utter non-entity Sheerer.
The various sob sisters on the left think Cunnliffe is a tortured genius but the effects of peak government sweeping across Europe are plain to see.
As damaging as the Key / Sheerer one party state is to NZ if the Cunnliffe clown together with Greens & their "green jobs" run NZ then the keys will have been handed over to the lunatics.
Better start looking for that Pacific holiday home now.
'Peak government' ;)
Brilliant - I'm stealing that one, Simon.
Actually Cunliffe looks more like a cat than a gibbon. On the other hand Ayn Rand looked like a corpse that had been dragged behind a car for a few miles.
So, how about those melting ice caps then?
It is pretty obvious that even the environmental movement has quietly moved on from global warming. Population growth is now the cause du jour and Malthus is once again their prophet.
Of course, the only solution to that is genocide. It will be interesting to see how they sell it.Of course, the only solution to that is genocide. It will be interesting to see how they sell it.
Have you never encountered an eco-loon before? Child taxes of course...
More money, higher house prices…
We’re going to need a bigger stadium
The GST increase was fully compensated through income tax cuts. We ought not damn Key for that bit.
Before the revenue neutral tax change, which put total revenue up by over a billion a year, this Government put many taxes up, including alcohol, petrol. We have also had 2 new taxes forced onto us, the rubbish tax and the ETS. This is the opposite of the tax decreases we were promised and badly needed. The 2008 promise of gettin rid of the zoning laws to make out very expensive housing more affordible has not been kept either. Nothing has changed from comrade Clark's regime.
@Eric: Yes, Mike is right. We didn't wave goodbye to higher taxes, we got them.
We received "a pledge to deliver about $50 a week to workers on the average age.” We didn't get them.
We got a promise of “an ongoing programme of personal tax cuts." It wasn't fulfilled.
We were told “National will not be going back on any of these promises, as we fully costed and funded them.” They did, and they weren't.
This was called “a credible economic package to take account of the changing economic climate.” It was, said Bill English, a “tax cut programme [that] will not require any additional borrowing."
They were wrong on everything. And they have no excuse.
Less than a month after sending my CV to an Aussie recruiting firm, I got an e-mail on a Friday afternoon with a job offer in Queensland starting three days later for double what I'm earning now.
I had to decline the offer due to current commitments, but come January it's going to be mighty hard to say no if I get a similar offer (which appears likely, unless Australia runs out of minerals before then).