Save the Humans

Global Warming: Sadly the Models are Wrong

In case you missed it there is an excellent article at NZCPR from Fred Singer on how the computer models that we rely on for our global warming hysteria are wrong. They have been adjusted many times over the years to better fit with the data.

It is scientifically interesting to ask what are the natural factors that are influencing climate?  This is a big subject about which much has been written.  Natural factors include volcanic eruptions, continental drift and mountain  building, changes  in the Earth’s orbit --- and, of course, solar variability.  Different kinds of influences operate on different time scales.  But on a time scale important for human experience.-- typically decades -- solar variability may be the most important.

Everything we know about global warming is based on computer models. I will comment on these another time (with my computer scientist hat on) but suffice to say that unless the models agree with reality then they are of no use. Even if the model agrees with historical data, then that is no guarantee that it can predict the future. We have no such models with global warming.

Environmentalists need to keep this in mind. In their attempts to bend us all to their anti-human will, they have lost all scientific interest in the truth.

You may also want to watch Mr Singer's video here.

Also just a reminder about The Great Global Warming Swindle this Sunday at 20:40 on Prime followed by what might be an interested debate, except for the fact that it includes an environmentalist on the panel (a 'global warming capaigner' no less!)

Prime this Sunday: Watch 'The Great Global Waming Swindle'

I have seen this, and it is quite good. The Great Global Warming Swindle this Sunday at 20:40 on Prime

Tell everyone about it, it's a very watchable film. The environmentalists need to understand that their claims are at best debatable.

How to Shut Down Private Schools

Socialists (or statists if you like) believe that schooling is a state job. It should be funded by the state (like everything, ideally), but more importantly it must be administered by the state. The state must decide what is taught, who it is taught to and who does the teaching.

In the state education sector, socialists have achieved all three of these aims. The result have been mixed, to say the least.

Related to this is the issue of private schools. Private schools are paid for directly by parents, many of whom struggle enormously with the fees and need to believe and see that it is worth it.Private schools must often follow the curriculum fairly slavishly, even the silly bits, in order to keep on side with the system and still get their taxpayer subsidy (some would say rebate given that the children are not in state schools). Private schools have some independence, and proudly call themselves 'Independent Schools', but they really have very little independence. With a few exceptions, most are just better state schools. The teachers care because their jobs depend on it.

Nonetheless private schools are a threat to socialists. The fact that they are widely recognised as better suggests that the state shouldn't run schools. The fact that teachers at private schools do better than at state schools suggests that it is not the teachers that are the problem, but the 'system'. It would be considerably more convenient for socialists if the private schools all shut down.

I thought it might be useful to list the techniques used to achieve that aim. These are things to watch out for in the debate:

• Since at least half of parents struggle to afford the fees, increasing the fees is one tactic. This was recently done by reducing the private school subsidy. It can also be done by introducing silly regulations which require more work of private schools, such as ministry planning documents, reporting documents and other detritus
• Telling people that private schools are crap is another way. The SST on 25 May (sorry not on web) says on the front page 'Private schools - why they may not pay' and later 'Private fees can't buy uni success'. The government's top tip to how to get a degree: Go to a state school
• Say that private schools are elitist and wrong. Try to get private school students excluded from competitions, events, games and activities. Discourage contact between private and public schools because that might result in understanding, and state school students wanting to go private
• Compare the cost in terms of the end user, never in terms of the true cost. For example, if private school fees are $10,000, but a state school charges only $20 a term for materials, and that sort-of optional, never mention the $10k taxpayer cost of the state schools
• Argue that class sizes don't matter and the bigger the better. Small classes, particularly at mixed sex schools don't allow for many friendships, for example.
• When possibly try to restrict the leeway that private schools have to innovate. For example, try to ensure that the curriculum is so full of crap (which is compulsory and can be checked) that there is no room for anything else. Argue that the building is the same, the teachers are still human so how can it possibly make any difference
• In other countries you can complain about the silly uniforms, but in NZ state schools have those too, so that won't work.

I hope the above helps. Next time you read an article on private schools, you can play 'private school bingo' and see how many of the above lines you can spot.

UPDATE: none is true

UPDATE 2: Here is a great private school

Environmentalists Ban Fish

The Press reports that fish may now become so expensive and rare that it will disappear from many people's diet.

Fisheries Minister Jim Anderton may go down in history as the man who took the fish out of fish and chips, says a fishing industry leader in response to tough new measures to protect Hector's dolphins.

The idea is that:

The measures will boost regional bans and restrictions on set-netting and lead to an increase in monitoring, including putting observers on fishing boats to more accurately record dolphin deaths.

There was a tender out a few weeks ago for some computers for the Ministry of (No) Fisheries

...25 mobile computer hardware devices each complete with separate keyboard, charging system/docking station and case to enable safe transportation of the device and associated components.
...

The devices must be small and easily transported, and someone wearing thick rubber gloves must be able to use and enter data.

That's a lot of staff, to have 25 computers. I note that the lost jobs reported is 295 and the cost to the fishing industry is $80m. With perhaps 20 inspection staff, and an annual cost of $5m or so this is a terrible transfer of people from productive to unproductive use.

Fish is already far too expensive, and as shot up hugely in the last 15 years. It used to be possible to buy cod at $6 a kg. That seems like a crazy idea now. I wonder how much of the cost has been caused by ratcheting up of these regulations.

The environmentalists are happy:

Environmentalists and tourism operators welcomed the changes.

"Overall, this is a positive step for the future of the Hector's dolphin," said Black Cat Cruises managing director Paul Bingham. "In terms of Banks Peninsula, we would have liked to have seen a set-net ban extended further out."

The industry has no choice, and it seems no compensation is to be offered by a rapacious state:

"If you're going to take away a person's livelihood you should compensate them," he said. "Some of them have been three generations fishing and never caught a dolphin. Now they're told that from October they're not allowed to fish."

It is a very poor scene that the environmentalists destroy one part of our economy after another with no public debate and no compensation. Still, as the anti-human religion, what else should we expect?

Why Do We Want Higher Power Prices?

I see the lakes are still low.

Now I have two suggestions. See which one you like best.

The first is that we ask everyone to put a bucket of water in their car and drive down to the lakes with it. Tourist buses could drop one off on the way past. If everyone in Christchurch did this once a week there would soon be no problem. Of course we would need to improve the roads.

The other solution is that we burn more coal. We have at least 2000 years of coal sitting in the ground just begging to be burnt and turned into lovely electricity. High power prices are clearly of our own making and we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Worried about Global Warming? Don't be. It's just a scam. Read this incisive article from a clear-thinking scientist.

It is scientifically interesting to ask what are the natural factors that are influencing climate?  This is a big subject about which much has been written.  Natural factors include volcanic eruptions, continental drift and mountain  building, changes  in the Earth’s orbit --- and, of course, solar variability.  Different kinds of influences operate on different time scales.  But on a time scale important for human experience.-- typically decades -- solar variability may be the most important.

If we want electricity to cost less, build more coal fire power stations. If you like it expensive, then stop your whinging and take your medicine.

Hijacking the Central City

I could go on about this for ages, so stop me when you've had enough... why does everyone go to malls now? What has happened to central Christchurch? Five years ago I clearly remember taking the kids into town, sometimes to the gardens but often just to wander around the shops and streets. Now we shop in town very very rarely.

There are two factors I can identify: parking and streets.

Parking has become quite expensive, at $2.50 per hour. We have had quite a lot of parking tickets and the thought of going into town is may now be subconsciously associated with getting a ticket. This is emphasised by the new meters which require you to get a plastic ticket every time you park

Related to this is something that can only be described as a wholesale attack on transport in Christchurch. We have seen a marked reduction in the number of parking spaces available. This has been through street closures, kerb build-outs, road narrowings and other activities. I cannot think of one example where an extra park has been created. Even the introduction of angle parking has ben offset by removing parks on the other side of the street, or further along.

It is now harder to get into town, and harder and more expensive to get a park. Still many people go there for eating out. Thinking about the past 5 times we hve been out at night, all were to restaurants near malls.

In their determination to ruin private transport, the CCC is severely damaging the life of the inner city. Of course like most daft ideas, the UK got their first. Perhaps we should follow this idea and ban parking wardens from shops.

Traders are blaming the wardens for the large number of empty premises in the town centre, accusing them of scaring away shoppers. Even a charity shop has joined the boycott after a woman was given a parking ticket as she delivered a donation.

Do We Need More Smacking?

Few parents are keen on smacking as a first resort form of punishment, but as a useful threat or for an immediate impact most parents keep it in reserve, especially for younger children.

Smacking has perhaps been banned in New Zealand. I say perhaps because there is widespread opposition to the new law (some 80% against) and therefore the law has little credibility.

Smacking is of course not child abuse. It has its role in discipline as it has for 1000s of years of parenting.

Is it just me or has the number of child abuse cases risen since the law was passed? Criminals and bullies often operate by transferring the blame for their actions to others. Could it be that these child abusers have decided that they are no longer responsible for their children, but can leave the discipline to others? Do they then get frustrated with the child and lash out?

Parenting is not easy, and it requires consistency, calmness, plenty of sleep, sufficient gin, a genuine love of children and everything they do, plus a sense of humour. Mother Theresa would not qualify. Yet many of the child abusers we see are incapable of holding down a job, incapable of organising their human relationships (constantly fighting with girlfriends, friends and family) and functioning in society only in a very limited way.

How do we expect these dropkicks to be good parents? Obviously we can't. The solution may be to accept that fact, and stop tarring the rest of us with the faults of a few. Another idea would be to stop actively funding the underclass where this sort of abuse happens. Fighting child abuse without fighting for stable two-parent families (where the siblings all have the same parents) is silly. Hansel and Gretal taught us that step-parents often care less.

Also, why are very young children or babies suffering so badly? Obviously babies can be very annoying. They get in the way of your lifestyle by waking you up in the middle of the night. Very young babies don't give a lot back, t least until 4 months or so. But do some parents see newborns as 'not real', just a thing that hasn't become a human yet? A candidate for late term abortion? Younger people are not so sentimental about children either.

There is of course no point in smacking a baby, it is just cruel and pointless since babies really have no idea about free will. I can't remember at what point children can have some control over their behaviour (that a parent must influence) but I suppose it is around 2 years of age. So smacking as discipline simply isn't a factor with the recent cases we have seen. No court would agree that smacking a 3 month old is reasonable.

Of course the other explanation for child abuse is that some people are scumbags. Perhaps we should just leave it at that. Child abuse is illegal and immoral. It was illegal and immoral before parliament's recent ideological burp. But if Sue Bradford, who promoted the law, was hoping that an attempt to criminalise smacking would fix the problem,  she has been proven wrong enough times that we should regard all further ideas from that quarter with fullsome suspicion.

The law should be repealed.

Problems

I am having problems blogging at the moment with the Typepad compose window hanging my computer...hopefully fix soon

Iraq in Danger of Being 'Won'

For some time I was worried that the US would lose its nerve over Iraq. The democrats seamed to almost be begging for defeat even if only to make Bush look stupid. Bush was waiting for progress that never came, and seemed to have no strategy for victory.

But that was before the surge. The evil parasites at Al Qaida are in trouble. They are facing defeat in Iraq. This is from a report from a sympathiser:

The author tallies up and compares the numbers of operations claimed by each insurgent group under four categories: a year and half ago (November 2006), a year ago (May 2007), six months ago (November 2007) and now (May 2008). He demonstrated that while Al-Qaeda’s Islamic State of Iraq could claim 334 operations in Nov. 06 and 292 in May 07, their violent output dropped to 25 in Nov. 07 and 16 so far in May 08. Keep in mind that these assessments are based on Al-Qaeda's own numbers. The author also shows that similar steep drops were exhibited by other jihadist groups.

The graph is pretty telling:

The surge has certainly had a remarkable effect. But where are all the American deaths that we were expecting? Wasn't it supposed to put 10s of thousands of troops in harm's way? The Democrat senate majority leader said at the time:

Frankly, I don't believe that more troops is the answer for Iraq. It's a civil war and America should not be policing a Sunni-Shia conflict. In addition, we don't have the additional forces to put in there.

Admittedly he wasn't alone. But this graph tells the story:

The Iraqi army has taken control of Basra and now Sadr City. In Mosul, the last holdout, daily attacks are down 85% since an operation begun only this month.

The idea of attracting all the blood-thirsty lunatics to Iraq and killing them there seems to be working for the moment. Bush's presidency has had mixed reports so far. Will Bush be able to claim credit for a result in Iraq? What will the democrats say, who would have given Iraq over to the terrorists two years ago.

It is starting to look extremely promising. As more and more Iraqis get a taste for the peace dividend, things can only get better.

Hat Tip: Power Line

The Price of Cheese

Speaking of Colby (as in budget), I have been meaning to comment on another site's discussion of the price of cheese.

The claim was that a 1kg of Anchor tasty cheese is AU$10.38 ($9 on special) in Australia but NZ$16.15 here, perhaps 50% higher. However the comparison was between Woolworth's (the most expensive supermarket) and an item on special in Australia.

A quick look at Countdown found it at about $13.80 ($12.36 on special) on 21/4. At current exchange this is AU$11.31, which is only a dollar more. Part of that is explained by GST of about 30 cents more. The other 70 cents can surely just be put down to the vagaries of the market.

Maybe the Polar Bears Are Angry?

Al Gore's polar bear story may be fake, but there is definitely evidence that the polar bears are angry:

In January, a zookeeper in Kyoto, Japan, was seriously injured after a polar bear attacked him. In 1987, two polar bears killed an 11-year-old boy at a New York zoo after the boy climbed into their enclosure.

Or this:

Germany's celebrity polar bear Knut has triggered a new controversy by fishing out 10 live carp from his moat and killing them in front of visitors.

There is speculation that hand-reared Knut killed the carp just for fun.

This is dreadful behaviour from a polar bear - aren't they vegetarians or something? Yes they are and this proves it:

In a bizarre twist, a polar bear reared on a totally vegetarian diet for four years has suddenly turned and devoured its own chef.

An official at the East Coast Animal Wilderness Sanctuary in Oregon released a media statement this morning after emergency services were called out to the Sanctuary last night. It stated that Windsong, a four-year-old male Polar Bear reared there since he was a few months old, had tragically and viciously consumed a Sanctuary employee, Mark Thompson.

What sparked Windsong's sudden transformation is as yet unclear. One former employee of the Sanctuary has suggested to Brainsnap that the bear may not have been as happy as it was officially portrayed. "It sulked a lot," the individual said, under the condition of anonymity. "I don't think it was too happy. And Thompson was a bit of a jerk, so I'm not really surprised to hear the news."

What is the common element here? Maybe the polar bears just don't like being photographed?

Colby Budget Perhaps, but Better Than Nothing

Michael Cullen's budget is not exactly exciting, with relatively modest tax reductions, but at least it is in the right direction. For the past 9 years Labour has increased taxes and/or refused to reduce them. Even at the last election Labour's response to National's proposed tax cuts was additional welfare payments.

But now those welfare payments (working for families) have been called 'tax cuts', in fact they have for a year or so now. This is all good, because it indicates that perhaps the government understands that it has been overtaxing the country, to the detriment of all.

Unfortunately, it is far too late for Mr Cullen to gain a lot of Browny points out of this, but at least it is a cut.

One commentator was clearly impressed:

That is one brave - as in almost reckless - Budget. And if any one doubted Labour still had the will to win the election, this should dispel it. Delivering $22 to $55 a week in tax cuts – and moving all the thresholds far beyond inflation adjustments over three years - is not even the half of it. By the time the programme is rolled out about half of all taxpayers will have at least $50 more in the hand – making John Key’s “north of $50″ aspiration less radical than it seemed. On the way Cullen has thrown down the gauntlet to National. Everyone will get a cut on October 1 – probably at least a month before they go to the polls – including an extra kick for the 500,000 superannuitants – worth $48 a fortnight for a couple.

While another was scathing:

It’s the Colby Budget. 

If 2005 was the year of the “chewing gum” tax cuts, 2008 is the Colby tax cut - roughly the equivalent of the cost of a one kilo block of cheese.

Faced with public clamour for substantial tax cuts to ease the pain at the checkout and the pump, Cullen is offering immediate relief to the average wage-earner of … wait for it … $16 a week. If you’re prepared to wait another year and a half, there’s another $6 a week in it for you.

The public didn't think much of it:

Others have pointed out that the cuts don't even make up for the bracket creep since 1999. No matter, at least they are cuts. Hopefully National will beat these numbers anyway.

The real issue may be public sector spending, which has made these tax cuts less affordable than in previous years. Let's face it, in the normal course of events, with the economy where it is, we would not be getting tax cuts. We didn't get them when things where much brighter (in terms of government surpluses) so why now? Election year, perhaps? Oddly for budget day this article was on the front page of The Press:

The country's biggest bank is preparing to release a damning report on the poor quality of government spending.

A senior ANZ National Bank official said yesterday the report was likely to cause a "feeding frenzy" and a decision had been made to wait until after today's Budget to release it in a bid to minimise the political fallout.

In terms of inflation, a much bigger worry than tax cuts is the extraordinary waste in the public sector. More money chasing less output is the definition of inflation. This has been an issue for years now, and seemingly there is still no action.

The bigger question is whether Mr Cullen and his government have 'seen the light 'about the punitive effects of tax on the economy. It isn't clear to me either way, but in any case, with perhaps only a few months left in government, the question is academic.

If Education Weren't Free, We Would Try Something Else

Our education system is pretty dodgy at the moment. Almost all the male teachers have left the profession in search of more pay and less suspicion of child molestation. At my son's school at the end of last year in deperation the (female) principal wrote to parents saying that not everyone can have a male teacher, and the female ones are good too. Parents are well aware of the benefits of a male teacher for a different world view every now and then.

Primary teachers are now making as much as secondary teachers despite what many would see as an obvious difference in the required academic rigour.

The government has recently introduced the NCEA, which is meant to stand for National Certificate of Educational Achievement, but in fact is closer to a Noddy Can't Educate Adolescents. Despite obvious flaws and flack from parents, the system is here to stay for the moment. Unit standards, the main failing, have continued with the massive numbers of tick boxes and meaningless marks.

Private school subsidies have been reduced out of spite by clueless ministers with a better background in socialism than education.

Also recently introduced is the Early Numeracy Project. This has been imported from Australia with much excitement because it promises to teach quite thick kids to do sums, and to avoid problems like adding 23 + 56 and getting 38374. The whole technique is aimed at the botom 20% of kids, but of course the average and bright kids have to do it also. The Education Department is Nazi-like in its insistence that every child must follow this new programme. One end result is that maths has slipped backwards 2-3 years so that an 8 year old is still learning to count. Another is that children who might have some chance of actually enjoying maths learn to hate it, because it moves more slowly than Fox Glacier. Of course the slow children hate it anyway so the end result is that everyone hates maths.

This is useful because many primary school teachers hate maths and can't do it, let alone teach it. Even if they can, they don't enjoy it. This is an attempt to ensure that eventually no primary school child ever learns maths (as distinct from counting). This will be one less thing the government will have to worry about in the future (citizens actually examining and understanding the budget).

An 8 year old will therefore find himself doing a very difficult reading comprehension on Global Warming or some other nonsense, and then in maths adding 18+24. There is a disconnect between the levels in English and Maths that is very hard on a child's brain :-) Many of the more interesting or applied maths (such as tessalations, different types of graphing, spreadsheets or surveys) are lost due to lack of time.

It is getting to the point in New Zealand where parents have to look seriously at the benefits of entrusting their child's education to outside forces. Private schools are bursting at the seams despite the cost increases as desperate parents try to place their frustrated and consequently unmanageable children into a better environment. Sadly most private schools follow the New Zealand curriculum to the letter.

I wonder whether things are now so bad that the New Zealand Education Department cannot be trusted to maintain a curriculum. Perhaps it is time for New Zealand to just follow along with the Australian system, or perhaps the Cambridge exams. We could toss in a bit of Maori and local geography every now and then for parents who think it important.

It would be a major loss of cultural indoctrination, but we are raising a generation of losers. Something needs to give in NZ education, and smartly.

Is New Zealand in Crisis?

[Please don't read this if you are on medication for depression] It seems to be that in recent times the right only gets anywhere in New Zealand when the populace has not alternative. If there is any possible way to continue with a left government, then we will will, otherwise we will reluctantly accept a right wing government. In short, we are no good at taking our medicine.

At the moment the right is apparently getting the votes. However, it is still a long way from the election, so that might change. Also National is hardly right wing. If it ever was it certainly isn't now, with government ownship of an airline, power companies, a rail system, a coal company and many other things apparently completely consistent with National's 'right' world view. Thirdly, we have yet to see the response from Labour. In my view they have a lot more mud to throw, if they can just keep the tide of scandals stemmed for 3-4 weeks in a row.

But the question remains: is New Zealand in crisis? Has the left brought the country to its kness so that people see no alternative to sadly vote against eveything they learned in school?

I don't think so. Firstly, while we are definitely falling behind the rest of the world, we have been for decades, so this is nothing new. Secondly the gradual decay of New Zealand society is matched in many other countries, particularly in the UK so we are not special. Thirdly the government itself is not to blame for many of our ills.

On the other hand, things could be a lot worse. They may still get a lot worse. If the dollar were to fall to US$0.40 as it was for some years when Labour got into power, our petrol would rise to around $3 a litre (assuming no further increase in the excise taxes). Our imports would double in price and poor people would feel desperately poor. Worse, staple dairy food items like milk and cheese would nearly double in price, and many other items such as bread would go up significantly. Now that would be a serious meltdown. Of course our famers would be very happy with that situation, and their comparative wealth would become more and more obvious to the rest of us.

The root cause of the higher cost of housing (or more correctly building land) has never been addressed. The current relief in prices, such as it is, is largely a result of everyone leaving. If they started to head back, then we would be in fresh trouble. Even now, section prices are at least double and probably 4x what they should be.

We have had a decade of wonderful growth, but unfortunately we have not taken advantage of it. We have used this undeserved and lucky dividend to increase the government's share of the economy, promote regulatory compliance jobs in the private sector, drive productive workers out of the country and fiddle around fighting big battles with unimportant legislation. We are going to have to pay for that mistake.

On the positive side, I can't see food prices dropping in a hurry, with all those hungry Chinese and Indians getting richers all the time. Our farmers may once again take over the economy. We will be pleased we didn't grind them into the dust with irrigation bans, a fart tax and the ETS.

What exactly is National going to do? They are not saying. But with the bonanza looking like being over, a pessimistic view is that they will be left to pick up the pieces and make the best of our more meagre circumstances. Should National pull something out of the bag and make us again a proud nation, then we will of course thank them by voting them out. Silly really.

So are we in crisis? Economically, not really, not yet. In other ways, yes, we are lost.

Labour the Cornered Rat

Thing are not looking good for Labour with the latest poll showing them on 29% with National at 56%.

 

Govt faces slaughter at election

   

Labour is facing electoral annihilation, the latest Fairfax Media poll shows, with the party recording its poorest result since it won power in 1999.

In a severe blow to the Government's morale before next week's Budget, the Nielsen poll conducted for The Press and other Fairfax titles shows National opening a gap of 27 points over Labour, the widest of any poll since before Labour took office.

If an election were held today, the Government would be swept from office in a landslide, losing 14 of its 49 seats, while National would win an additional 20 seats to form one of the largest majority governments in modern political times, with 68 seats.

The question everyone is asking is 'What will Labour Do?' I very much doubt that this poll is too much of a surprise to Labour (although a disappointment obviously), and anyway it is only a single poll. So here are my thoughts.

Firstly, Labour needs to bring on side a new constituency. They already have the welfare vote, the teachers, journalists, academics and unionists. This is a good base. They purchased the student vote at the last election. They have spent quite a bit of money buying the small business vote through grants and their impressive free trade efforts, although this may not have been 100% successful. Working people with children have had a sort of tax cut through Working for Families, although it was done through welfare so probably didn't win as many converts as it might have.

Realistically Labour has little more to gain in these areas - it just needs to write to these people every few weeks reminding them how well they have done under Labour. Techies could possibly be bought off with $2-3bn investment in broadband Internet.

Apart from gimmicks like a $1000 cash grant the other big opportunity is (sadly) environmentalism. National is busy trying to be green, and Labour could probably present all sorts of dodgy environmental schemes and get away with it. Here are some thoughts:

• Present the election as 'Vote Labour or the Earth gets it'
• Start feeding all sorts of doom and gloom environment PR to the paper. The easiest thing would be to just hire the Greens' PR department
• Bring Al Gore out here to do a free government-funded Earth concert with Bono in all major centres. Put Helen Clark on the stage with Al and Bono
• Announce that the Kyoto 2 conference will be held in Auckland (it doesn't have to be true)
• Introduce 50% government subsidies for hybrid cars, solar power, wind power, ant farms, etc.
• Shut down Solid Energy entirely (they did it with the West Coast logging, why not mining?)
• Announce massive new train investment (e.g. $5bn) with fancy coloured lines drawn over all major cities
• Create a new ministry for water quality, which goes around testing water, fining unpopular people who polute, and doing lots of PR
• Get George Bush to condemn New Zealand's Labour government. Possibly it could be done unofficially with an impersonator - even if not true it may have a significant effect
• Announce a doubling of funding for the Police
• Remove all petrol excise tax, on the basis that the above measures will have more impact anyway. $1 petrol would buy a lot of votes

Now I get to see if I am right about any of the above...

Economic Classes - in NZ?

I enjoyed this exchange at The Standard:

Rocket Boy

May 14, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Steve it is interesting that you see politics in such black and white dimensions; National is for the bosses and Labour is for the workers.

You would probably get on well with a certain George W, he sees the world as divided into ‘good’ and ‘evil’.

Trouble with your views Steve is that I’m a boss, I own a business, I employ people yet have voted Labour for the last couple of elections, how does that fit your ‘National is for the bosses’ view?

Steve Pierson

May 14, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Rocketboy:

I’m obviously presenting a simplified analysis of a complicated picture because these are blog posts not theses.

We must be thankful for small mercies.
 

If you’re a boss and you vote Left that’s awesome, I know there are many who do because they see a wider, longer-term interest in a society with decent public service and decent wages. Your short-term economic interests are best met by voting National (tax cuts) but you see the wider picture. Good on you, me too.

Or he might just be dopey. We certainly have a large public service, but I'm not sure it is decent. Wages are not something this government should be crowing about. We are dropping further and further behind Australia, let alone catching up with the USA.

There are many people who are high earning themselves but still have a social conscience and vote Left.

Sadly it seems true that the only people who vote left these days are those on high enough incomes that they haven't been nailed to the wall by government taxes and the rising cost of living.

There are many people on low incomes who vote Right because of conservative ‘values’ when their economic interests are best served by voting Left.

This is at best debatable on both points. Those on low incomes are seldom served by high taxes and a unionised economy.

When voting, the economic classes aren’t cleanly split because of a whole range of factors but the power bases are different and divided and the parties do act in the interests of those bases.

What economic classes? What bases? This takes a very us versus them approach to things. We are all in this together. If you and your mates get together and strike for higher pay, without increasing your productivity, then that money has to come from somewhere. It comes from other people who must pay more for whatever your company produces, and from the people your company has to lay off due to the higher pay bill.

While you may get short term gain, it is no way to run an economy. Eventually everyone is so busy screwing everyone else that economic collapses. Something about a free lunch should go here.

Rio Tinto versus The Standard

I may have mentioned that the environmentalists at The Standard are upset with Rio Tinto. They wrote quite a vicious post about their recent indication that its smelter will close if the ETS is brought it.

I'm sure the smelter is not the only thing that will close. Apparently, farming and living will follow soon after.

Try as I might I can't quite get my head around the masses of misconceptions and oddities in the post. I will try to interpret and disect:

Multi-national minerals company Rio Tinto is threatening to close its Tiwai Point aluminium smelter in Bluff and move its production offshore if the Emissions Trading Scheme is enacted because they say it will increase power prices.

'Multinational' is code for 'hate me' and minerals is a long word for mining, which also means 'hate me'.

This is not the first time Rio Tinto has held New Zealand to ransom using the threat of closing this economic powerhouse of Southland.

Nor will it be the last. Threat of closure is about the only weapon a dying company has against a rapacious state.

In fact, pretty much every year Rio Tinto threatens to pull the plug over something, whether it be power prices (Tiwai Point uses 13% of New Zealand’s electricity and gets it at a massively discounted secret price)

I doubt it would be reasonable for it to pay full retail price, given that it consumes 13% of New Zealand's electricity. If my house used that my I would be looking for a pretty serious discount too.

its desire to buy Manapouri power station, (which supplies Tiwai Point with power)

No doubt to create some certainty for its future.

or tax rates (the 10% drop in the corporate rate that came on April 1 is already forgotten).

The tax rate drop from 33% to 30%, not to 23%. It hardly registered with anyone.

Rio Tinto is making record profits as the world price for alumina sours - profits in the last four years total nearly $500 million - but it knows the Government can’t afford to let a factory that, directly and indirectly, employs 3000 people and brings around $500 million to the economy annually to close. So it keeps on demanding more.

It isn't demanding anything. What on earth are you on about? It is the government that is demanding things. Rio Tinto just wants to keep things as they are please, so they can carry on with their business.

What is wrong with profits, anyway? Isn't that how they pay the bills and expand? What sort of a company would it be if it made record losses? I'll tell you: a crap one.

This is a greedy, heartless company, that always wants more, and has a record of doing what it takes to get it.

As opposed to the New Zealand government, which has reduced taxes dramatically in the past few years and has a record of listening when people protest about its anti-smacking and electoral finance ideas.

Companies don't have hearts, you are getting confused with humans, Why should they? Companies exist to organise resources in the most efficient way to make profits for their shareholders.

In New Zealand, they exploited National’s Employment Contracts Act to break the workers’ union.

That would also have had a number of benefits, and it isn't clear why workers at one particular company should be better off than others.

They are implicated in human rights violations across the globe including the support of apartheid, have illegally mined uranium in Namibia and their “security services” have engaged in mercenary work in support of dictatorships. The company started the Bougainville conflict when it used its political muscle in Australia and Papua New Guinea to get the right to dig the world’s biggest hole, the Panguna copper mine, on Bougainville. Locals objected to the rape of their land by Rio Tinto, others wanted the gold for themselves. A civil war ignited that cost 30,000 lives. Rio Tinto made hundreds of millions and moved on.

If Rio Tinto can get gold out of a copper mine, then it's no wonder The Standard is so jealous. Still, why didn't the locals dig it up earlier? Perhaps they didn't have the capital? Perhaps they didn't know is was there and it took a large multinational with pots of cash to find it? Who knows. I can't imagine Rio Tinto being happy about operating in the midst of a civil war.

There is surely no suggestion that Rio Tinto aims to start a civil war in Bluff? Is Rio Tinto a necessary precondition for a civil war? Which side was Rio Tinto on anyway?

What Rio Tinto is trying now over the ETS is a classic example of capital holding democracy over the barrel.

The ETS is not a democratic idea. It is being forced on us by a bunch of environmentalists. If Rio Tinto is on our side, then good on them.

Capital is international; it can leave a country if it wants.

Said through gritted teeth - perhaps that could be changed also with a suitable law?

Democracy is limited to competing nation-states that only have limited cooperation.

I think this is a plea for a single world government. Let's hope it never happens.

So, if a country’s people want better wages, or taxes to pay for social services, or to reduce greenhouse gases and big business doesn’t like it, they can threaten that country’s government with a capital strike: ‘play by our rules or we leave, and you lose jobs’.

But in this case the people don't want the ETS. It is in fact an economic disaster which threatens to take our economy apart piece by piece within 10 years. Nor do we want higher taxes, they are far too high already. As for greenhouse gases, I believe Rio Tinto runs on hydro. But only environmentalists believe all that global warming muck anyway.

What is the intent of this paragraph? That shareholders should not be able to seek the best investments available in the world? That governments should nationalise everything? It isn't clear at all.

Well, I say Rio Tinto should f... off.

Well then, the ETS is a policy just made for you. Implement it quickly and Rio Tinto will do as you bid.

This is our country and we will make the rules here,

Actually it's not entirely clear who is behind the ETS. I haven't met anyone who wants it who isn't an environmentalist. If I were making the rules I would melt the ETS in the smelter.

not some soulless multi-national that is only out for itself.

Only humans have souls. It would be an odd multi-national what was more interested in the affairs of others than its own. I suspect the shareholders would replace the board fairly quickly.

Rio Tinto can withdraw their capital but there will still be a state of the art smelter and trained workforce in Bluff.

Assuming they don't all head off also. Australia has some good smelters.

The smelter can be brought into public ownership and run by New Zealand, with the profits staying in New Zealand.

So it is going to be nationalised! Lovely. I know of no surer way to ensure that the smelter never makes another evil profit in its life.

The profits are a tiny part of the turnover, maybe 15%, of which 30% tax would be 3/5 of 'stuff all'. Much larger is the wage bill, and the government gets about 35% of the wage bill before it hits the ground.

It is hard to describe The Standard's post as anything but menacing and nasty. I can only hope and pray that these people don't have any control in the government or our economy is in serious trouble.

Listen, Do You Want to Know a Secret?

(Hat tip: an alert reader)

If you spend $200k on a car then you obviously are not worried about the environment. The price of the car gives you some idea of the enormous environmental damage* wreaked with each one that comes off the production line.

How do I know this? Well it's simple. The price of something reflects in large part the amount of effort and energy which went into its creation, whether that be manpower (and therefore running all the households whose income comes from those employees) or machines (the energy) or raw materials or anything else.

If a car costs $200k then it is a fair bet that the environment damage* is about five times that of a $40k car. All of which leads me to the point that Paul McCartney should worry not about the method by which his 2 tonne monster Lexus arrived (incidentally it was by jet airplane) but more about the car itself.

Because let's face it, a hybrid car that costs $200k is really just a fashion statement or a marketing angle. There is simply no environmental kindness* going on here at all.

Being an intelligent fellow who has lived a good and extraordinary life, one might hope that Mr McCartney would not be a worshiper at the church of environmentalism. Sadly, one would be wrong:

"But he was horrified after learning it was delivered by plane. Paul has always campaigned for green issues and he can't understand why anyone would send an enormous car from Japan to Britain on a plane. "

Possibly to get it there quickly?

* Of course a Lexus causes no environmental damage at all. It just uses energy and materials like everything else. In the real world this is not 'damage'. It is called 'production'.

What Happened to Michael Moore?

I was looking through a bookshelf the other day and came across his book 'Stupid White Men'. Michael Moore has vanished off the radar for some reason and I wondered what happened.

Well, he still has a web site. But now it has an American flag on it. In fact, almost unique on the web, his favicon is an American flag also. Strange behaviour for someone who has been so critical of his country.

Noting that pro-USA Mark Steyn from Canada has moved to the USA and that Mr Moore loves Canada a lot more than the USA, I thought perhaps Mr Moore may have moved. But no, apparently he still lives in New York to be close to his fans.

Mr Moore still has a web site. He has also made a new movie called 'Sicko' - you can see the trailer here. It seems to be a cry for nationalised health in the USA, something else that Canada has. He still wants the troupes home from Iraq and goes on about the (to me) small number of deaths there. But basically he is just a platform for America's many critics, whom he uses to power his publicity windmill. This is typical:

Sharp increases in food prices have generated a new wave of anti-occupation and anti-U.S. sentiment in Fallujah. "This is a country that was damned by the Americans the moment they stepped on our soil," Burhan Jassim, a farmer from Sichir village just outside Fallujah told IPS.

So why has Mr Moore vanished from the blogs and faded from traditional media? Perhaps it is just that his political message isn't hitting peoples' buttons any more. Like Al Gore, he has had to defend many inaccuracies in his movies and a broader charge of peddling opinion as documentary. He has also been accused of being anti-American (hence the flag). It's tough being at the whim of public opinion, particularly when you fade.

But Mr Moore has at least inspired some competition. A movie called Indoctrinate-U has been compared to Mr Moore's work. Evan Coyne Maloney has been called the un-Michael Moore (hat tip: Power Line). Perhaps that will be his contribution to the world.

But finally, a quiz: which one of these people is Bruce Springsteen?

Put the Environmentalists in the Smelter

What lunacy brings us to this point where a major newspaper admits:

At some point, it is highly likely that the Tiwai Pt aluminium smelter will close and Southland will have to deal with the hundreds of job losses.

It is now a common opinion that the smelter uses too much electricity which could be given to households. It is widely expressed that if only the smelter (which uses about 13% of our electricity) were shut down, then we wouldn't need to build any more power stations. It is further suggested that it is not in keeping with our green image, and as an industry, we don't need it.

Let me provide a little wake up call here:

1. It provides $1b in export earnings and employs about 1000 people directly, representing about 20% of the Southland economy
2. We are not exactly a rich country, the plant is built and paid for, it is earning money, and we need all the money we can get
3. We use a lot of aluminium windows (although of course we could import it)
4. With the growth in household energy use, that 13% isn't going to go very far
5. Our green image is a load of cobblers anyway, given our dependence on farming / dairy

If anyone doubts that household energy use will grow, consider this:

• Many older people still don't heat their homes properly, but younger people demand and expect it, and are willing to pay the price. The younger people will see electricity demand for heating increase
• Electricity is the only way to cool - A/C units are becoming more and more popular
• Electronic gadgets aren't exactly getting less popular

There are also other things worth pointing out.

Electric cars (if they take off) could introduce a huge load on our power generation. Transport uses about 200 PJ of energy versus 40 PJ for residential electricity. Were we to use electric cars for 25% of transport, that would roughly double our electricity requirements.

The environmentalists show their ignorance of the market:

Greens co-leader Jeanette Fitzsimons asked why the emissions trading scheme (ETS) should affect the price the smelter paid for electricity - its largest cost - when its supplier Meridian generated exclusively from renewable sources and so faced no price of carbon. Rio Tinto's regulatory affairs manager Ray Deacon said the contract included an escalator clause which linked the power price the smelter paid to the price of electricity on the wholesale market.

In other words, hydro power is the same price as coal power. Power is power, after all.

Gary Taylor of the Environmental Defence Society said industry always had an incentive to overstate the costs of a policy such as the ETS and to pass those costs to someone else - in this case the taxpayer and the future.

Mr Taylor might consider that costs are never paid for by businesses. Of course they pass them on. Ultimately the consumer foots the bill as the consumer is by definition the ultimate consumer of everything in an economy. That is why households are called consumers. The costs of this sort of regulation are borne by consumers, unless by some miracle our business shareholder suddenly decide that getting a return on their capital is no longer of any interest.

As to passing costs onto the taxpayer: it isn't clear what these 'costs' are, unless they are a tax. So Mr Taylor is saying that we shouldn't pass these taxes onto the taxpayer, or the taxpayers shouldn't have to pay the tax. Even for an environmentalist, this is remarkably muddled thinking.

As to passing costs onto the future. Does Mr Taylor think that the taxes should be paid later? I'm all for that, but even better would be to not pay them at all.

The Herald argues that concessions are vital to keep the smelter.But:

It would be easy to regard Rio Tinto's threat as pure gamesmanship, a bald attempt to minimise its emissions costs.

In other words, let's call their bluff.This reminded me strongly of 'Atlas Shrugged'. And wouldn't you know it, but Not PC has the same thought and puts it very eloquently so no more about that here. With reference to the point at which Rio Tinto will decide to call it a day:

There's just no way a central government planner or treasury mandarin can predict that point even for one producer, let alone a whole country's worth (although the government makes their job easier by actively trying to reduce the number of producers able to stay in business in this country) and there's no way at all they can predict the knock-on effects of all these individual tipping points.

The Standard is on the wrong side of the debate. At the moment I don't have the energy to wade through their misconceptions and confusions, except to note their remarkable ability to cram so many into quite short paragraphs where others would need more space. I'm not sure whether this is the sign of the uncanny and masterful blatherings of a lunatic mind, or just a total inability to do maths. I will study more posts and let you know.

Anyway I'd argue that it is better to scrap the ETS than the smelter. Better still, pile all the environmentalists into the smelter, melt them down to green ooze, and export it to Fiji. It will save us all a lot of trouble.

Environmentalism as a Religion

For reasons that I can't remember (apart from that I like stirring) I got into a conversation the other night with 4 people across the table at the pub. Three of these were environmentalists and one was definitely on the border of becoming one.

The question I asked, after much discussion, was this:

If I were to make a bet with you that global warming is a scam, how long would we need to wait until the bet was decided either way?

I was floored by the answer I got from one person: 2200. Yes that's 200 years away, not 20.

In other words, only if there is no warming for the next 200 years would the particular environmentalist be persuaded that the game was up. If the health of religion is measured by the strength of its faith, then this is an amazingly strong religion. The Jehovah's Witnesses have been widely mocked for claiming the end of the world for 100 years.

I think we may need to accept that not only is environmentalism a religion, but it may have a stronger store of blind faith than any other major religion. This is a remarkable achievement for the environmentalists: to recruit much of the first world to new religion in less than a decade, and set things up so that nothing can cause them to quit in their lifetimes.

Ubuntu for your Computer

A new Ubuntu has been released called Hardy Heron - if you're sick of virus protection software and want to give it a go, now's your chance.

Lifehacker has some thoughts. For me, it seems to work well.

Scientists Beware: If you Value your Jobs, Keep going to Church!

An ominous message from 5 New Zealand scientists the other day:

The Heartland Institute has named five New Zealanders in a list of 500 scientists whose published research is alleged to undermine support for the idea that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities, largely fossil fuel burning, is warming the globe.
...
The scientists fully endorse the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as to global warming and its causes. Much of their work has been concerned with climate change over many thousands of years, which, while supporting the idea that climates have fluctuated in the past and have at times been warmer than now, does not in any way weaken the conclusions reached by the IPCC about recent changes.

Presumably research grants are threatened. Faced with this, the scientists must of course issue an apology or a clarification, lest they be excommunicated. I only hope that their actions are enough to persuade the environmentalists of their continuing faith, otherwise there will be 5 more unemployed scientists in New Zealand soon.

How Should we Prepare for the End of the World?

Let's imagine that we are believe in a new religion, one of those ones that believes that the end of the world is nigh, and we must all repent quickly. Let's call the religion Caleoism. Let's say that Caleoism tells us that the end of the world will be 1/1/15.

Let's imagine further that Caleoism tells us that we need to:

• Stop travelling because God has trouble keeping track of us when we move around
• Stop generating and using electricity because God thinks it is dangerous
• Stop messing with nature (digging holes, cutting down trees, etc.) because God owns it
• Stop trading with non-Caleoists including companies not blessed by the Caleoist Pope
• Stop buying goods made in a different city because of the travelling involved

I want to you imagine that the above beliefs are widely held almost as commandments in Caleoism, and that:

• 10% of people are involved in Caleoism as priests or lay preachers
• 5% of people believe fervently in Caleoism and will attack those who don't believe, or break a commandment
• 10% of people think that Caleoism is an evil religion that will destroy mankind
• 75% believe in Caleoism (having recently converted) but take the occasional 'faith shortcut';

What would this world look like? Compare and contrast with our own. What would happen on the 2nd of January 2015 when the world is still in existence?

The Case for Private School Subsidy

Liz Gordon describes private school subsidies, shamefully reduced by the government, as funding the privileged.

She makes the following points, which I deal with one at a time:

• Yes private school parents save taxpayer funds, but they do this by choice, so stuff them

From a moral point of view this is wrong. If parents are willing to take a load of the system, then the government should refund at least part of this cost, from a moral obligation point of view.

From an economics point of view this is also wrong. Giving a $7000 subsidy to save $8000 makes economic sense for any government [these numbers are made up]. In fact, put this way, the government should try to get all children into private school, and cut taxes by $1000 per child.

From an access / fairness point of view it is also wrong. As private schools are becoming unaffordable, only the rich can gain access to the best schools in the country. A subsidy would help redress the balance.

• Private school parents have no disability, so shouldn't be funded. Gordon herself was funded as a child, but her parents were nutters so that's ok

It depends on your definition of disability. Many children have learning problems. Money is no guarantee of a child's ability. I have seen no study which shows that rich people are clever and poor people are stupid. Many people with children in private schools end up there because it is the only place their children can get the help they need, despite the financial hardship this causes.

• There are no subsidies to send 'needy' children to private schools

This is false. Many private schools offer scholarships and bursaries aimed at poor people's children.

• Some state schools have boarding options, so no excuse just because you live in the sticks

I didn't know that. I'm sure it will help in a few cases and I'm please to hear about state schools offering this.

• Private schools are not better. If they get better results it is just because their children are privileged

That depends on the school. In my experience, private schools which are not in the 'very good' category are not popular, and suffer a declining role. Fee-paying parents can be pretty demanding, a bit like fee-paying university students, actually.

From an economic point of view it is clear that private schools must offer something. Who would pay $10k a year to send a child there if there were no benefit?

• People seek out private schools because they seek wealth, power and exclusivity

I'm sure some do. I'm not sure what the point is here. Are we trying to keep people poor, week and common?

• Yes private school parents save taxpayer funds, but they do this by choice, so stuff them

(this point repeated for some reason, I dealt with it above)

• We should instead try to educate the disabled ,refugees, etc.

I think we already do that. Or is Liz Gordon suggesting we send them to private schools?

I would also make the point that we need special help for children at both ends of the scale. Very clever children often have problems which prevent them from learning to their ability. Economically speaking these children give us the best bang for our buck, as they may be the next Angus Tait or Theresa Gattung, if only they learn to read and write.

 

Liz Gordon would be on much firmer ground if she developed her theme around educating the disabled and needy. It is a shame that only 4% of children attend a private school (her figures, which I haven't checked). The number should be much higher, and we need a much more diverse school sector so parents get a lot more choice.

Every child is different and one state-provided size does not fit all. The crazy thing about Liz's article is that she says:

[about her private school attendance instead of going off to a children's home] It was, I am sure, a life-changing decision for us

Good on you Liz, lucky you. Now how about giving a few more people a chance. Let's lift the private school subsidy to 100% of state sector cost.