Who will win the 2011 election?

[rainman]

The discussion is slightly wrong-footed in that most posts imply a full sale. 49% is less than half, we retain ownership and control at 51%.

Not at all, and I've already explained why selling 49% is a particularly dumb idea.

...more revenue can be applied to public needs.

Like poorly conceived tax cuts?

The returns to NZ are employment, engineering, contract support services, tax on those wages, and at the end - 51% of profit.

Eh? We have those things already. Except for the profit - we have 100% of that. How does selling half of our assets gain us more employment?

Industries contribute much more to the community than the final bottom line for the owners.

Yeah, so maybe we shouldn't be selling them then.

The point of having the assets here? They produce electricity for New Zealanders to use. And they remain here for future generations to take back or whatever they choose.

You're either really dumb or being a bit disingenuous. Of course the assets stay here. However the returns do not. And future generations can't "take them back" unless we have a socialist revolution and nationalise everything. Future generations in fact have a large handicap of having to buy them back. Which, you may notice, hasn't so much happened with the ones we sold in the 80s. You know, those asset sales that weren't a silver bullet back then either.

Technology changed that quickly.

Of course there can be technological change (although I note many of my customers still demand and use faxes). But that's a long way from "there will be technological change, in the time we need, and at the scale we need, in order to continue our present standard of living, let alone growth"

Our government does not own or subsidise petrol stations, yet we'd all agree petrol is essential. By the same token micro generation does not need to be owned or subsidised by govt. As I mentioned earlier, a solar-power house paint has been invented.

Well, we did own a refinery before we flogged it to the petrol companies. How's that working out for ya?

And yes, micro-generation does not have to be subsidised by government (and almost by definition wouldn't be owned by them), yet adoption is unlikely to be rapid enough if the incentives aren't optimal. Without incentives, a market is usually inert.

Can I buy some of this solar house paint today? Is it cost-effective to run my house on? What would I need to spend on hooking it up to my grid-supplied house to still run the oven, fridge and hot-water cylinder? Thought so.

BTW solar PV is a pretty poor technology for harnessing solar energy, particularly in NZ.

We're also lucky in getting a good feed in tarrif.

So when you say "Westie", you don't mean Ranui?

Sell liabilities outright and keep 51% controlling share of assets, what's the problem with that!

No problem at all. Keep the good assets, fix those that need fixing, sell those that really need selling and buy some more good ones. And at all times make sure you keep those that are natural monopolies. Like I said, no problem having a well managed portfolio of SOEs. Problem is that isn't what's on offer, come November.

[shrub]

That 'cause its them (the Greens)that have them really worried....and if enough people vote for 'em , then they'll have to include them...
But I bet both the Labs & the Nats would enter into a grand coalition to make sure that that didnt happen.
My prediction is that the Greens will get over 10% of the votes this time around & mark my words we'll see them doing deals with Winston & Hone before they'd work with the Greens.

I hope so. The thinking minority are increasingly disenchanted with the flaccid and flawed policies espoused by the two big catch-all parties and looking for alternatives. Act offer nothing new or of any interest unless you're like Quasi (which excludes you from the thinking minority), Winston First are much the same and Peter Dunne and Jim Anderton are anomalies at best. The Green policies are remarkably sensible and forward thinking and I believe genuinely offer us a future. They will never be the biggest party, but if they have a dozen or so seats they will have sufficient influence to shift the agenda.

Their biggest problem is that too many people have listened to their mate Wayne down at the pub with the grouse ute and the hot missus or the various political parties and make a value judgement without actually reading their policies and looking at their track record.

[shrub]

No problem at all. Keep the good assets, fix those that need fixing, sell those that really need selling and buy some more good ones. And at all times make sure you keep those that are natural monopolies. Like I said, no problem having a well managed portfolio of SOEs. Problem is that isn't what's on offer, come November.

Everywhere in the world the successful economies are those with governments that own assets and control infrastructure. They're also the ones with (generally) higher taxes, yet we are completely wedded to an ideology that has never worked and almost certainly never will.

Early next year I will have completed my studies and I am already talking to potential employers overseas offering heaps more than I can earn here in countries that have a future. Come November I will make my decision because another 3 years of this National will do no good and if Act gets back and has ANY influence we are potentially facing problems that will be unfixable.

[oldrider]

I hope so. The thinking minority are increasingly disenchanted with the flaccid and flawed policies espoused by the two big catch-all parties and looking for alternatives.

We are on the same page up to there but your belief that the Greens will provide something different and "better" is delusional, IMHO but to each his own I guess.

All of the parties on serious offer in NZ are IMO just versions of each other and stand for "government monopoly"!

What this country needs most is "less" government and "monetary reform".

The last party to offer this was "Social Credit" lead by Vernon Cracknell and Bruce Beatham.

[shrub]

What this country needs most is "less" government and "monetary reform".

Interesting position, but I am curious as to what benefits less government has, assuming you mean lower involvement of the legislature in society. I agree that we need to engage in monetary reform but I am interested to know what those reforms should be.

[Oscar]

We are on the same page up to there but your belief that the Greens will provide something different and "better" is delusional, IMHO but to each his own I guess.

All of the parties on serious offer in NZ are IMO just versions of each other and stand for "government monopoly"!

What this country needs most is "less" government and "monetary reform".

The last party to offer this was "Social Credit" lead by Vernon Cracknell and Bruce Beatham.

For example?
This country has less govt. and a freer market than almost any other in the OECD.
And mentioning Social redit in the same sentence as less govt. is a wee bit silly...

[SPman]

So when you say "Westie", you don't mean Ranui?

Bit further west than that....about 5000km.....used to be a "Shore boy"

This call for "less Government" is always a bit of a problem. By "less Government", do you mean less interference in peoples lives.....petty rules, regulations, policing, more privacy, etc, a low key Government which functions quietly and efficiently in the background, providing society with a solid base, which seems reasonable to me, or, what seems to be meant in corporate circles (and those who would aspire to such) - less tax (on them), less regulatory controls (like none), less health care, less public education, less infrastructure, less social services and more military, surveillance, security controls, etc etc - i.e. - more free reign for them to do what they want, when they want, and screw anyone, when & how they want as long as they gain more money and power?

[oldrider]

This call for "less Government" is always a bit of a problem. By "less Government", do you mean less interference in peoples lives.....petty rules, regulations, policing, more privacy, etc, a low key Government which functions quietly and efficiently in the background, providing society with a solid base, which seems reasonable to me,

Absolutely but with less of them so it gets it done properly and with more real accountability if they don't!

(spend any money saved on more "essential" issues like for instance!)

[rainman]

with less of them so it gets it done properly and with more real accountability if they don't!

Isn't that exactly the wrong way around though? Too few people mean rushed jobs, limited oversight, and poor quality. Holding people to account also needs processes and management, otherwise it doesn't happen. Of course too many just add cost with limited value, so just like any business you have to get to the right Goldilocks level.

I'd submit that it's nigh on impossible to know what that level is unless you're in the particular enterprise and do a bit of real analysis. Therefore all those who scream for less government, or for that matter reflexively defend more, are simply ideologues who can safely be ignored.

Undoubtedly SOME government is inefficient, but most government deals with complexity and conflicting outcomes and drivers that would leave your average widget-shipper feeling utterly bewildered.

[Winston001]

Everywhere in the world the successful economies are those with governments that own assets and control infrastructure. They're also the ones with (generally) higher taxes, yet we are completely wedded to an ideology that has never worked and almost certainly never will.

Mmm...a quick check of tax as a percentage of GDP (ie. low tax nations) with reasonable infrastructure reveals:

Switzerland
United Arab Emirates
Kuwait
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Hong Kong
Singapore
Iran
etc...

Which suggests that economic success is as much a result of being lucky rather than any political plan. Either oil or strategic position.

[shrub]

Mmm...a quick check of tax as a percentage of GDP (ie. low tax nations) with reasonable infrastructure reveals:

Switzerland
United Arab Emirates
Kuwait
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Hong Kong
Singapore
Iran
etc...

Which suggests that economic success is as much a result of being lucky rather than any political plan. Either oil or strategic position.

Or low tax works best if you have oil? And interesting that apart from Switzerland (and to a lesser extent Singapore) all of these nations are totalitarian regimes with huge wealth disparity and massive corruption.

[Winston001]

...explained why selling 49% is a particularly dumb idea.



Like poorly conceived tax cuts?



You're either really dumb or being a bit disingenuous.

And you expect an intelligent considered discourse??

[Winston001]

Or low tax works best if you have oil? And interesting... all of these nations are totalitarian regimes with huge wealth disparity and massive corruption.

But bloody good roads!! You did specify government assets and infrastructure as a signatures of successful economies.

It just happens they are low tax as well.

[oldrider]

Isn't that exactly the wrong way around though? Too few people mean rushed jobs, limited oversight, and poor quality. Holding people to account also needs processes and management, otherwise it doesn't happen. Of course too many just add cost with limited value, so just like any business you have to get to the right Goldilocks level.

I'd submit that it's nigh on impossible to know what that level is unless you're in the particular enterprise and do a bit of real analysis. Therefore all those who scream for less government, or for that matter reflexively defend more, are simply ideologues who can safely be ignored.

1) Not too few people, just the right number of truly "empowered" people fully informed and driving the project according to their own agreed accounts and objectives.

They set the size of the team required and employ contractors etc to handle the peaks and overflows!

We humans spend a third (+) of our lives working, why be unhappy while you are there FFS! Enjoy it!

Happy, interested, informed, and "included" workers work best!

Don't wait be asked, demand to be included and then do as you expect to be done to!

2) They should just keep working at reducing the government team and clean up and minimise the requirements for their act!

3) I make no apology if I appear to be an "ideologue" as you put it, I just know it can be so much better than it is!

IMHO, The employment contracts act gave NZ a great opportunity to build great manager employee relationships and improve workplace satisfaction!

Unfortunately NZ managers and employees failed to make it work because they just don't have the nous or ability to see the wood for the trees and wasted the opportunity!

Unfortunately (again IMHO) NZ is devoid of quality leaders and managers so the workforce will continue to be subjected to the same old same old for a long time yet!

I don't see anybody in our political offering that can even attempt to lead the country out of this regressive dumb and dumber decline we appear to be in!

[shrub]

1) Not too few people, just the right number of truly "empowered" people fully informed and driving the project according to their own agreed accounts and objectives.

They set the size of the team required and employ contractors etc to handle the peaks and overflows!

We humans spend a third (+) of our lives working, why be unhappy while you are there FFS! Enjoy it!

Happy, interested, informed, and "included" workers work best!

Don't wait be asked, demand to be included and then do as you expect to be done to!

1) They should just keep working at reducing the government team and clean up and minimise the requirements for their act!

I don't agree. I know a few quite senior civil servants including an inlaw who has an MBA, PhD, is a qualified accountant and was at one point the preferred choice for head of CERA, and I have considered becoming one myself. The current atmosphere of instability and minimal funding means the best and most talented people don't waste their time getting paid less to do a job where they can be made redundant at the will of the government and are expected to do a better job with less money, fewer staff and less resources. You'll find that most of the really talented ones are leaving in their droves which means the ones that would find it hard to get a job in the public sector are the ones staying. Cutting the public service is not simply a matter of selectively pruning the dross and the so-called streamlining is usually done to save money ahead of deliver a better service.

Unfortunately (again IMHO) NZ is devoid of quality leaders and managers so the workforce will continue to be subjected to the same old same old for a long time yet!

Again I disagree, kind of. There are some very talented and skilled leaders out there, but a lot of them are getting frustrated with poor political leadership and packing their bags.

I don't see anybody in our political offering that can even attempt to lead the country out of this regressive dumb and dumber decline we appear to be in!

That I cannot disagree with.