 |
| Click image to enlarge |
H/T Porcupine Farm
5 Jul 2013
Nick Smith vs UNESCO
Today, the NZ Herald reported:
So, Nick Smith lied about the impact on the Fiordland wilderness. UNESCO had clearly indicated that the regions World Heritage status would change, which would mean there's a considerable adverse effect on the environment if the developments went ahead.
That adverse impact would mean less tourism, but of course the government hasn't factored this into their costing’s. If they had accounted for this factor, it would mean the project isn't financially worthwhile. It will also mean the overall number of tourists will reduce even further.
People simply don't come to New Zealand to see man-made tunnels or monorails; they come to enjoy the natural beauty of the place. That natural beauty is worth billions of dollars to our economy each year, and therefore should be protected.
It's a pity the current Minister of Conservation hasn't got an environmental bone in his body. It's also a pity he's trying to mislead about the potential impact from these silly developments.
In my opinion, the country would be far better off without the likes of Nick Smith in parliament. How on earth such a dishonest idiot has remained in the halls of power for so long is beyond me?
Dr Smith said yesterday that the chances of the region being stripped of its special status was "zip".
"Those that claim that a tunnel or any other visitor facilities of that sort would remove World Heritage status, in my view, are mistaken," he said.
But in a letter to DOC, Unesco said that the two developments were "likely to be considered incompatible" with the site's World Heritage status.
It said that the region's Outstanding Universal Value was dependent on human interference being peripheral.
Unesco officials said that the monorail track would run through areas of special grassland and areas which contained endangered kaka and yellowhead - two factors which were influential to the World Heritage award.
So, Nick Smith lied about the impact on the Fiordland wilderness. UNESCO had clearly indicated that the regions World Heritage status would change, which would mean there's a considerable adverse effect on the environment if the developments went ahead.
That adverse impact would mean less tourism, but of course the government hasn't factored this into their costing’s. If they had accounted for this factor, it would mean the project isn't financially worthwhile. It will also mean the overall number of tourists will reduce even further.
People simply don't come to New Zealand to see man-made tunnels or monorails; they come to enjoy the natural beauty of the place. That natural beauty is worth billions of dollars to our economy each year, and therefore should be protected.It's a pity the current Minister of Conservation hasn't got an environmental bone in his body. It's also a pity he's trying to mislead about the potential impact from these silly developments.
In my opinion, the country would be far better off without the likes of Nick Smith in parliament. How on earth such a dishonest idiot has remained in the halls of power for so long is beyond me?
More pain at the pump
At the beginning of 2008 when petrol prices were $1.68 per litre, John Key asked the question:
At the time, the Labour party's Commerce Minister Lianne Dalziel released an independent report into petrol pricing in New Zealand (PDF). Its main findings were:
However you've got to wonder about Hale & Twomey's independence...being that they're closely associated with the oil industry. By all appearances petrol prices are faster to rise and slower to fall, with the energy sector soaking up huge profits in the interim.
Such a flawed system means 95 Octane now costs $2.30 per litre, depending on where you fill up. That's a 37% increase since Key made his 2008 state of the Nation speech, in which he promised 'A Fresh Start for New Zealand'.
Unfortunately nothing has changed, with National increasing GST and other taxes to cause Kiwis considerably more pain at the pump. In fact around half the increase in petrol prices since 2008 is a result of the government increasing taxes and not due to increases in crude oil prices overseas.
Today, the NZ Herald reported:
So, the government has borrowed New Zealand into $82 billion worth of debt, is selling our most profitable assets and has markedly increased taxes and road user charges to pay for their roads of little significance...the irony being that with large increases in the cost of living since National gained power, most Kiwis won't be able to afford to use them.
Why are grocery and petrol prices going through the roof?
At the time, the Labour party's Commerce Minister Lianne Dalziel released an independent report into petrol pricing in New Zealand (PDF). Its main findings were:
• The New Zealand petrol market is fundamentally competitive.
• Retail petrol prices are not fast to rise and slow to fall.
• Recent price rises are mainly due to increases in crude oil prices overseas.
• A Fuelwatch scheme like Australia’s wouldn’t benefit consumers, because our market works differently.
• More transparency about the makeup of importer margins and a move to report daily margin movements would be useful for consumers.
However you've got to wonder about Hale & Twomey's independence...being that they're closely associated with the oil industry. By all appearances petrol prices are faster to rise and slower to fall, with the energy sector soaking up huge profits in the interim.
Such a flawed system means 95 Octane now costs $2.30 per litre, depending on where you fill up. That's a 37% increase since Key made his 2008 state of the Nation speech, in which he promised 'A Fresh Start for New Zealand'.
Unfortunately nothing has changed, with National increasing GST and other taxes to cause Kiwis considerably more pain at the pump. In fact around half the increase in petrol prices since 2008 is a result of the government increasing taxes and not due to increases in crude oil prices overseas.
Today, the NZ Herald reported:
An industry-led rise and a tax increase have pushed petrol prices to equal a record high reached last year.
Increases imposed by the four main oil companies of 4c a litre for both petrol and diesel - within three days of fuel taxes rising on Monday - have been slammed by the Automobile Association as unjustified.
"It's a bad look for the fuel companies to be raising prices so quickly after the tax rises," spokesman Mark Stockdale said yesterday.
The double-whammy has hit motorists with a 7c increase in petrol prices since Monday, when the Government raised its excise tax by 3c a litre to pay for roading projects, notably its seven Roads of National Significance such as the Waikato Expressway and Puhoi-to-Wellsford motorway extension.
So, the government has borrowed New Zealand into $82 billion worth of debt, is selling our most profitable assets and has markedly increased taxes and road user charges to pay for their roads of little significance...the irony being that with large increases in the cost of living since National gained power, most Kiwis won't be able to afford to use them.
2 Jul 2013
Bob Jones fruit loop
Today, the NZ Herald reported:
More deluded waffling from a senile old fool! Fruit trees on average take 5 years to mature to the point where they produce fruit, or ten to produce enough for a family, which means there's a long delay between spending around $40 per fruit tree and payback.
There's also the fact that most poor people don't own their own homes, which means they would be spending money on beautifying someone else's property...a property they will likely not be residing in when the fruit is ready.
Typical tory bullshit from a rich prick who thinks that because he now owns an orchard and can afford to employ two gardeners, he can lecture the poor about their opportunities to grow their own food.
Bob Jones might have come from humble beginnings, but he certainly didn't make all his money legitimately. That means his blathering about poor people being able to afford enough food is entirely feckless! Not everybody has the opportunity to do crime and get away with it like Bob did to make their wealth...not everybody has grown up in a time of full employment either.
In my opinion, the sooner the Herald gets rid of this old racist prick the better.
When I was young, every household in state house Lower Hutt had vegetable gardens and quite a number had chicken-runs. It left its mark, thus even today my household grows most of our vegetables and fruit and has chickens, albeit I have the indulgence of two gardeners. Nevertheless, I'm told that household vegetable gardens are now uncommon.
Most mornings I have crisp stewed pears with muesli, these provided free from nature and preserved from my garden. Pear trees are cheap, hardy and prolific. The crop from one would cover most families for a year. In fact, I have hundreds of fruit trees but cannot find takers for free fruit, so this year I bought a juicer, had the lot put through and frozen and now drink our home-grown fruit juice year round.
More deluded waffling from a senile old fool! Fruit trees on average take 5 years to mature to the point where they produce fruit, or ten to produce enough for a family, which means there's a long delay between spending around $40 per fruit tree and payback.
There's also the fact that most poor people don't own their own homes, which means they would be spending money on beautifying someone else's property...a property they will likely not be residing in when the fruit is ready.
Given all of this, I wonder how much the alleged hardship sufferers are doing to help themselves, particularly the lowest-income category for whose children we must now provide breakfast. It's a certainty we will soon hear of the need to provide them lunch and, like it or not, Al Nisbet's cartoon was spot on. Even on the minimum wage and after rent, electricity etc, no one cannot afford to feed their children and let's not have a barrage of "mocking from on high" abuse. These people live in luxury compared with my childhood, but we never went without food.
Typical tory bullshit from a rich prick who thinks that because he now owns an orchard and can afford to employ two gardeners, he can lecture the poor about their opportunities to grow their own food.
Bob Jones might have come from humble beginnings, but he certainly didn't make all his money legitimately. That means his blathering about poor people being able to afford enough food is entirely feckless! Not everybody has the opportunity to do crime and get away with it like Bob did to make their wealth...not everybody has grown up in a time of full employment either.
In my opinion, the sooner the Herald gets rid of this old racist prick the better.
Thanks for the two-minute noodles John
Today, the NZ Herald reported:
Which is absolutely wrong! Income for the top earners has increased, but low and middle-income earners now have less money in their pockets than they did a few years ago.
In fact incomes for males age 16 to 20 decreased between 2008 and 2011 in real terms before you even factor in the rising cost of living. In 2008 they were earning on average $10,678 each, in 2011 they received a meager $10,563 after tax income to survive on.
That's a decrease of 1%, which combined with CPI infation of 9.8% over the same time period means young males are a lot worse off...which is likely why they make up the largest age group of people leaving for a brighter future overseas or taking their own lives.
Shamubeel Eaqub is obviously a shill for the government. He's completely ignoring the fact that home ownership rates are continuing to decline in New Zealand, mainly because houses are now largely unaffordable for people on even moderate incomes.
Despite the statistics clearly showing that most New Zealander's aren't better off, National and their propagandists will claim until they're blue in the face that everything is just fine. Unfortunately for the majority of struggling Kiwis, it's not.
One budgeting expert blamed tough times for producing "a generation of two-minute noodle kids".
But principal economist at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research Shamubeel Eaqub suggested perception was not always reality. He said average weekly earnings for all workers had increased more than the cost of living, meaning people were, on average, better off.
Which is absolutely wrong! Income for the top earners has increased, but low and middle-income earners now have less money in their pockets than they did a few years ago.
In fact incomes for males age 16 to 20 decreased between 2008 and 2011 in real terms before you even factor in the rising cost of living. In 2008 they were earning on average $10,678 each, in 2011 they received a meager $10,563 after tax income to survive on.
That's a decrease of 1%, which combined with CPI infation of 9.8% over the same time period means young males are a lot worse off...which is likely why they make up the largest age group of people leaving for a brighter future overseas or taking their own lives.
That had led to households becoming more confident about borrowing as house prices had risen - particularly in Auckland and Canterbury.
Shamubeel Eaqub is obviously a shill for the government. He's completely ignoring the fact that home ownership rates are continuing to decline in New Zealand, mainly because houses are now largely unaffordable for people on even moderate incomes.
Despite the statistics clearly showing that most New Zealander's aren't better off, National and their propagandists will claim until they're blue in the face that everything is just fine. Unfortunately for the majority of struggling Kiwis, it's not.
