Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
So, in the end, they'd tried everything they could, and were still facing a fait acompli. Since it is clear where they stood on the risks associated with the bill, I can see why they would want to adopt a stance of symbolically supporting the people of Canterbury.
Because by doing so, they were supporting dictatorship.
-
Only one: the commission is now subject to the OIA. All the rest were voted down.
And yes, I suppose you could always vote for the Worker's Party.
-
And the law passed unanimously. What are you going to do now, Graeme?
-
So the Minister could order the election of Jim Anderton as Mayor of Christchurch to be nullified- and no one could do a thing about it
Yes - the Local Eelctoral Act is not protected from such Orders.
-
In fact Lewis, the bill would allow the Minister to set aside the sunset clause . .
Nope - s17 is protected. But Brownlee gets to be dictator till 2012, and change almost any law he feels like. Even if he won't, the mere fact that he can is intolerable in a democratic society under the rule of law.
-
South Canterbury Finance (SCF) ramped up its risky real estate loans after it signed up to the Government's scheme that protected its investors' money, the company's chief executive Sandy Maier said tonight.
...
Bad loans were the main reason for its downfall, and Mr Maier revealed the high risk tactic in an interview on TV3`s Campbell Live programme.
Asked whether it had been cynically exploiting the government guarantee, Mr Maier replied: "It might have been cynical, it might have been merely incompetent... it probably violated a lot of prudent lending criteria."
This isn't just leaving your car unlocked with the keys in the ignition - its pure financial arson. No insurance company in the world would cover this sort of insanity, and if the RDGS does, then the people who designed it and the people who failed to conduct proper due diligence to prevent this sort of abuse need to be held to account.
-
Any thoughts on the effect of that much money freeing up for re-investment more-or-less at once? It seems like a huge amount to me, but how does it actually compare to a typical say, month on the NZ markets?
Its ~0.8% of GDP, all in one hit, and quite geographically concentrated. The most likely result, given how badly people have just been burned and the lingering legacy of the 1987 sharemarket crash, is a South Island property boom. A good time, if you're a dairy farmer, to look for that bigger fool...
-
And you declared him an "arsehole" on Twitter today for his troubles.
Yup. I'm a big fan of holding politicians accountable for their screwups, and if I can no longer vote them out of office, the least I can do is make my contempt and hatred plain.
If you think that's unduly personal, then don't blame me when they use you for toilet paper.
-
Wasn't the deposit scheme financed partly by a levy on financial institutions and banks?
Yes. The government has collected $74 million, and has budgeted to pay out $900 million (it's government maths! Like normal maths, but different!). So, we are paying for this. Not the banks, but ordinary taxpayers.
-
Any word yet on who's to blame for allowing SCF into the scheme in the first place? It's looking more and more that they had no business being accepted for cover.
Michael Cullen. We should all send him the bill.