Posts by Idiot Savant
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Whoops: yes; its a clear sign that they're not seriously interested in costing it, just producing a stick for the Minister.
There is a -15% / $200/ton scenario as well.
George: what Keith said. They simply did a "worst case" scenario - combining a strong target, an (even more) ridiculous price, and no international trade. Strap that chicken!
-
On my 90th birthday I will cease to resist cigars, cheese, and Class A drugs.
Isn't that leaving it a bit late? (Especially for the cheese?)
-
Suck.
And I kinda liked Adric. Hmph.
-
PA posts are "far too long for the internet media"
What, do they have ADD or something?
There's a place for short posts, and a place for long ones. But either way, the length of a post should be determined by what you have to say, not by arbitrary restrictions based on the short attention span of business consultants.
-
Increasing operations per dollar is one aspect, but the big gains should be made by improving nutrition, lifestyle, attitudes and picking up problems early when the solutions are cheaper.
That's my "if I had a billion dollars" plan! Careful, some people will find it a bit controversial.
We had that billion dollars, and the government was spending it on exactly that. Then national cut it. The reason? It didn't immediately impact on their chosen headline metrics (e.g. waiting lists), and so was considered "waste".
It's a perfect example of how "managing to the targets" causes problems.
-
Seriously, you think the Danish People Party have not produced a regressive immigration policy? They have made what NZFirst could only dream of.
No, I said its regressive. But that policy affects only a small proportion of overall Danish immigration, and is not any sort of check on the ability of citizens of other Schengen countries to move and work there.
-
Kong: I was more pointing out that the narrow focus on economic penis-size obscures our real strengths as a country. (And another one came out today, BTW - we're one of the most stable and peaceful countries in the world, and far better than any of those traditional yardsticks the right like to measure us against...)
-
The unemployment benefit is conceived as exactly that. It's just that it was deliberately lowered to the poverty level in the early 1990s (see Alastair Barry's still relevant In a land of plenty )
It wasn't lowered to the poverty level - it was lowered below it. Treasury worked out the minimum cost of surviving, and then cut that by IIRC 20%. It was monstrous, it was cruel, but they wanted a stronger "incentive" for the strucuturally unemployed kept redundant by Don Brash's interest rate manipulations to fight each other for work.
(Labour, of course - the "party that cares" - then kept benefits at that sub-starvation level. Every so often someone makes noises about fixing it, but the Phil Goff wing of the party believes heartily in Treasury's policy of starvation as an incentive, and so it continues...)
-
What if we don't like either option, Stewart? Perhaps we'd like to watch the evening news without being dragged into a dungeon and recounted the horrors of a brutal murder, day after day after day.
It's simply crime porn,and its a large reason why I'm getting more and more of my news from the internet: because TV is just a waste of time.
-
Not sure I follow the bit about employers being afraid - why would they care what conditions their ex-employees are subject to? Not saying they don't care, but surely it varies too much to generalise about...
Its called a sense of social responsibility - somethign sadly lacking among our business leaders.