Rodney’s book launch
Cactus Kate has a nice photo of Rodney, the famous Krystal and Cam Brewer at Rodney’s book launch.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: UncategorizedRodney’s book launch
32 Responses to “Rodney’s book launch”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
Good on you Rodney!
August 4th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
When is National going to wake up and see what a waste of space Rodney Hide is? He is squatting in a safe National seat and is currently polling so low that he will not be bringing any MP’s with him.
Rodney and ACT are now nothing more than a side show and maybe politics needs that but surely it is time Key gave ACT a mercy killing by offering Hide a spot in the National Party or telling the good people of Epsom to pull the pin.
August 4th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
+1 to Rodney wields economic knowledge > all of the Nats put together, fool
August 4th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Rodney is a very bright and able commentator on what is wrong and what needs to be done to fix it. But the ACT party needs a new lead or a co-leader who can rant and rave and get the message accross that it now represents core National principles:
- individual freedom
- individual responsibility
- basic human rights, but
- priveledges must be earned
- sinking lid on welfarism
- minimal government interference in peoples lives
- government should only perform core functions
We all know that these measures would solve most of the problems we now have. So where the bloody hell are you?
August 4th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Say – whats so famous about Krystal apart from her rugged good looks?
August 4th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Krystal of course had a pas de deux with Rodney, while the rest of the country watched.
If Dunne fell under a bus there could be a job as Revenue Minister looking for a working class lad made good
August 4th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Selma ,
So you didn’t score at the bus stop this week ?
August 4th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
D4J.
How’s your welfare payments going this week?
August 4th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
John Dalley you #### , oh, why bother with a ratfink !
August 4th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Hey DPF – I’ve read Rodney’s book. It’s great, well written, entertaining, and sets out the principles that guide ACT and what nz needs to do to prosper.
How come not one Nat MP can write a book – about anything – let alone what they’ve achieved and what they believe in? Or is the answer to that question obvious? espcially when you took the piss out of Rdoney’s book with your post ‘What a difference a decade makes’.
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/06/what_difference_a_decade_makes.html
I mean it’s not as though there are any literary giants in your party…
August 4th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Marion Says:
August 4th, 2007 at 8:46 pm
Hey DPF – I’ve read Rodney’s book. It’s great, well written, entertaining, and sets out the principles that guide ACT and what nz needs to do to prosper.
Prosper? I thought NZ has been and is doing quite well? apart from the increasing interest rates, which may well be as a result of NZ becoming too prosperous? no?
August 4th, 2007 at 9:34 pm
Traditionally people had to do something to earn a buck. Too many people have made their money by property investment, and development (exporting our real estate). ACT is closely aligned with those sort of people. Yes it is envy, but it is also disquiet.. one group eventually ends up carrying the other group on their shoulders.
jh
August 4th, 2007 at 9:37 pm
sorry dudes, i said it before, ACT brand dead, not rodney, he fine,
but ACT is dead, like more than a blue norwegian parrot
August 4th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
I was thinking about this the other day, pound for pound, the Greens, ACT and the Maori Party punch way above their weight class. The others: Dunn, Progressives, and NZF are just awful – and yet, ironically, it is the latter that sit on the Treasury benches. Such are the vagaries of power, I guess. Labour and National could learn a thing or three from Rodney, Jennette and Pita (forget about Tariana).
August 4th, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Jh said: “Traditionally people had to do something to earn a buck. Too many people have made their money by property investment, and development (exporting our real estate). ACT is closely aligned with those sort of people. Yes it is envy, but it is also disquiet.. one group eventually ends up carrying the other group on their shoulders.”
Yep, traditionally people did have to work to earn a buck. But now too many people just sit on their sorry arses in Rotovegas and bash 3 yr olds to death while I pay them to do so each Thursday morning. And yes, ACT is closely aligned to successful people. ACT shouldn’t apologise for that.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Hey Gooner, I wouldn’t sleight a whole town just because some scumbags apparently come from there. Similarly, not all people who commit disgusting acts on children are beneficiaries. Let’s keep some perspective. Let’s also bear in mind, while scoring all the left/right/up/down points that a little girl lost her fight to survive after being hideously treated by people who must be absolute scum of the earth.
August 4th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
Agreed DDD. I shall cease and desist from the generalisations.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Thanks, Gooner. Wasn’t trying to be censorious.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:22 am
d4j wellcome back,
August 5th, 2007 at 9:51 am
“Cactus Kate has a nice photo of Rodney, the famous Krystal and Cam Brewer at Rodney’s book launch.”
Do you realise that this photo orginally appeared on Rodney Hide’s blog (rodneyhide.com) or do you not read it?
August 5th, 2007 at 9:52 am
“Prosper? I thought NZ has been and is doing quite well? apart from the increasing interest rates, which may well be as a result of NZ becoming too prosperous? no?”
OK Mr Bean if your that dumb I will have to spell it out for you. New Zealand is appearing to probper because we earn a small amount of money but the government cycles it through the economy at a rapid rate. In addition to keep the consumber economy afloat the government relases rules on borrowing. It hopes to pay this back by stealing off the farmers and exporting enough land before the next time Beijing sneezes.
Can you see any flaws in this approach?
August 5th, 2007 at 10:54 am
jh and porc – exporting real estate is an interesting concept. When did you dream it up? To which country was shipped the last container load of land and buildings? How stupid is stupid?
August 5th, 2007 at 11:02 am
Porcupine mocks somebody’s knowledge then lets rip with the awful;
“If your that dumb I will spell it out for you.”
I get prickly when people use your rather than you’re.
August 5th, 2007 at 11:32 am
Oh dear, can’t take criticism eh, given that National has to take responsibility for that fiasco. In the early 90s when there was an economic and housing market downturn National panicked and decided to open the floodgate of foreign immigrants who could afford not only the best houses but to buy many many houses, thus sparking the current house price fiasco we see today. All because a bunch of oldies coming up to retirement saw that housing inflation wasn’t going to give them the retirement they had hoped for. It was pathetic, because time has shown that it was unnecessary as the world pulled out of that economic crisis and the Asian one also.
Personally I would have preferred that my kids and other hard working kiwis could have afforded houses.
So like labour, National would rather invest in property speculation and siphoning money through the government than in the productive economy. So please don’t play the dumb little innocent Adolf, when you know very well what we are referring to.
August 5th, 2007 at 3:28 pm
Porcupine,
While it is true that housing is very difficult to afford in New Zealand’s major centres it is also very naive to explain this purely in terms of demand. Perhaps housing demand has been increased by foreign investment and immigration (I suspect its emotional appeal far exceeds its true impact), but around the world the correlation between house price rises and land use restrictions by city planners, not trade liberalisation. Prices are set bu demand AND supply (see http://www.demographia.com/ for more).
As for the comment about not a single Nat writing anything comparable, I think the answer IS obvious. The culture of the National party is conservative and, rhetoric aside, visionless. Rodney’s book is a great example of why NZ needs ACT. That is not to say that National is unnecessary, just insufficient.
August 5th, 2007 at 5:20 pm
DS, we’ve had the demographia report out on other threads. I remain unconvinced – there areas where there are excessive regualtons are areas where the supply is used up anyway – mainly coastal. They did not account for this in there correlations and so regulation is probably just a confounding variable, being brought on by the fact that supply is limited.
I did not mean to imply it was only immigaration – it was also fueled by the panic of the baby boomers seeing their retirement looming and house prices flattening off. Now, I would be prepared to have a bad retirement if my kids could afford houses, so its backfired at least on us thinking baby boomers.
August 5th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
ACT don’t believe in global warming or Peak Oil (the finite nature of resources and limits to growth).
Future books from Rodney: The Parties Not Over…. The Coming Boom in Cheap Labour…. and How to adapt to Climate Change (or) Get those Honkeys Picking Cotton…
jh
August 5th, 2007 at 8:12 pm
ACT dead. jh, rodney has to dance his way to reality like very shortly,
August 6th, 2007 at 3:58 am
Porcupine,
For one thing Demographia doesn’t include coastal land unless you want to include Kohimarama. For another, if you think supply can be ‘used up’ then I wonder if you are a descendent of the US Patent office official who resigned in 1890 because ‘everything that could be invented already had been?’ Perhaps you are one of Malthus’ descendents who has miraculously failed to starve?
Supply depends on better and more creative use of the resources we have to provide the things we want, it is limited only by the creativity of the human mind.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:07 am
jh,
The comments above about growth depending on creative use of resources rather than the actual amount of resources applies to you too. If you want a practical example, take my cellphone:
It does voice, data, text messaging, holds 2GB of audio, has a 3.2MP camera, a radio tuner, and a host of other ‘personal organiser’ features like notes etc. 20 years ago I would have had to carry around a backpack of batteries, CDs, camera films (full of chemicals), and numerous plastic boexes full of electronic components. In other words, apart from the fact that a recent graduate like me couldn’t have afforded or carried around the functionality I now get from my cellphone, I now get all that value from a fraction of the plastic, copper, silicon and other ‘environmental resources’ that would have been required 20 years ago.
Now here is a question, do you think you just happen, in 2007 to live in a time when we have finally reached the ‘limits to growth?’
I predict that in 2027 I will remember my cellphone the same way I currently think of my ‘backpack’ from 1987.
August 6th, 2007 at 4:13 am
Porcupine,
the second part of my second to last comment disappeared, but basically I think you raise an interesting point about regulation and ‘limits of supply’ being interdependent.
As you can probably see I disagree because deciding when we have reached the limit and that regulation is justified is a trade off between affordable housing and planners’ visions of what a city should be. If we really had reached some natural limit no regulation would be necessary to prevent further development, but it clearly is. You might think we have reached the ‘limit of growth’ in Orewa, but a quick trip to the gold coast shows quite how ridiculous that idea is.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:01 am
Yes DS you have good points. I meant Auckland is coastal cf Palmerston North as is LA cf Mineapolis.
I also agree that supply is not limiting if we change our mindset about the 1/4 acre and build up instead of out. But continuing to sprawl out fails in so many ways.
Regulation is driven by two things – and this is happening all over the world.
1. Too many people and not enough jobs – so we train them in “theory” without “practice” to b e “chiefs” and then we have to find them jobs – and hey guess what chiefs like to do – tell others what to do!
2. As supply gets scarce it the commodity seems to get focused on for regualtion – we see this with protein – with fisheries collapsing and meat prices rocketing and the associated regulation of meat trade; oil, and many other commodities previous generations tended to take for granted.
So supply and demand are very hard to separate, but the underlying problem is the demand caused by the oversupply of people on a global scale.