What is the total cost of the second hand trains and ferries?
It gets scary when you start to add up the total cost of Dr Cullen’s buying spree.
Now one can always argue about what an asset is worth, but we actually know that Toll purchased it for $394 million in 2003. And the book value is $430 million.
Now Toll convinced the Government to pay $665 million for it. But on top of that you have the foregone revenue from Toll for track use, which has been $48 million a year, but is meant to be $58 million a year. If you capitalise that at 7% that is another $830 million equivalent capital. So the Government has effectively tied up capital of around $1.5 billion. In theory there will be income to offset that, but time will tell as to how much that will be.
But it gets even better for Toll. They also get a six month rent free period on existing premises – must be worth a few million also.
The Fairfax story quotes Toll managing director Paull Little as saying:
“I think we’ve got mixed emotions. We would have preferred not to have sold.
“Today is a day we feel pretty flat,” he said.
I’ll bet you they have no mixed emotions at all. The sale agreement probably included a no gloating clause. Toll have made a massive profit from Dr Cullen. I doubt they can beleive their luck.
I know something about dealing with an Australian company when selling or buying a business. Let me tell you they are the most ruthless bastards around. No matter how friendly and nice it all is, they will aim to screw you for every extra dollar. It is nothing personal – just how they do business. So even if it is a multi-million dollar sale, they’ll take you for an extra $20,000 if they can – just because they can.
And Dr Cullen had shown how keen he was to buy. This was a fatal mistake which strengthened Toll’s negotiating position massively. You have to have the other side thinking you are prepared to walk away if they don’t budge.
I could just have imagined the talk around Toll after each negotiating session. “Oh my God, we have them up to $600 million – who would have believed. Hey let’s go for $650 million just to see how desperate they are. Nah, don’t be a soft cock – I reckon we should ask for $700 million and see if we can get them over $650 million”.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Nah Micky really is a financial genius after all thats why he cunningly got a Labour Dept. inspector to shut down the kiddies train at Raumati on Anzac weekend. No competition for his toy trainset now.
May 5th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Stuff article says a “SIX YEAR” rent free period on existing premises not six months.
Wish I could run my business rent free for six years!
May 5th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
IT could be a shrewd move if we sold all the rolling stock and turned all the tracks into highly automated truck beds able to convey truck trains and actually improve our transport network using GPS, Broadband, satellite tracking of goods and trucks and the steady improvement on rubber on road vehicle efficiency.
But they won’t of course because they are Romantics always looking to the past.
Do the people get excited about a rail link to our airport know that the Sydney rail Airport link has been loosing hundreds of millions and that they are about to build another motorway link to carry the people and freight that needs to be moved.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Lost revenue $58m
Trains $665m
Buying yesterdays technology with someone else’s money – priceless.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Sigh, what do you expect when you send a retired history teacher from Taradale to deal with big boys. They must have looked at his short pants and sniggered.
I’d love to add up how much this fuckwit has actually wasted of our money but I’m afraid all that would do is cause me to leave NZ sooner than I plan. Or shoot him.
What a country
May 5th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I listened to Hon M. Cullen on Newstalk ZB.
I got the impression that I might be listening to bullshit.
Hopefully more knowledgable people will blog here and explain to me what the actual crap is.
I am very uneasy about this deal.
Nowadays companies fully value their assets, frequently so that management can maximise their personal incomes. So the highest value that Toll’s auditors could accept was $430 million. Any higher value would mean that the balance sheet did not present a true and fair view. And they sucked an expert in Art History into paying $665 million.
Cullen spoke about getting more trucks off the roads. I think the only way that will happen will be to increase road user charges. But I do not know enough on this subject to be forceful in my arguments.
I look forward to the comments of omniscient bloggers.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
I am concerned that taxpayer funds will be used to bolster lines to two Labour held marginal electorates; Gisborne and Rotorua.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Lets not forget Toll’s other coup. They levered off their investment to set up one of the biggest trucking businesses and fleets in the country, which they retain with all it’s infrastructure, plus they got entry into the port business in every port, a business which they sold a wee while ago.
JC
May 5th, 2008 at 6:46 pm
Michael Cullen has found out what it’s like dealing with the big boys. John Key will be laughing his arse off. He has experience dealing with the big boys. Cullen is only worth the odd throw away line. Can you imagine him negotiating with the Wehrmacht at Bastogne?
May 5th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
Doc Sullen hasn’t got over his strange fixation with Thomas the Tax Engine.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
No doubt the dear doctor will be up for the socialist businessman of the year award. The fool will probably buy his own trophy.
May 5th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
A fascinating concept Adolf. He may have just confused the Huns though as he does bear a striking resemblence to Heinrich Himmler — but of course totally lacking Heinrichs level of compassion for the suffering taxpayers.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
This is a nasty vindictive trick by Cullen to tank the economy as much as possible before the election so that when National win they will have a basket case of nasty issues to deal with, they will need to make some hard decisions and reforms and people will hurt even more during the recovery phase of the process.
This is Cullen’s “punishment” to those who have decided that they will now support National and get rid of this corrupt government. Cullen is a prick and this purchase only prves the point.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Is this the surrender signal from Labour?, at least at the high levels?
They can hardly squeeze any good news out of it before the election.
Where do they see the upside?
Pretty scary to see Cullen on the news tonight playing with a toy train and grinning like my three year old.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Its a scorched earth policy – create as much shit for National as possible for after they win the next election. Labour know they are toast, so now they are spending up like a millionaire in a brothel who has just been told he has only six months to live…
May 5th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
According to TV3 this is a popular move – buggered if I can understand the fixation with government owning rail.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
Tauhei, on National Radio it was mentioned that the rail system is running at capacity given the state of the rolling stock and, I dare say, the lines. Therefore it will be some time, and a heap of capex, before freight gets moved from roads.
Six years rent free!! But Cullen said the last thing they wanted to do was subsidise a foreign owned business.
May 5th, 2008 at 7:43 pm
Maybe Cullen wants to be the new Mussolini – this time it’ll be hopeless at economics, but made the trains run on time. (Okay, that’s a little unfair.)
May 5th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
I don’t usually swear in public but this is a fucking disgrace and Cullen and the Cabinet, including Peters, should be hung, strung and quartered. Fuck this makes me angry. If it’s not billions lost through Kyoto bullshit, or the misorganisation of a outright stupid emissions trading scheme, or the raping of motorists through petrol levies, its billions spent through stupid follies like this. Struth, no wonder NZ is not a rich country as all our money is used to buy deadbeat assets like this at over-inflated prices.
The government is rich but its people are poor and are struggling to buy groceries & petrol and pay the bills. Meanwhile in cloud cuckoo land Cullen splurges billions.
Time to storm the Bastille!
May 5th, 2008 at 8:35 pm
It would be an interesting exercise for somebody to do a tally of how much of the countries money Cullen has shit down his leg in the last 9 years.
Just this year we have seen the cullen fund and kiwisaver tank. Airport shareholders miss out on a billion. Railways which will end up costing over a billion. kyoto which is now over a billion. And that is just a few that spring to mind, plus the spending on tertiary education and the electricity commission which David posted on earlier (and they were piddly little amounts, little more than a couple of hundred million..)
He must be the 10 Billion dollar finance minister by now.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
The cost of the upgrades, the losses & inefficiency, the 665 mill is just the tip of the ice berg. Labour has found another way to lose money hand over fist. The message needs to get out. Plus, Cullen was stiffed by the Aussies, & he’s too dumb to notice. The whole deal smacks of central planning, I don’t trust the govt to be providing carriage for private freight.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
Worst. Haggler. Ever.
May 5th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
Barnsley Bill have you looked at How Merrill Lynch has done this year?
Fantastic actually they are still in business, unlike Bear Stearns.
And there was the little matter of the Federal reserve printing money so they did stay in business.
Otherwise it would only be Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan left in business.
Slap yourself around your fat head and realise that we have produced all the surpluses that haven’t been spent so the govt doeant have to make a difficult situation worse al la 97.
So DPF is running the big lie to be repeated that Cullen paid too much!
What nonsense. You would never get a major business at’ book value’, of course those that only have done first year economics could say that.
And Slippery doesn’t want to come out and say the sale was wrong but has to hide behind the price wasn’t right.
Look at telecom they have blown $2 bill on their Australian investment, Warehouse $800 mill.
And Cullen’s last buyout , Air New Zealand How much is that worth NOW
His results speak for himself, no some two bit currency trader who supposedly was a gift of the gab but cant say ten words that make sense , who makes George Bush seem like Shakespeare
“Um, yeah,” Mr Key concluded, “and look at the wider national interest in economic benefits, this is no different from rolling out electricity back in, you know, back 100 years ago or roads back a long time ago.”
May 5th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
“Its a scorched earth policy – create as much shit for National as possible for after they win the next election. Labour know they are toast, so now they are spending up like a millionaire in a brothel who has just been told he has only six months to live…”
Yes LeeC, they do not care about the people in this country at all, just the power/retaining power/manipulating power/enforcing power/creating power/imagining power/spending power/being in power.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Ghostie sounds like 1990 all over again.
Screw the books, screw the budget, screw the country and then blame National when they have to cut back on funding.
This is such a bad investment on so many levels.
May 5th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
Ghostie you fuckwit.
If the railways were worth something don’t you think multi-nationals and pension funds would have been lining up for a slice of the action.
I haven’t seen any quotes out of Goldman Sachs and the like saying “damn we really missed out on that great opportunity in NZ”.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Lee C said “Its a scorched earth policy”
Hopefully that is only paranoia but remember 1990? That must have been a nice election night concession phone call for Bolger: “Well done on the election Jim but btw we’ve been cooking the books and lying about the state of the economy – basically the country is bankrupt. Good luck with that.”
And somehow we are meant to trust them with the economy again?
May 5th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
This will end up being Cullen’s legacy. bahahahaha
May 5th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
government rich, people poor
government rich, people poor
May 5th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
And I look forward to cook strait ferry strikes again
May 5th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
I don’t recall Labour campaigning on a nationalisation platform. This is obviously a secret agenda. What’s next? Insurance, Fonterra, the local butcher?
National should be shouting “SECRET AGENDA” from the roof tops.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
VTO it would be so funny if it wasn’t so sad.
National should employ an economist to work out how much each tax payer in NZ could have received back in a lump sum if these inept wankers hadn’t gone on a nine year spending spree. I would suggest you’re easily looking at $80K plus per tax payer. Alot of NZ would be mortgage free.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
She’s been meeting with Chavez again.
May 5th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Peter Brown reckons that “the return of this business to the rightful owners – the taxpayers – will result in improved service, innovation and strong investment in a vital part of the country’s infrastructure.” Yeah Right!!!
May 5th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
Well, folks, the value of my Toll shares just went up. Thanks, Mike! I’m sure the higher end of the Melbourne hospitality trade is also going to thanking you after the champagne corks have stopped popping.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Or, in the words of our most famous Masters’ student – Philip John Mason:
This is an excellent move. If we’re going to be ready for the age of ever more expensive energy we’re going to need first-class rail infrastructure.
This is just ludicrous. Paying that much for a decaying piece of rubbish? When the trains catch fire, run late and are belching pollutants into the air? Has anyone so in favour of this actually stood next to one of these locomotives when they start up? Seen what their undercarriages look like, how much smoke they actually put into the air?
I’m guessing not.
We’ve just purchased the biggest pile of junk for ten times what it’s worth, and our resident lefties are slapping themselves on the back thinking they’ve scored the deal of the century. It’s no wonder living conditions in Australia are so much better than here!
May 6th, 2008 at 7:25 am
The viability of rail lies in freight, and that involves transporting export goods to ports. The reason rail is a difficult proposition in NZ is that we have ports all over the place, allowing road transport to successfully compete, which wouldn’t be viable if it all had to be shipped to only one or two ports.
So given that, look at the exports it carries. Apart from milk powder and cheese from Fonterra’s various plants, it ships coal and logs. These three commodities make up the majority of its freight business. Given that southland coal is endangered due to AGW hysteria, and logs are endangered due to land conversion to dairy, you have to ask what does the future hold for our national trainset.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:47 am
They should have sold the roads instead.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:37 am
GWW – dumbarse – “So DPF is running the big lie to be repeated that Cullen paid too much!”
If this is the case, do you want to let cullen in on the secret – he said last night that they had paid more than they would have liked. That’s dumbarse code for “WE PAID TOO MUCH”.
Apparently 5:1 support the decision. WTF! What is the big deal about owning rail? Maybe I am a bit young to get it. It does look like it will put the squeeze on John Key though.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Cartoon idea: School teacher has students standing around rusting old locomotive installed in playground, explaining that the nice government has just sent some much needed teaching resources
May 6th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Rod Emmerson has gone part-way there in the Herald today
http://keepingstock.blogspot.com/2008/05/all-aboard.html
May 6th, 2008 at 10:06 am
G’day,
Given the tone of most comments, I’m assuming that the purchase of the trains is an unpopular move for most of you. So here goes…..
Personally, I think that buying them back was a bloody good idea. Yes, seen from a late 20th century perspective, rail is an outdated and antiquated mode of transport. But this isn’t the late 20th century. The cheap energy that made road freight competitive with (and even superior to) rail is disappearing fast. Oil will be around $200 a barrel sooner than any of us would like, or are prepared for, and when that happens (and probably before) a lot of trucking businesses will go under. Those that are left will have to pass their costs onto the consumer, that’s you and me. In the coming energy crisis, trucking firms aren’t quite the canaries in the mineshaft (that’s the airline industry), but they’ll be one of the first casualties (you might quibble with the term ‘energy crisis’, but oil at $200 definitely qualifies).
But we’re still going to need to move freight and people around the country. Anything that does that for less energy, like rail or coastal shipping, will have a cost-advantage over road. But investment needs to be made in these alternative modes now, while the country is comparitively wealthy, because it’ll be much, much harder when the recession really bites. The market signals to buy rail will come too late for us to be able to make that investment in a timely manner.
Cullen may or may not have paid too much for the rolling stock. That’s a hell of a lot less important than the fact that it is now owned by an entity that will make a great deal of investment in it. Because the day of the inter-city 40 tonne freight truck is ending my friends, and it would be nice to have something to replace it.
I’m not a fan of Labour, but I do admire their vision on this one. You could almost call it leadership.
Cheers,
Tane W
Welllington
May 6th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Craig you rich prick!
May 6th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Does anyone here think that buying-back the trains was a good idea?
Come on, be honest.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Of course the other alternative no one has raised is that the government could have imposed conditions on Toll as regards the level and quality of service and also the price they could charge Now this would have either resulted in the optimum being realised or forced Toll to negoiate a deal to exit the business.
As it is Cullen has paid absolute top dollar for assets that appear to be in a distressed state and require a significant capital injection.
The PM is talking of not running at a profit This of course illustrates the Socialists total financial illiteracy
So PM Where the capital to upgrade and improve the facility coming from. The fairies at the bottom of the garden.
No again the taxpayer will will have yet another dead weight cost burden to bear.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Toll NZ was a natural monopoly wasn’t it? Thanks to the eternal wisdom of Roger Douglas’ and Richard Prebble’s ideologically driven, crony-capitalist, helter-skelter state asset sales (I’m sure the $3 million of donations from the New Zealand Business Round-Table to the NZ Labour Party just before the 1987 election had everything to do with NZBR members inheriting the natural monopolies of the state-sector at a pittance).
http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=unFwJGU5QuYC&dq=working+free+the+origins+and+impact+of+new+zealand+s+employment+contracts+act&pg=PP1&ots=Bg4R3joPUp&sig=AryfeK2nVKLplcG2md_mTAzoI7M&hl=en&prev=http://www.google.co.nz/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DWorking%2Bfree%2B:%2Bthe%2Borigins%2Band%2Bimpact%2Bof%2BNew%2BZealand%25E2%2580%2599s%2BEmployment%2BContracts%2BAct%2B%26btnG%3DGoogle%2BSearch&sa=X&oi=print&ct=title&cad=one-book-with-thumbnail#PPA29,M1
Thankfully far right ideology is now dead in the Labour Party, and its only adherents reside behind carefully constructed PR lines in the National and Act Parties. Though even those parties are scared of revealing their true nature to the NZ public, so state owned assets are secure at least for the next three years.
So getting back to my original point, Toll wasn’t going to give up its monopoly position easily. The government saw that it needed control of the railways back in preparation for the coming age of ever-increasing energy prices. Toll knew this so it held our government to ransom. So yes, we have the far-right to thank for all of this. Great stuff.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:18 am
Toll are apparently in shock……the word around there is “you only get one Michael Cullin in a lifetime”.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:20 am
Actually it’s not popular
The Herald poll is running 52% against
May 6th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Actually Nome, this government is hard left not too different from the Wilson/Callaghan Labour governments in Britain in th 70′s other than the top tax rate.
Which other governments apart from the likes of Chavez is nationalizing entire industries these days?
Free market capitalism is centrist
May 6th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Roger Nome: Though even those parties are scared of revealing their true nature to the NZ public
No, what is happening is that lefties like you are constructing bogeyman out of ancient history and foisting that off as what is, essentially, a centrist party.
Now explain why it is a good idea to purchase almost a billion dollars worth of old, decrepit trains when you could have had brand new, more environmentally friendly and more economical new stock?
Less “I believe” and more “I know”. It will make you look like less of a bullshit generator.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:32 am
How come national arent clearly saying they will ‘sell’ as soon as practical if its such a bad idea, and use the money to subsidide laying fibre optic cables so that private companies will have more profitable broadband services.
As for nationalising entire industries, have you seen what the US federal Reserve is doing with failed Wall St sharebrokers, they paying other companies to take them over.
And everbody else ( not just banks) has cheap money ( 2.5%) to cover their bad loans of the past boom
May 6th, 2008 at 11:33 am
emmess:
The OECD doesn’t says we have the third lowest median income tax rate in the OECD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg
We have one of the lowest union membership levels in the OECD (it’s the same level as it was under National).
http://bp2.blogger.com/_t8KNMT03MmI/RsUgiJNjnXI/AAAAAAAAAB0/QoWor1cuXh0/s1600-h/Untitled-1.jpg
And we have one of the highest levels of income inequality in the OECD.
http://bp1.blogger.com/_t8KNMT03MmI/RzFci_cLmeI/AAAAAAAAADk/Rn_Fyu_9iVI/s1600-h/inequality+copy.jpg
So god knows where you get this idea that Labour is hard left – probably from swallowing David Farrar’s spin uncritically.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Evenone playing the blame the last National government drinking game… scull!!!
May 6th, 2008 at 11:34 am
emmess:
The OECD says we have the third lowest median income tax rate in the OECD.
We have one of the lowest union membership levels in the OECD (it’s the same level as it was under National).
And we have one of the highest levels of income inequality in the OECD.
So god knows where you get this idea that Labour is hard left – probably from swallowing David Farrar’s spin uncritically.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:39 am
Pascal the trains are allready owned by a separate company who leases tham back under a maintenance deal
But they are at the end of their economic life, so either new stock is bought or leased!
Get your facts right
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=3506258
June 2003
Finance Minister Michael Cullen said a downpayment of $44 million would be made to rescue Tranz Rail from insolvency.
The money will help Tranz Rail make a lease payment on wagons and locomotives on June 19.
Because of the earlier deal for the tracks ( and land) for $1.
The overall cost for the business ( not including rolling stock which is leased) is the $600 mill PLus $1
May 6th, 2008 at 11:44 am
Yet again GWW dumbarse – John Key explained it quite succinctly – Cullen paid such a ludicrous price that he has F#@ked any chance of selling it for a profit, let alone getting our money back. If they went and sold it, dumbarses like you would moan like a hooker at the black power head quarters.
He is also doing what helen and cullen can’t seem to do at the moment and sticking to his word. I know that is a novel approach to someone like you, but hey you’re an idiot.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:47 am
June 2003
Finance Minister Michael Cullen said a downpayment of $44 million would be made to rescue Tranz Rail from insolvency.
….and we can actually believe everything cullen says. How does it go? We can’t afford tax cuts, we can afford tax cuts (albeit chewing gum), we can’t afford tax cuts, election year WE CAN AFFORD TAX CUTS.
Yes cullen is in fact a reliable source when it comes to cost control and what we can and can’t afford.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:51 am
What ludicrous price are you talking about.
The price is based on the profts they make which is in the region of $50 mill PER YEAR.
Considering that we also OWN the land for the tracks for $1. Cullen is amaster negoiator.
Remember his brilliant investment in Air NZ.
Whats your track record Sibhon
May 6th, 2008 at 11:53 am
siobhan:
“We can’t afford tax cuts, we can afford tax cuts (albeit chewing gum), we can’t afford tax cuts, election year WE CAN AFFORD TAX CUTS.”
Cullen was forced by the National Party’s promises for reckless tax cuts to “me too” tax cuts. It became electoral necessity. But the problem is he was originally right – we can’t afford tax cuts.
http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=760
May 6th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Damn, time to give my car kesh to the designated driver.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Tane
In the coming energy crisis, trucking firms aren’t quite the canaries in the mineshaft (that’s the airline industry),
the Apparition
Cullen is a master negoiator. Remember his brilliant investment in Air NZ.
Can’t you two at least get your lines right?
May 6th, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Bruvvers nome and ghost wot you are not telling the other bruvvers and sisters of the union is that a billion wasted on Mickys toy trainset will be a billion less for ealth hand edumication, or I fink thats right cause it was when “Rich Prick Key” was going to give it back to us starving workers as a tax cut mush.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
In other words Cullen is a flip-flopping political chameleon.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
People are hungry and they’re pissing away OUR money.
THATS the bottom line.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
GWW – my track record is probably much like a number of other people here. I work, I pay taxes (fortunately for cullen I pay “envy tax” for his train set) and am sick of feeling like a chequebook for idiotic idealogical partisan politics.
As for cullen being a master negotiator – how do you come up with that. Every commentator I have listened to is saying that they paid a premium – regardless of whether they agree with the sale or not. I think you are a little bit too blinkered if you really think that is the case.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Read what the link says : The money paid to Tranzrail (not TOLL) was for lease payments for rolling stock.
SO we havent bought any ‘old trains’, they are owned by the lease company, but are at the end of their economic life.
What we have bought is a profitable ( $50 mill yr) company.
If national doesnt like it why dont they say they will sell.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
“getstaffed (1246) +0 Says:
May 6th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
Cullen was forced by the National Party’s promises for reckless tax cuts to “me too” tax cuts. It became electoral necessity
In other words Cullen is a flip-flopping political chameleon.”
To add to this, you have proved that Labour and cullen will follow a populist line to achieve power. This makes them little better than what you have accused John Key of doing when he follows a pragmatic approach to policy already in place. Remember the saying “whats good for the goose is good for the gander”. This sort of thing just makes you look like a hypocrite.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
getstaffed:
“flip-flopping” is just an empty rhetorical term. Try sticking to the facts – it results in better analysis.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
“If national doesnt like it why dont they say they will sell.”
BECAUSE THEY PAID WAY OVER THE ODDS SO IT WOULD LOSE MONEY TO SELL AND THAT IS EVEN IF YOU COULD FIND A BUYER. What is so hard to understand about that statement.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
based on being wrong on EVERYTHING you have stated Siobhan , you cant even read properly, why would anything else be right.
Commentators are just opposed to the State buying Toll NZ. The price is about right for a $50 mill /yr profit business if anybody else bought it.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:26 pm
“What we have bought is a profitable ( $50 mill yr) company.”
It was profitable because it was owned and run be a very good company with expertise in operating a rail network. Helen and Mike have both said that they are not in it to make money – so this makes the purchase worse as they have admitted already that it will not continue to be a $50mill per annum company.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
How am I wrong on everything I have stated, this means all the commentators that have commented on this purchase are wrong too. Sorry in future I will make sure I bow to your greater wisdom and one link you could conjure up.
My bad.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Actually gww I’m opposed to them blowing MY money when petrol is about to hit $2 a litre and cheese requires a trip to the bank manager.
If I need you to tell me what I’m opposed to I’ll fucking tell you. Tell then stick to speaking for yourself.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
The only time trains have a massive advantage over trucks is when they are carrying huge amounts, point to point on distances over 400 Ks. This is certainly the case in large countries like the US and the like, but not here in NZ.
We’ve never been able to get trains to make a profit, and Cullen and Clark are clearly not expecting it to this time around based on their public statements.
Times have changed from when trains were first invented. I strongly suspect the best course of action will be to scrap the lot, tear up the tracks and put truck dedicated roading in the place of tracks. It would get all trucks off the road and give us the most inexpensive transport.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
“To add to this, you have proved that Labour and cullen will follow a populist line to achieve power.”
yep – as will any party that seriously wants power. But that’s representative democracy for you. Know your history.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
I called this government hard left because they are massively increase the State’s role in the economy when virtually all other countries in the world apart from ones run by Latin American left-wing populists have been going in the opposite direction. Up until now they have most been interested in soft left policies but now they know they are going to be wasted at this election they are flailing out with these nutty hard left policies. It’s not about the level of tax, government spending or inequality. Hard left policies have little or no effect on these, only in destroying the economy.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
“Does anyone here think that buying-back the trains was a good idea?”
Even Kullen couldn’t come up with a reason. When asked why the government should own trains he said-
“some people ask why, I ask why not?”
That’s what happens when you elect tired old cloth cap wearing socialist zealots to government. They spend other people’s money buying things they want for reasons they can’t even rationally explain to themselves. Kullen is just another brain damaged commie dropkick who should never have been allowed through the immigration turnstiles, and if he had been turned back, think how much better off this country would be today.
Socialists are a plague on civilization. No country knows this better than the inwardly collapsing UK, and why we would ever want to import the same destructive mindset into this country is something I can’t explain either.
They’re waking up over there. Two or three decades too late of course. I don’t think the destruction that the likes of Kullen has wrought in the UK is repairable. Maybe it is here, but not in the short term. NZ is stuffed for two or three decades, and the reckless spending of taxpayer’s money on a stupid ideological fixation held by a stupid little class obsessed commie immigrant is not going to help one iota.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Buggerlugs:
“We’ve never been able to get trains to make a profit, and Cullen and Clark are clearly not expecting it to this time around based on their public statements.”
A) They were run using a different, less efficient model than they will be this time.
B) For the last hundred years oil has cost less than $20 a barrel in 2006 dollars (apart from the mid 1970s to mid 1980s when OPEC used the oil weapon).
C) Oil is now above $100 a barrel, and it’s not going to come down.
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif
D) The reason trucks have out competed rail is that they’re quicker. It’s been a case of convenience over cost. But fuel costs are beginning to outweigh convenience. The fuel efficiency of rail will see it surpass trucking as the major form of long-distance freighting in NZ in the near future.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:46 pm
One billion=500,000 hip operations.
One billion=200,000 heart operations.
One billion=1st world ER at our public hospitals.
One billion=no illiterate school leavers.
One billion=no starvation or freezing to death for pensioners this winter.
Who gives a shit. Micky has got the old toy trainset his mum couldn’t afford when he was a sprog. It will go nicely with his toy aeroplanes. Wonder if anyone wants to sell a shipping line? Wouldn’t want to leave any cash in the piggy bank for those nasty right wing kids to spend on lollies for the workers when their gang beats our gang would we.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
“emmess”
“It’s not about the level of tax, government spending or inequality. Hard left policies have little or no effect on these,”
The Scandinavian countries are the furtherest left in the developed world. They have the highest tax levels, the highest levels of government spending and the lowest inequality. Why? Because the further left you go, the higher the percentage of wealth you socialise. Why is this hard for you to understand?
May 6th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
“Why? Because the further left you go, the more wealth you socialise.”
All those wealthy sods who died in Stalins gulags and Maos cultural revolution would be very grateful if they could read your twisted logic that fully explains why they were shot nome.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
“Why? Because the further left you go, the higher the percentage of wealth you socialise.”
To be sure, this was a message the citizens of the Soviet Union were given all too well.
May 6th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
“stupid little class obsessed commie immigrant ”
Aren’t you an immigrant redbaiter?
May 6th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
Mickys an immigrant is it too late to deport him?
May 6th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
“The fuel efficiency of rail will see it surpass trucking as the major form of long-distance freighting in NZ in the near future.”
When has one dumbfuck socialist ever been able to accurately predict commercial or financial outcomes? If they could, after nine years under their guidance NZ would be enjoying an increasing standard of living rather than sliding further down the OECD ladder. Gnome and the other deceitful socialists are only good at one thing, and that is propaganda and lies, and this lone talent they have shrouds the truth that everything they ever touch turns to complete shit. Power obsessed economic vandals who put ideology before actuality.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Remember to avoid having a higher percentage of your wealth socialised.
Tax avoidance and evasion is the duty of every free citizen.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Redbaiter:
http://www.uprr.com/newsinfo/releases/environment/2006/0428_fuel_economy.shtml
As fuel efficiency becomes more of a cost-factor in transport, trains gain more of an advantage over trucks. The price of oil has more than quadrupled over the last 5 years, and it only looks set to increase.
Conclusion: More and more freight is going to be carried by trains rather than trucks. Rather uncontroversial I would have thought.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
GWW3: The overall cost for the business ( not including rolling stock which is leased) is the $600 mill PLus $1
You are looking only at basic expenditure. You are not considering opportunity cost, foregone revenue, etc. It pays to look at a slightly bigger picture than just the basics.
So how about you get your facts right.
Roger Nome: A study of 50 major U.S. metro areas by transportation consultant
I might be losing the plot here, but did we just buy a chunk of the US railroads? And as an aside, how does railroad useage in metropolitan areas aid us in the more efficient transportation of goods across New Zealand? Aren’t you taking apples and comparing them to fuel gauges? As per your earlier quote:
Roger Nome: The fuel efficiency of rail will see it surpass trucking as the major form of long-distance freighting in NZ in the near future.
Long-distance. Not within metropolitan areas.
Roger Nome: They were run using a different, less efficient model than they will be this time.
So what is the more efficient model, Philip John? And why haven’t we been using it before? It seems to me as if you’re liberally mixing different studies, different models and trying to fit that to your viewpoint.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Fuck off with your urls and your references you dipshit moron. I never click on them and I never will click on them. And you obviously don’t even understand the argument. The issue here is ‘why did Kullen spend (too many) tax payer dollars on a rail network’. A question Kullen himself cannot answer. Whether rail is profitable or competitive with trucking doesn’t matter a fuck. (and fuel efficiency is only a part of the equation anyway, and also, truck and rail are two different sectors of the transport framework and complementary rather than competing with each other) I repeat- The real issue is that transport of goods by rail or truck or horse and fucken cart or anything you like is not a core government function…. ..and NZ taxpayers do not exist to fund the insane class based obsessions of clapped out soviet style socialist immigrants..
May 6th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
“I might be losing the plot here, but did we just buy a chunk of the US railroads?”
No need to be cute Pascal – it was merely for the purpose of illustrating the point that rail is far more fuel efficient than trucking.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
>>The Scandinavian countries are the furtherest left in the developed world. They have the highest tax levels, the highest levels of government spending and the lowest inequality. Why? Because the further left you go, the higher the percentage of wealth you socialise. Why is this hard for you to understand?
Nome, You still don’t get it do you, I am not talking about Scandinavian style high tax and government spending, much as I dislike it I’ll admit that is not the best way to bring an economy to it’s knees. It’s the hard left Chavista policies that Clark and Cullen have been pursueing recently. Take a look at the levels of inflation, poverty and inequality in Venezuela if you don’t believe me
They don’t fucken work
May 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“Long-distance. Not within metropolitan areas.”
Don’t you understand physics Pascal? You know, mass, momentum and energy? Over long distance trains are even more fuel efficient.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
pascal says what about oppotunity cost ?
Like the 1.5billion for someone elses fibre optic cables had forgone revenue, oppotunity cost etc.
The reality is that it is a profitable business, that was going nowhere under its owners.
This is what investing in infrastructure is all about. look at the growth of passengers in Aucklands trains. The same will happen with new or leased locomotives and rolling stock
May 6th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
roger nome: it was merely for the purposes of illustrating the point that rail is far more fuel efficient than trucking.
It is not called being cute. It is me pointing out that you are looking at a study for the fuel efficiency of rail over trucking within a metropolitan area, when you are touting the effficiency of railroad over long distances. You are also comparing the infrastructures of very different countries, with different geographical, topographic and however many other “ics” you want to throw at it and trying to say they are equivalent.
At worst you’re being intellectually dishonest, Philip John. At best you’re just stupid. And yes, I’d expect them to be more efficient over long distances.
Understand the basic concept though – US is not applicable. Our situation is different. Distances are different. Stops are different. Starting is different. Find a study that is applicable to NZ.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
“It’s the hard left Chavista policies that Clark and Cullen have been pursueing recently.”
Such as providing what the world bank calls “the second most business friendly environment of any country in the world”? You’re an idiot. Can’t be fucked arguing with you.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
roger nome said ““flip-flopping” is just an empty rhetorical term. Try sticking to the facts – it results in better analysis.”
roger nome – do you yourself ever follow the advice you give so freely to others? Thought not!
May 6th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
“it was merely for the purposes of illustrating the point that rail is far more fuel efficient than trucking.”
If that was the sole issue there would not be a truck or a car in existence. Idiot.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Pascal -
Three times more fuel efficient. And that’s over the short-haul, where trucks have an advantage (if you know anything about physics). You’re starting to look more and more like an idiot that I shouldn’t be bothered arguing with.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“In terms of fuel efficiency, railroads are three times more fuel-efficient than trucks.A study of 50 major U.S. metro areas by transportation consultant Wendell Cox found that the diversion of 25 percent of truck freight to rail would lead, by 2025, to:”
All sounds wonderful but the hard facts are that customers order today and want the delivery tomorrow how can that be achieved when goods would have to be trucked to a rail centre then loaded into rail wagons railed to another centre then trucked to the customer. Apart from the time factor damage and pilfering would increase hugely (as it used to be in the good old days of the 90 mile limit.) Containerisation would help but most shippers of goods are shipping less than container loads to their customers sometimes only one or two cartons. Apart from that where would the land come from in say a city like Wellington to build the facilities to handle the huge growth in transhipping.?
Roading would still be a major as well, instead of a few hundred B trains heading north at night (when commuter traffic is minimal) we would have hundreds more delivery vehicles heading to the railyards using already over crowded roads. Unless Micky wants to spend another 5 or 6 billion to sort some of these problems as well I cant see the point of buying the rail at all.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
“Such as providing what the world bank calls “the second most business friendly environment of any country in the world”? ”
The flaws in this study have been pointed out to you time and time again, and you continue to ignore them. You’re the idiot.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Redbaiter:
“If that was the sole issue there would not be a truck or a car in existence”
I’ve addressed this argument above:
May 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
GWW – it is a profitable business under TOLL, a specialist operator of rail networks. Also, TOLL have maintained tranzlink which is the biggest trucking company in the country. If these people created a profitable business – I think they might have a clue where the money is. And it is not in rail.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
“The flaws in this study have been pointed out to you time and time again”
yes redbaiter knows better than the world bank – no doubt it’s part of the global communist conspiracy as well
May 6th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
“At worst you’re being intellectually dishonest, Philip John. At best you’re just stupid.”
He’s both actually.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
“yes redbaiter knows better than the world bank ”
Plenty of people do. Not everyone is an ignorant untravelled politically one dimensional clown unable to think for themselves and living and breathing socialist propaganda in Marxist academia la la land..
May 6th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
Johnboy:
I agree that trucks will still be needed for short-haul jobs, but when you’re talking oil over $150 a barrel (remember it was under $20 for nearly the entire 20th century) the fuel efficiency of rail is going to give it the bottom-line advantage over trucks in long-haul jobs. It’s so obvious, I can’t even believe I’m having this discussion actually.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
“I’ve addressed this argument above:”
You haven’t, because it is not a matter of competition. Maybe like walking is competing with taking a taxi. Maybe like thinking is competing with dumbfuck communists and their one dimensional doctrines.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
So, if our business environment is so wonderful
Why do they want to change it?
It should be providing an at least annual 5-6% growth rate like the raft of East European countries that are about to pass us in the next few years.
Now if I am not mistaken, I am sure they have not nationalized any industries lately, quite the opposite
You are the idiot Nome, I am not arguing with you any more
May 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Redbaiter:
“The issue here is ‘why did Kullen spend (too many) tax payer dollars on a rail network’.”
I’ve already answered that question. The government knows that we’re going to need a first-class rail infrastructure very soon, and it doesn’t have faith that a private company with a monopoly will provide that. They’re right of course.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
“It’s so obvious, I can’t even believe I’m having this discussion actually.”
I tell you you are, but only because you’re an absolute indoctrinated socialist dumbfuck without the slightest ability to ever understand the real argument.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
“emmess”
None of the numbers or facts support your argument. All you’ve got is stupid rhetoric – redbaiter style. You’ve lost.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
“I’ve already answered that question.”
Yes, with an answer based on socialist doctrine and totally ignoring reality. As if you and your lot with your crippled one dimensional minds could ever produce anything “first class”.. Haw haw.. that is a joke..
May 6th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Redbaiter-
As usual all you’ve got is abuse and stupid rhetoric. Now why don’t you be a good boy and scuttle of back to your room. Some adults are trying to have a factually-based debate.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
nome you miss my point it is not about short or long haul and relative fuel usage between road and rail. What it is about is the total logistics of the supply chain. If you totalled the cost of the road/rail/road transport and factored in the handling/loss costs then you added the costs of acquiring land and building facilities and spent a packet sorting the roading to allow it all to happen efficiently I think it would be much cheaper to ship by road. You have not adressed the cost to business of holding extra stock to cover the much longer lead times required for slower delivery times. Quoting obscure links to US think tanks does not alter any of these problems.
May 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
“The government knows that we’re going to need a first-class rail infrastructure very soon, and it doesn’t have faith that a private company with a monopoly will provide that. They’re right of course.”
Factually based??????
Where’s the fact in the above paragraph?? You used the word “faith”. Here’s a fact for you. The above statement is just doctrinal socialist nonsense.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Roger Nome,
“It’s so obvious, I can’t even believe I’m having this discussion actually.”
Well you did your best, and you did a pretty good job I thought. I guess it’s hard for people to swallow such a fundamental shift in our social and economic situation, I know it took a while for me to get to accept what Peak Oil means.
If nothing else, your debate here might have persuaded a few lurking readers out there. So it was worthwhile just for that.
Cheers,
Tane W
Wellington
May 6th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
John, the bottom line is that neither Roger ‘Geobbells’ Nome or Michael ‘Klepto’ Kullen can come up with any good reason for buying a transport service with taxpayer funds. They did it because they’re socialist zealots and no other reason. Everything else is just the usual off topic diversionary Nome bullshit.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
“If you totalled the cost of the road/rail/road transport and factored in the handling/loss costs then you added the costs of acquiring land and building facilities and spent a packet sorting the roading to allow it all to happen efficiently I think it would be much cheaper to ship by road.”
Well ultimately that’s a question for the accountants. All I’m saying that with the coming of $150 oil, the balance is tipped significantly toward trains when compared with the age of $20 oil.
And Wendell Cox is a consultancy firm which puts its professional reputation at risk if it produces erroneous figures – it isn’t a think-tank.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
The rise in the price of oil is merely the chickens of socialism coming home to roost.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Johnboy,
You have a good point, but it’s based on an assumption that what we have now (cheapish diesel) will continue to be the case. As the price of diesel rises to the point where it makes road freight (in most cases) untenable, then alternatives will be found. Not alternative fuels (there aren’t any really), but alternative courses of action.
Some businesses will source their goods and services locally, accepting higher prices and/or lower quality, as the further source of supply becomes too expensive. Some will go out of business, as transport becomes too expensive, tenuous or non-existant. Some will develope additional warehouse capacity, and hold more stock on hand. Some will close some markets, and concentrate on others (local, or even export, if transport costs aren’t too high).
This will take time and money, as you rightly point out. Building extra warehousing, distribution hubs, developing new markets, going out of business for some; yes this is expensive. But it’s what will happen as the system we have now (road freight based on cheap energy) becomes untenable. Because something that can’t go on, eventually doesn’t, and we humans improvise, adapt and (hopefully) overcome.
No-one said this would be easy, quite the opposite really. But we have very little choice in the matter, as oil supplies run down and the price of what’s left heads into the stratosphere.
You’ll be grateful for a few trains then I imagine.
Cheers,
Tane W
Wellington
May 6th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
“The government knows that we’re going to need a first-class rail infrastructure very soon, and it doesn’t have faith that a private company with a monopoly will provide that. They’re right of course.”
BTW, how’s the rail network in Cuba???
May 6th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Johnboy sorry to take your time out from Biggles books. But the railways ONLY handles bulk freight these days
That is minimum container size for general freight, other items like coal, milk, fuel have their rail vehicles.
And yes door to door for a container is quicker by road. but whats the cost. many companies could live with an extra day if the transport cost was halved.
I can remember when many bulk freight businesses had their own rail siding so that even the rail came door to door.
Thats not going to come back for most, but the very largest users still use their own facilities.
Transporting logs by rail is a no brainer.
lets see how happy you lot are for log trucks to go past your front door day and night
May 6th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
The balance is tipped towards trains only for the part of the journey from supplier to consumer that happens on a train nome.
The rest of the long chain is not affected at all by the difference in fuel costs between trucks and trains.
Perhaps you could address that for us all as you normally have all the right answers (at least in your own mind you do).
May 6th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
“You’ll be grateful for a few trains then I imagine.”
Tane- forget all the issue clouding bullshit. Be honest with yourself (and others ) for once. Address the real question-
Why did Michael “Klepto” Kullen spend taxpayer money on aquiring a transport service?
May 6th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“The balance is tipped towards trains only for the part of the journey from supplier to consumer that happens on a train nome.”
Appears to be a redundant sentence.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
“Appears to be a redundant sentence.”
Fuck. Almost every word you’ve written on this thread has been redundant.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Redbaiter – you’re an idiot. Go away.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I find Biggles books quite stimulating ghost at least better than the noddy books you still are reading. Could not agree more rail is best to haul coal from west coast to east coast ports and logs from the forests to Tauranga. Not much good though to ship one small carton of noddy books from the publisher to your local bookshop.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
Tanew you still dont get the point no matter what happens to oil costs no matter how much is hauled on bigger trains they cannot deliver door to door road transport is still required.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Sorry nome it was a play on your sentence:
”Well ultimately that’s a question for the accountants. All I’m saying that with the coming of $150 oil, the balance is tipped significantly toward trains when compared with the age of $20 oil.”
So I guess it is redundant.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Woohooo.. question socialists.. wants a rational answer (not one that involves “faith”..)
————————————————————————–
Why did Michael “Klepto” Kullen spend taxpayer money on aquiring a transport service?
————————————————————————–
The silence is deafening.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Redbaiter,
“Tane- forget all the issue clouding bullshit. Be honest with yourself (and others ) for once. Address the real question-
Why did Michael “Klepto” Kullen spend taxpayer money on aquiring a transport service?”
As someone stated above ““The government knows that we’re going to need a first-class rail infrastructure very soon, and it doesn’t have faith that a private company with a monopoly will provide that. They’re right of course.” If that’s not the government’s reasoning, then they’ve made the right decision by accident. But either way, they made the right decision.
Johnboy,
“Tanew you still dont get the point no matter what happens to oil costs no matter how much is hauled on bigger trains they cannot deliver door to door road transport is still required.”
My apologies for not being clear enough. You’re right, road transport will still be needed to a degree, to move freight (and people) to and from the railhead. As GWW pointed out, some businesses will build rail lines to their own warehouses, like the Army used to do in Trentham, Waiouru and Burnham. But for most, light and medium size trucks will be used (though at a higher charge rate than today). I’m not disputing this. I am saying that the heavy trucks used on the long-distance routes will come under increasing pressure, to the point where they will become uneconomic, and sooner rather than later.
Cheers,
Tane W
May 6th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Roger
In the context of your claimed efficiency of rail transport are you able to tell me about this 2004 Labour Govt initiative that made headlines today?
“The Whirinaki power plant has used 7.6 million litres of diesel in the first three months of 2008”
The $1b train set was only $200k shy of the cost of project aqua?
May 6th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
” As GWW pointed out, some businesses will build rail lines to their own warehouses”
Could you name one of these large businesses Tane and suggest how long it would take to get the required resource consent to bulldoze a train track through the houses of suburbia to their warehouse door. When composing this answer please consider how difficult it is to get a windmill put up to generate clean green power in an rural area.
May 6th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
“As someone stated above ““The government knows that we’re going to need a first-class rail infrastructure very soon, and it doesn’t have faith that a private company with a monopoly will provide that. They’re right of course.” If that’s not the government’s reasoning, then they’ve made the right decision by accident. But either way, they made the right decision.”
That’s not an answer. That’s an expression of support for a point of view and again its based on faith not reason. Gawd you commies are so slow witted, its no damn wonder you’re so easily entrapped by such a flawed ideology.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
See readers, how Nome and his boys love beating around the bush but run like squarking chickens when the scrub is cleared away?
May 6th, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Perhaps. like the rest of us, he got bored wasting his time arguing with a delusional fanatic?
May 6th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Maybe if I type this slowly you’ll get it…..
1. Transport costs are going to rise, as oil prices increase.
2. As road freight becomes more expensive, then too expensive, we need something else to provide the same service.
3. Our current rail network is inadequate for current, let alone future demand. Therefore more investment is needed.
4. In a perfect world, this investment would come from the private sector.
5. This isn’t a perfect world. The private sector has proven, over the last 15 years, that it is not going to invest in the rail network, to bring it up to an acceptable standard.
6. The best remaining option is to bring it into the public sector, and make the investment from public funds.
This isnt’ faith, not as I understand it. It’s called logic. You can dispute my assumptions and train of thought. But to denounce it as ‘faith’ proves that you’ve missed the point entirely.
With hope,
Tane W
May 6th, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Although this is by no means a full list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalisation
I can not see any other Western countries that have engaged in as large a program of nationalisation since the 1970′s
Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong
May 6th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Im a slow typist too
1. Trains can be an effective means of transport for bulk loads and long distance.
2. Any item less than a container is not a bulk load.
3. Most manufacturers left in NZ don’t ship full container loads to their customers.
4. Trains cannot deliver door to door so even if 150k rule was re-introduced trucks would still carry most of the non bulk freight. All the rail would do is get rid of the few hundred large trucks that line haul on the same route as the railway.
5. Extension of rail to factories (mostly small ones left now) will never happen–just a pipe dream.
6. Private enterprise did not invest in rail for 15 years because it could not make a return on its investment.
7. Government never made rail pay in a hundred years even when it had a monopoly so they certainly won’t make it pay now.
8. None of the above is faith just logic based on history.
May 6th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
By no means this is a full list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nationalisation
But I can not see any other Western country that has been involved in such a large program of nationalisation since France in the early 80′s
Please can somebody correct me if this they think this is incorrect
May 6th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
As Johnboy points out, rail in New Zealand is never going to be effective – we don’t have the long distances necessary to make it work. For almost all transportation, road is more efficient.
May 6th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I’m a quick typist
1. In in age of rising oil prices and increasing political instability in the major oil producing region of the world, putting all of your transport eggs in the basket of road is the economics of the madhouse.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
“7. Government never made rail pay in a hundred years even when it had a monopoly so they certainly won’t make it pay now.”
We’ve never had anything like $115 oil for a sustained period before, let alone $150 oil. This fact alone does away with your argument. Looks like I need to post it again.
http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1869.gif
May 6th, 2008 at 5:20 pm
“Maybe if I type this slowly you’ll get it…..”
OK, I’ll read it slowly too, just in case there’s a point somewhere-
“1. Transport costs are going to rise, as oil prices increase.”
This does not answer the question- Why did Michael “Klepto” Kullen spend taxpayer money on aquiring a transport service?
“2. As road freight becomes more expensive, then too expensive, we need something else to provide the same service.”
This does not answer the question- Why did Michael “Klepto” Kullen spend taxpayer money on aquiring a transport service?
“3. Our current rail network is inadequate for current, let alone future demand. Therefore more investment is needed.”
This does not answer the question- Why did Michael “Klepto” Kullen spend taxpayer money on aquiring a transport service?
4. In a perfect world, this investment would come from the private sector.
This does not answer the question- Why did Michael “Klepto” Kullen spend taxpayer money on aquiring a transport service?
“5. This isn’t a perfect world. The private sector has proven, over the last 15 years, that it is not going to invest in the rail network, to bring it up to an acceptable standard.”
Not so. Your claims are far from “proven”. Your use of the phrase “acceptable standard” is subjective and cloudy. What is an “acceptable standard”? If Toll weren’t meeting this standard where was that shown? Where is the evidence that government can provide this ‘acceptable standard’? If we measure by their performance in Health, Education, Law and Order, Defence, and rail when the owned it previously, they’ll never get within light years of any “acceptable standard”.
“6. The best remaining option is to bring it into the public sector, and make the investment from public funds.”
It is not the best. This is worthless subjective politically partisan crap.
“This isnt’ faith, not as I understand it. It’s called logic. You can dispute my assumptions and train of thought. But to denounce it as ‘faith’ proves that you’ve missed the point entirely.”
Your good ideological buddy Roger Nome used the word “faith” and it was one of the extremely rare times when he was right. You have nothing to justify this action other than a religionist belief in socialism. All over the world proven to be a dismal failure.
“With hope,”
There’s no hope for NZ as long as reality denying socialist fruit cakes are running the place.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Redbaiter:
“Your use of the phrase “acceptable standard” is subjective and cloudy. What is an “acceptable standard”? If Toll weren’t meeting this standard where was that shown?”
I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the tracks haven’t been maintained, and the assets have been stripped to make a cheap buck? This is monopoly capitalism at its best – it never works.
Also – there needs to be rapid investment in this infrastructure before the market signals start to encourage investment (by then it will be too late). A government can and will do this, whereas a monopoly service provider won’t.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
“I thought it was pretty common knowledge”
Just code for another socialist lie, more anti capitalist hate driven propaganda.
Prove it.
“This is monopoly capitalism at its best – it never works.”
Sure. That’s why you ignored my question on Cuba.
“Also – there needs to be rapid investment in this infrastructure before the market signals start to encourage investment (by then it will be too late). A government can and will do this, whereas a monopoly service provider won’t.”
What worthless illogical senseless crap. God you’ve got a cheek expecting rational people to argue with such obvious bullshit.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Nome they ran on coal for a lot of that hundred years and they run on oil now( except for the EF class and Wellington EMU’s)
So how is expensive oil going to make them more cost effective?
May 6th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
On morning report this morning Cullen said that it was impossible/difficult to value the rail operation because of the dispute over the access agreement. Quite the opposite, I think, if you happen to be the owner of the tracks. The difference between what Toll was prepared to pay and the “non-subsidised return” should be deducted from Toll’s valuation of the business. GWW, the 50mil profit is that before or after the adjustment for the subsidy? In addition if it’s 50mil on the back of run down rolling stock then you need to factor that into the purchase price. The real question is why you would pay over the odds for the business, which appears to be the case. I agree, if Toll were going to be subsidised (by providing them with subsidised access to the tracks) then how do you extend this to other operators/competitors. But it appears that Toll have hammered out a deal that provides them an even better subsidy than discounted access to the tracks, and one that their competitors don’t have access to. Nome, the Government already owns the tracks.
May 6th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
“I thought it was pretty common knowledge that the tracks haven’t been maintained, and the assets have been stripped to make a cheap buck? This is monopoly capitalism at its best – it never works.”
My bro in law served his time at the Woburn shops around 50 odd years ago. He had a fine collection of Norman Zacharia Robinson tools and I’ve still got one I borrowed many years ago. I guess you could call it asset stripping but hang on he was a member of the union and not a monopolist capitalist running dogs tool. There must be some other name for it I guess if lefties do it instead.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
“Nome they ran on coal for a lot of that hundred years and they run on oil now( except for the EF class and Wellington EMU’s)
So how is expensive oil going to make them more cost effective?”
John – ok, take the last 50 years then. The same argument still applies.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
“Nome, the Government already owns the tracks.”
aha – but they need to invest in more trains as well as tracks.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
So why buy the clapped out old ones?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Redbaiter:
“Just code for another socialist lie, more anti capitalist hate driven propaganda.
Prove it.”
May 6th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
“John – ok, take the last 50 years then. The same argument still applies.”
Fucken wish I could Nome I would not need viagra and I would still be a socialist. You may have a point there though we could run em on coal again as we have shitloads on the west coast and lets face it does it really matter if we burn it or the Chinese do. It still ends up in the atmosphere. Run it past Helen and Micky next time you are having a chat. Could be a bit of a problem with Jeanette though in view of the later topic on this blog. Personally I love steam so its OK with me.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Redbaiter.
“Sure. That’s why you ignored my question on Cuba.”
Cuba isn’t comparable to NZ. It’s a dictatorship, so we’ll have a hugely different model to them.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Fred:
“So why buy the clapped out old ones?”
Well apparently it wasn’t too bad a deal after all.
“The Government said that, when adjusted for the value of the road transport and warehousing businesses Toll was retaining, the price it was paying equated to about $3.16 a share. That was not out of line with the $3 a share Toll paid to buy out its minority shareholders last year.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/3/story.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10508141
May 6th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
iGHOST WHO WALKS……………Air NZ has hardly been a succesful investment let alone a brilliant one. The shares are roughly the same value today as they were when they were issued about eight years ago. The only reason they appear more valuable is because the board cancelled five shares out of every six held about four years ago when they were languishing at about 30cent each.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Nome, on your “we’ll be thankful that we have trains when fuel is really short”. Agreed the cost of fuel is going to increase, and agreed that rail is more fuel efficient but why does that mean that the state should own it. Your answer is that you can’t trust private enterprise to invest in the “right” thing. The other way of looking at this is that until private enterprise anticipates a return it won’t invest, the cost differential between road and rail is already present, double the price of fuel and it doesn’t mean that the relative advantage in the cost of shipping goods by rail is 1/3 less. Under your scenario we should only be allowed to live within walking distance from a railway station.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Only joking Nome I would not build KA’s again I would electrify the whole system and burn the coal to produce the power and tell the greenies to get stuffed. If that is too unpalatable then lets just build a couple of clean green 2000 MW reactors.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Johnboy:
“You may have a point there though we could run em on coal again as we have shitloads on the west coast and lets face it does it really matter if we burn it or the Chinese do. It still ends up in the atmosphere.”
Yeah, not really seeing that as politically tenable mate. Can you imagine the hundreds of protesters lining up to block the tracks (that’s if they still make steam trains – they run at half the speed of diesel powered ones)?
May 6th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
If you want to look at it that way, what is the market capitalisation of Toll and the new railways entity after the transaction. otherwise it’s just a figure taken out of context. Edit: and don’t forget to add in all the acquisitions that Toll will be making with their windfall profits.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
“Stuff of popular legend”
Yep exactly. Look up ‘legend’ in a dictionary you time wasting half educated fool. Here. Let me give you a few references-
a. An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.
b. A body or collection of such stories.
c. A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times.
Fuckwit.
..and what you have to prove is that “tracks weren’t maintained” and that assets “were sold to make a cheap buck”.
You haven’t even come close to this. You think merely repeating the same assertion is proof?? Go somewhere and get an education Nome, then come back and argue. You’re like an infant repeating fairy stories.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:36 pm
“Only joking Nome I would not build KA’s again I would electrify the whole system and burn the coal to produce the power and tell the greenies to get stuffed.”
You might not have to tell us to get stuffed if that carbon sequestration technology comes through in the next 10 years or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CO2_sequestration
May 6th, 2008 at 6:41 pm
“Cuba isn’t comparable to NZ. It’s a dictatorship, so we’ll have a hugely different model to them.”
Its where idiots like you are free to do as you wish without the restraint of democracy. Free to exercise every dumbfuck socialist option you want. Consequently you have poverty and zero development, a place that anyone with any brains wants to escape. Its what you would do to NZ if it wasn’t for elections.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
“Yeah, not really seeing that as politically tenable mate. Can you imagine the hundreds of protesters lining up to block the tracks (that’s if they still make steam trains – they run at half the speed of diesel powered ones)?”
The advantage of half the speed is that the crunch when you run over a protester lasts twice as long. Sort of like squashing a cockroach slowly. Still once the first few hundred protesters got cockroached I don’t think many more would be lining the tracks. Witness the lack of protest re the Olympic nonsense over in the land of your leaders new playmates
May 6th, 2008 at 6:52 pm
“Can you imagine the hundreds of protesters lining up to block the tracks”
Tightening up on welfare would fix that.
May 6th, 2008 at 6:56 pm
bedwetter:
““Stuff of popular legend”
You seem to miss the part where the journalist said “subsequent asset stripping of the business”.
Here’s a few more details for you. No doubt you will say that Fay and Richwhite paid the $27 million to the Securities Commission for no reason at all. Of course you would be an idiot to, but that’s just you.
http://www.greens.org.nz/searchdocs/speech10951.html
May 6th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
bedwetter:
The fact that you continue to make analogies between NZ and Cuba only proves how detached from reality you really are. You really are a deranged idiot.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:04 pm
A speech from Tandoori Wankfest????????
Hahahah what a fucken idiot you are Nome.
Now I know just how desperate you are for something to back your lies and propaganda.
Hopeless.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
governments – even national governments – tend to charge far to little for assets and pay far too much.
Maybe the government should out-source buying and selling in order to make sure they don’t screw it up.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
I have to hand it to you nome you certainly have staying power Tane 1&2 have gone and Ghostie has dematerialised but you are still in here linking away like a Bolshevik mowing down White Russians. Maybe we could go back to steam on the main trunk and you could supply the hot air to boil the water.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
“The fact that you continue to make analogies between NZ and Cuba”
They’re not ‘analogies’ you poorly educated loser. They’re comparisons.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:06 pm
The settlement with the Securities Commission was $27 million bleater – which is the smoking gun you refuse to acknowledge.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:07 pm
“They’re not ‘analogies’ you poorly educated loser. They’re comparisons.”
Analogies:
“1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.”
Idiot.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
“Tandoori Wankfest?”
my god you’re a fool.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
“Maybe we could go back to steam on the main trunk and you could supply the hot air to boil the water.”
You got it Johnny. They never have any damn thing but noise. To think this is the mentality that is making all the decisions in this country. Sad, but dangerous too.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:11 pm
Keep at him RB I noticed the sad prick was fishing earlier for a “Champion of the Blog” medal for his 3000 masochist points achieved. Your only 400 odd to go to achieve “Champion of Kicking Nomes Arse”. May the force be with you.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Nome, you’ve just posted a definition that proves me right and then you have the audacity to label me an idiot?? For fuck’s sake..!! Where does your ignorance end??
May 6th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
“1. a similarity between like features of two things, on which a comparison may be based: the analogy between the heart and a pump.”
Is that like the analogy between someone who talks with his hands like Michael Cullen and a wanker?
May 6th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Fred:
“Agreed the cost of fuel is going to increase, and agreed that rail is more fuel efficient but why does that mean that the state should own it. Your answer is that you can’t trust private enterprise to invest in the “right” thing. The other way of looking at this is that until private enterprise anticipates a return it won’t invest”
Which is exactly the point I make. If we wait for the pricing signals it’s going to be too late. We need a massive injection of capital right now, and Toll have admitted that they wouldn’t be able to provide that.
“the cost differential between road and rail is already present, double the price of fuel and it doesn’t mean that the relative advantage in the cost of shipping goods by rail is 1/3 less.”
Sure, trucking can probably operate at smaller margins for a few years with oil at $100 a barrel, but what about five years of oil at $150-$200 a barrel? Because that’s what we’re looking at within the next ten years. Somewhere there’s a tipping point where rail begins to out compete trucking.
Then you have to factor into the equation the cost to the economy of the extra emissions that trucking causes under Kyoto (many millions). By then Rail is looking very attractive.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
betwetter:
“a similarity between like features of two things”
According to you NZ’s and Cuba’s political systems are analogous. You’re a sad fool.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Fred -some further information for you (remember this was in 2006 when oil was much cheeper than it is now)
http://www.ontrack.govt.nz/Railcanhelptruckingcompaniesmeethigherfuel/tabid/129/Default.aspx
May 6th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Also, fred – I should say that I wouldn’t be against some corporate competition for the government on the tracks in the future – and I believe cullen has left this option open. If this happens the government will be forced to run a cost-effective operation.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:41 pm
I don’t need any dictionary you silly dipshit. I know that the purpose of an analogy is to clarify and illustrate a mechanism or a point. That is not at all the same as a comparison, which is to put things side by side and point out the differences or similarities. If you’d been educated rather than indoctrinated Nome, you’d know these things too. I referenced Cuba because it is an example of where NZ would be if people like you were not constrained by the democratic process. This is not making an analogy, and any reasonably educated person could see this.
This is why you always lose Nome, you’re too poorly educated to perform in these forums. Like a stinking turd fouling a bunch of fragrant roses. *That’s* an analogy dumbfuck.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
“I referenced Cuba because it is an example of where NZ would be if people like you were not constrained by the democratic process.”
No you didn’t liar – here’s the exchange:
RN:The government knows that we’re going to need a first-class rail infrastructure very soon, and it doesn’t have faith that a private company with a monopoly will provide that. They’re right of course.
bedwetter:”BTW, how’s the rail network in Cuba???”
You implied that Cuba’s rail network is an example of what NZ’s nationalised rail network will be like – without knowing what model we’re going to use, and what model they use. You implied that NZ is like/analogous to Cuba. You’re a liar and an idiot.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
du calme people
Rants and slanging isn’t indicative of reasoned debate.
I’m keen to find out how the government will make a decent return on this investment it made in trust of the New Zealand public.
I guess if the price of fuel goes up so much, and this doesn’t affect the operational costs of rail, and the trains don’t fall apart and need replacing, and the rail operators can gouge prices to cover the cost of capital, then maybe. Maybe then trucking will still be economically competitive. Otherwise we’re looking at a decent economic loss on this one.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:57 pm
Freds gone away Nome I’m not sure if you bored him to death or he just went to sleep reading your waffle. Yawn.
May 6th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
Nome, you’ve waffled on here all day and haven’t been able to sustain one of your arguments or even give a rational answer to the question of why the government should spend taxpayer’s money buying a transport service, you don’t know what an analogy is, you seek to prove my point that your argument concerning the almost 20 year old Faye Richwhite affair is a legend by producing a columnist who agrees with me, and you write gibberish like “there needs to be rapid investment in this infrastructure before the market signals start to encourage investment”, and I’m the idiot?? Hahhahha.. thanks for the laff moron.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Remember….. this “ferries and trains re-nationalisation” (via purchase) is just the last ideological gasp of a mob of socialists on the way out.
Mick figures he can lock Key into the deal, Key should kick it to death immediately.
The comrades may be tempted to chance their arm on any number of sacred cows as the sun sinks slowly on comrade heaven.
One thing’s for sure, brother Micky won’t get a gig anywhere else.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
“Maybe then trucking will still be economically competitive.”
It’s doubtful adc:
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/national/2008/05/02/high-fuel-costs-threaten-bankruptcy-for-truckers.html
May 6th, 2008 at 8:06 pm
Roger, RB mightn’t be far off the mark. They are after all using Chinese made trains in Cuba
May 6th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
hmmm, if every trucker is suffering so, why don’t they all put their rates up?
I guess the big operators are waiting for the little guys to go out of business first.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Also this written back in 2005 when fuel was half the price that it is now:
“FuelFor many carriers, fuel now represents between 25 and 35 percent of operating costs. For owner-operators, fuel can be as much as 50 percent of operating costs.”
So when oil goes up to $150 a barrel we’re looking at well over 50% of operating costs (even for the big guys) – by then trains will be far more cost-effective (remember they only use 25% as much fuel per-unit) for transporting nearly all bulk goods.
http://www.bctrucking.com/popup.php?action=read&source=pr&rid=Hllr5QLhc*/H2J5LG3LH7Q==
May 6th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
US waffle again Nome where 18 wheelers can haul for 2 or 3 or 4000 kms so would be hard pressed to compete with an existing, modern, up to date, flash, standard gauge, high loading gauge, railroad. But in Aotearoa 600km WN to AK old, rundown, 3’6″ gauge, mountainous,low loading gauge. Get real dickhead and come up with some meaningful argument not foreign stats that dont apply here or we will all die or go to sleep like Fred did.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
“adc ”
Yep – economies of scale means that the little guys are always the first to go – but they’re just the canaries in the coal mine.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
Johnboy-
“US waffle again Nome where 18 wheelers can haul for 2 or 3 or 4000 kms”
As I said – it’s just the beginning.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:24 pm
“As I said – it’s just the beginning.”
“Whatever, scaremongering or truth, its no justification for Kullen buying a transport service. Its just dated Marxist ideological crap from a politically narrow past his use by date commie dropkick acting with arrogant disregard for the fact he is the custodian of other people’s money.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Nome you have not presented one reasoned sensible argument yet on this topic and when questioned come up with the crystal ball stuff that you KNOW what gas will cost in the future just like Micky KNOWS that pissing the workers hard earned cash down the drain for a fucked out Aussie reject called rail is a wise decision. If you were so smart pal you would have made a zillion out of petroleum futures and would not be wasting your time here reciting pathetic leftie cant and Micky would own more houses than “Rich Prick” Helen. So come up with the goods or fuck off. Your boring. Don’t quote me as a referee when you apply to Davey for the “Champion of the Blog” medal, RB might take pity on you.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
More interesting information:
http://wbjournal.com/j/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3750&Itemid=139
See now this got me thinking that the reason rail isn’t completely out competing trucking is that the infrastructure is dilapidated after 15 years of neglect. Maybe all we need is some “major improvements in our rail system”. Remember Toll has already admitted that it wouldn’t have had the capital to carry this out.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:32 pm
““Champion of the Blog” medal,”
Remember “Roger Nome” is his latest reincarnation. He’s had one or two other identities before this one, which is comparatively recent. Think how many posts this low IQ attention seeking psychopath has really made.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:34 pm
“Freight is already a cheaper form of transportation than trucks,”
Looks like a redundant sentence to me Nome wipe your crystal ball with a damp chux cloth buddy.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Nome, sorry was busy; Fred; “Agreed the cost of fuel is going to increase, and agreed that rail is more fuel efficient but why does that mean that the state should own it. Your answer is that you can’t trust private enterprise to invest in the “right” thing. The other way of looking at this is that until private enterprise anticipates a return it won’t invest”
Roger: Which is exactly the point I make. If we wait for the pricing signals it’s going to be too late. We need a massive injection of capital right now, and Toll have admitted that they wouldn’t be able to provide that.
Fred: Which is exactly my point. You’ve decided on the basis of a gut feeling to risk someone else’s money – preferably the taxpayers. Toll were prepared to invest the money but needed the certainty of the access. Now they have other things to spend $665 mil on care of us.
Roger; “Sure, trucking can probably operate at smaller margins for a few years with oil at $100 a barrel, but what about five years of oil at $150-$200 a barrel? Because that’s what we’re looking at within the next ten years. Somewhere there’s a tipping point where rail begins to out compete trucking.”
Fred; The differential in cost is already there, the issue is the utility of rail. Build a model and prove it. Make sure you factor in the cost of the local delivery and double handling, check out this link http://libertyscott.blogspot.com/2008/05/did-you-want-to-buy-railway.html you should have read it by now. Double, treble the price of fuel and see what happens.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
“Remember Toll has already admitted that it wouldn’t have had the capital to carry this out.”
No ones got that much capital Nome except Micky and that’s cause the slimey little weasel’s got our capital!
May 6th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Crystal ball gazing?
So to keep oil just at somewhere near its current price we’re relying on a bunch of dictators to consistently and significantly increase production. Two words – risk management.
http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_1010548.shtml
May 6th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
“Remember Toll has already admitted that it wouldn’t have had the capital to carry this out.”
Like all leftists Nome, you’re a complete commercial illiterate. You’ve spent all day saying that because of fuel price rises trains will be a viable form of transport that will take a lot of business off trucking, at the same time as you maintain nobody will invest in it. Clueless. Completely clueless. Profitable businesses will always find ready investors.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Drill in Anwar and watch the arse drop out of current oil prices.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
“So to keep oil just at somewhere near its current price we’re relying on a bunch of dictators to consistently and significantly increase production.”
More laffs. You and your ilk have struggled for years to undermine the US’s attempts to bring democracy to the Middle East.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Whereas rooted businesses with savvy Aussie bosses will somehow find a Professor of History with no commercial brains at all but possessing huge amounts of other peoples money and a vindictive streak wider than the milky way.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
bleater
- reserve figures for Anwar are opaque, like all reserves in OPEC countries – as usual you don’t have clue what you’re talking about.
“You and your ilk have struggled for years to undermine the US’s attempts to bring democracy to the Middle East.”
Said with the naivety of a 5 year old. Don’t you remember Iran’s democracy was knocked over by the US? They replaced it with a right-wing dictator and Nazi collaborator. Unbelievable.
“Profitable businesses will always find ready investors.”
Apparently not enough in this case.
May 6th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
“Two words – risk management.” Simple shit Nome never take a knife to a gunfight–thats simple risk management. Everytime our US friends try to do that on behalf of the free (sic) world we shit on them. Be a different story when Helens new playmates come south for a cruise in those new subs their building.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Fred:
Liberty Scott’s post is well researched – but doesn’t take into account the fact that oil price is five times its historic level, and will probably go up to ten times its historic level within the next 10 years, and keep on getting higher. Like I’ve said, it’s no use using the past to judge the future feasibility of trucks versus rail (especially when the govt will be using a different model i.e. not using 10 people to do the job of 5 people, as was the case back in the 1980s).
You are right though, we would ideally have a predictive model, but I’m confident that with rail being 3-4 times more efficient, and fuel making up over 50% of trucking’s operational costs in the near future, there’s not going to be too much competition between the two (that’s if the infrastructure’s there to service the demand).
May 6th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
Toll: “No don’t force us to sell, please Micky, we want to provide for the massive capital depreciation costs of rolling stock and rail lines.”
Micky: “Ah, c’mon, give us yer liver”.
Toll: “Well, since you put such a convincing case….ok…. sign here and we’ll make the 1.45 to Sydney”.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Roger: The scenario you describe is the one where the Government mandates that we all live within walking distance of the a railway station, and spend a day each week in the fields. While we still function, in a similar manner as we do today, then productivity, inventory holdings, etc will put a price premium on speed of delivery. Yes there will be more going on rail, and don’t forget there is already a subsidy on rail, but what you have said doesn’t make a case for a) the price that was paid, and b) why it should be state owned.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:28 pm
“reserve figures for Anwar are opaque, like all reserves in OPEC countries”
Don’t matter a fuck. The truth is oil is only at record highs because too many fools are listening to the hate capitalism propaganda of scaremongering communist fuckwits like you.
“Don’t you remember Iran’s democracy was knocked over by the US? They replaced it with a right-wing dictator and Nazi collaborator.”
Same old same old lies and propaganda. Where would the left be without their penchant for historical revisionism? They never let up with the lies. Bush’s attempts to remove the dictator Hussein and install a democratic government have been opposed every step of the way by an alliance between the anti-democracy totalitarian terrorists of the Middle East and the socialists of the west. Now you complain about high oil prices. Its all down to you and your ilk Nome. Eat it.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:29 pm
“but what you have said doesn’t make a case for a) the price that was paid, and b) why it should be state owned.”
Damn right. He’s done nothing but dance around these two core issues all day. As he always does in respect of the real argument.
May 6th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
There is a lot of noise on this thread. You seem to be the most prolific commentator on Kiwiblog – now more than 3000 posts.
Three simple questions:
(1) Do you support the renationalisation of rail and ferry operations?
(2) If yes to (1), do you support renationalisation at ANY price?
(3) If yes to (1), do you support renationalisation of both consumer and commercial (freight) operations?
I read an article yesterday which provides an Australian perspective – hint: great deal for Toll. Strangely, that website is currently down so I might try posting the article later.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
“The truth is oil is only at record highs because too many fools are listening to the hate capitalism propaganda of scaremongering communist fuckwits like you.”
Roger’s to blame for oil being at a record high? Bloody hell. You absolute beast, Roger. Be a sport and stop being such a socialist overlord, will ya? – and then the price of oil will come down. I’m warning you, mate. My patience is getting very thin. And so is Mr Baiter’s. Clearly.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:05 pm
Redbaiter:
“Same old same old lies and propaganda. Where would the left be without their penchant for historical revisionism?”
Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/history/2000/0416ciairan.htm
May 6th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
Redbaiter:
“Don’t matter a fuck. The truth is oil is only at record highs because too many fools are listening to the hate capitalism propaganda of scaremongering communist fuckwits like you.”
Not true – prices are high because non-OPEC production has flattened off (they can’t pump any faster) and OPEC refuses to open up the spigot any further because they want to see prices higher.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:15 pm
“Don’t you ever get tired of being wrong?”
Don’t you ever get tired of making groundless assertions and posting disconnected or biased or bigoted or just plain wrong URLS to support them you contemptible waste of time?? Almost every damn post the same crazed and delusional pattern.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
“Not true – prices are high because non-OPEC production has flattened off (they can’t pump any faster) and OPEC refuses to open up the spigot any further because they want to see prices higher.”
Bullshit. If oil production and exploration and refining and shipping wasn’t bogged down in red tape by the political policies of extremist fuckwits like you oil would be flowing freely and less than half the current price.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Fred:
“Roger: The scenario you describe is the one where the Government mandates that we all live within walking distance of the a railway station,”
Honestly I don’t know how you came up with that. I’ve said several times throughout the course of this thread that i believe there will be a place for small to medium-size short-distance trucks well into the future.
“While we still function, in a similar manner as we do today, then productivity, inventory holdings, etc will put a price premium on speed of delivery.”
Agreed- though there is obviously a tipping point where fuel becomes a more significant cost.
“but what you have said doesn’t make a case for a) the price that was paid”
A company is never going to give up a monopoly position easily, and is always going to invest very conservatively, because it lacks competition. Taking these factors into account I think the price was justified (even if it was marginally above “market” price)
b) why it should be state owned.:
Like I said, a monopoly is always going to invest very conservatively, because it lacks competition. As we saw Toll was very reluctant to invest, and was never going to put in the investment needed to service future demand. As I’ve said I would be happy to see private competition enter the market. I would also be happy to see the government owned assets run on a PPP basis.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:24 pm
Redbaiter:
“If oil production and exploration and refining and shipping wasn’t bogged down in red tape by the political policies of extremist fuckwits like you oil would be flowing freely and less than half the current price.”
oh, Ok – so oil production is declining in most non-OPEC countries because of environmentalists. Right.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:29 pm
Redbaiter:
“Don’t you ever get tired of making groundless assertions and posting disconnected or biased or bigoted or just plain wrong URLS”
oh I forgot – the only acceptable news sources for you are Fox news and far-right think tanks supported by oil companies. Silly me for thinking that research by a reporter from a reputable mainstream newspaper, using US government documents, was a legitimate source.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:32 pm
“oh, Ok – so oil production is declining in most non-OPEC countries because of environmentalists. Right.”
Squish. Ouch. I think Roger’s karma just ran over your entrenched dogma, Mr Baiter.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
The website is back up now:
In summary, a great deal for Toll and I’m interested in the commercial (not political) justification for renationalisation. So, PhillipJohn, any answers from you to the 3 questions I posed earlier?
May 6th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
“Silly me for thinking that research by a reporter from a reputable mainstream newspaper, using US government documents, was a legitimate source.”
Damn right. Its utter unbalanced left wing hogwash. Like most of them are. ..and fuck off enema you smug witless unfunny try hard attention seeking simpleton bore. You’re not clever as you so obviously think you are. You’re a yawn. Get a brain, get a real perspective, and then get a life. Pissant.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:47 pm
“Damn right. Its utter unbalanced left wing hogwash.”
And there we go. Redbaiter dismisses one of the US’s largest and most well-regarded newspapers as “unbalanced left wing hog wash”. Like this simple tech-support drone has the faintest idea of what the word “balanced” means.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
POC – nice article. Doesn’t alter my perspective of the issue though.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
“redbaiter dismisses one of the US’s largest and well-regarded newspapers as “unbalanced left wing hog wash”.”
I know you know fuck all outside the realm of that silly little windowless left wing box you live in, but discovering that you apparently do not yet know that the NYT has not an ounce of credibility with anyone other than extreme left fuckwits is something that is still surprising.
May 6th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Some more interesting information. What do you guys think of this?
Using vertical integration to abuse its monopoly position it seems. Hardly good for NZ’s economy.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4511453a13.html
May 6th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Also from the article:
“Business NZ chief executive Phil O’Reilly said the Government would need to run the rail business in a transparent manner and not confuse commercial and environmental objectives.”
So it seems we should wait and see what the details are before sending in the lynch mob hey?
May 6th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
I’m starting to suspect that Redbaiter is not actually a real person after all. He’s a macro, programmed to become more frothing and irrational and potty-mouthed, the longer that a thread goes on. See how he runs. He’s a real doozy!
May 6th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
And also illegal under the Commerce Act 1986. I’m not sure you have a point there.
Cart-before-horse stuff. A strong commercial and political case should be made before the transaction proceeds – and the non-commercially sensitive aspects should be released. You seem to be sold on the political case. I’ve yet to see a compelling commercial case.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Roger, The article was written by Andrew Janes who used to write for The Listener. Nuff said really
May 6th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
About the New York times:
“In 1918, it won its first Pulitzer Prize. (The Pulitzer board has since awarded 94 prizes and citations to The Times, far more than any other newspaper.)”
Yes Redbaiter – the New York Times is clearly a disreputable commie suck-hole news paper with no balance. Idiot.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/newyorktimes_the/index.html
May 6th, 2008 at 11:03 pm
“oh, Ok – so oil production is declining in most non-OPEC countries because of environmentalists. Right.”
It costs X to get a barrel of oil out of the ground Nome. A large part of that X goes in compliance costs associated with regulations put in place by morons like you. When x doesn’t deliver profit of y, there’s no point in drilling for it, or if it is found, pumping the oil up. Or building pipelines. Or shipping it. You know nothing about oil economics you dipshit. Oil pipelines are being shut down all over the world because companies cannot comply with your idiot requirements. Drilling is too costly in so many places for the same reason. Building refineries is too hard. You are responsible for all of these impediments, and now you’re reaping what you have sown.
Enema- your silly small minded obsession with Redbaiter is boring. Others are arguing an issue here. Don’t you try it, you’ll make an even bigger try hard fuckwit of yourself.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
“In 1918, the New York Times won its first Pulitzer Prize. (The Pulitzer board has since awarded 94 prizes and citations to The Times, far more than any other newspaper.”
Nuff said hey? NY times can be dismissed as a worthless piece of shit.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
“The article was written by Andrew Janes”
Yeah, I always suspected that Business NZ chief executive Phil O’Reilly was a part of the communist conspiracy. Thanks for the heads up Pat!
May 6th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Redbaiter: You got troubles at home, son? Come on, mate. You can tell us. We won’t laugh.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Are you implying The Listener is part of a communist conspiracy??? Thanks for the heads up Rog
May 6th, 2008 at 11:12 pm
So we’ve got the transport majors saying that they’re keen to start moving more of their stuff on rail. Not looking so bleak after all is it?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
NY times can be dismissed as a worthless piece of shit
Off topic I know but two words – Walter Duranty – Pulitzer Prize winner too!
May 6th, 2008 at 11:14 pm
rabidbleater:
“A large part of that X goes in compliance costs ”
Now stop there and provide some figures to back up that assertion. Can’t be bothered reading the rest.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
“Are you implying The Listener is part of a communist conspiracy?”
Um duh! – it came straight from redbaiter. Doesn’t get much more conclusive than that
May 6th, 2008 at 11:17 pm
Im glad you two agree on something
May 6th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
A macro? In the case of PM it’s more like a piece of electronics hermetically sealed from the outside world:
So we’ve got the transport majors saying that they’re keen to start moving more of their stuff on rail. Not looking so bleak after all is it?
On the other thread of this topic RRM made a similar comment:
Fonterra have said they are keen to move a whole heap more of their milk by rail – on the radio news this morning I think they were saying they currently move something like 20-ish percent of it on the milk trains, and would be keen to up that to 80-something percent.Toll, presumably, isn’t interested in doing this for them.
I already made that response but I guess I have to repeat myself.
A large corporation – Toll – that loves making money………. is not interested in making money? Really? See my comments below relating to what Toll felt it could charge and what it’s customers were prepared to pay.
How ‘keen’ was Fonterra in going from 20 to 80%? Apparently not keen enough to actually pay the sort of freight fees that would enable the owner of the rail network to meet all the operational costs and fixed costs (including replacing depreciated and worn-out equipment). Not keen enough to buy the relevant tracks and rolling stock themselves either. Why would that be? Because the savings involved, even with the hundreds of millions of dollars implied by ‘80%’ clearly were not sufficient.
No. Instead Fonterra, and several other large companies, will gleefully take advantage of this sort of socialist stupidity. They will allow others to subsidise them and their farmer shareholders.
And I say that AS a Fonterra shareholder. This will cut my costs and dump a slice more money in my pocket. Yet I am still opposed to it because it will not be good for the wider economy – meaning my fellow citizens.
Think about that the next time you jump up and down about how not incorporating agriculture into the new Emissions Trading Scheme is a subsidy – an extra tax on ‘the rest of NZ’ to fill the pockets of already wealthy landed gentry.
When it suits your ideology (more government control and goal-oriented planning on AGW emissions) you’ll bitch about the opposition being greedy, capitalist freeloaders.
When it suits your ideology (more government control and goal-oriented planning in transport) you’ll happily subsidise greedy, capitalist freeloaders – and they love you for it.
I already know you love big government – just don’t ever kid me that you hate big business. It’s not about transport or emissions – it’s about your endless desire for more government control and planning.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
“NY times can be dismissed as a worthless piece of shit.”
Already has been. At least a decade ago. Check the collapsing share price. The layoffs. The internal dissent. Don’t you know anything? Your left wing propaganda base is going down Nome. The Golden Age of leftist bullshit is drawing quickly to a close. Get used to it.
Enema- how come all of you compulsive obsessives always use ‘we’ when you mean “I”. Need that big imaginary cheering crowd do you? See a psychiatrist you brain damaged witless bore. There’s no ‘we’- there’s only you, a lame loser trying hard to be what he perceives as clever and amusing and failing most dismally. Its all been said before dumbfuck, a thousand times by a thousand other mentally crippled leftists.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
“Um duh! – it came straight from redbaiter”
That is a lie. I’ve never said anything about any conspiracy.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
“Cart-before-horse stuff. A strong commercial case should be made before the transaction proceeds”
POC –
1) Savings on Kyoto in the magnitude of millions.
2) Ensuring sufficient investment in the rail infrastructure in the context of a future with ever increasing energy costs.
The first one is obvious, and I think I’ve made a fairly exhaustive case for the second. Or do you want me to compile all the supporting reasons for that?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
“Can’t be bothered reading the rest.”
Why then would anyone bother complying with your request to write more?? What a fuckwit.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
Like I have said I would rather they had sold the roads and left the market to sort it out but from a purely business point of view the value of a business’s assets is only one indicator of a business’s worth. A good example is trademe which sold for a lot more than its book value but which has been worth every dollar to Fairfax. Good business practice involves buying into a potentially profitable business above the odds. It’s called risk-taking and it’s what we rightly celebrate entrepreneurs for. History will judge whether the government is a better entrepreneur than the private sector. Given the fact government ministers don’t have the incentive of using their own money to ensure a good buy I’d say Cullen is behind the eight ball.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:28 pm
“At least a decade ago. Check the collapsing share price. The layoffs.”
“The paper’s web site, NYTimes.com, had 17.5 million unique visitors in October 2007.”
So that would be over 500,000 unique visitors a day? Yep, all but vanished into obscurity.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Redbaiter: Do you need a hug, mate?
May 6th, 2008 at 11:29 pm
Rabidbleater:
“Why then would anyone bother complying with your request”
Provide some figures to back up that assertion or I’ll just dismiss it as made-up crap. Simple.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
“Provide some figures to back up that assertion or I’ll just dismiss it as made-up crap. Simple.”
Dismiss whatever you like, but to deny the massive cost of compliance with environmental regulations to oil exploration shipping transport and production would be the act of a complete idiot. Oh, ….of course.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
Tom Hunter
“How ‘keen’ was Fonterra in going from 20 to 80%? Apparently not keen enough to actually pay the sort of freight fees that would enable the owner of the rail network to meet all the operational costs and fixed costs (including replacing depreciated and worn-out equipment).”
Like I’ve said, monopolies are extremely risk-averse because they have no competition. As such they’re very cautions investors.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
“So that would be over 500,000 unique visitors a day? Yep, all but vanished into obscurity.”
Wow the flagship of left liberalism. Almost keeping up with the Drudge Report.
VISITS TO DRUDGE 5/06/08
019,619,217 IN PAST 24 HOURS
562,578,216 IN PAST 31 DAYS
5,675,496,902 IN PAST YEAR
Enema is very much like Robinsod. Same smug delusional idea that he’s uproariously amusing when he’s in reality just a tiresome witless assembly line leftist bore.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
“Dismiss whatever you like, but to deny the massive cost of compliance ”
You have to provide evidence for your assertion. Come back when you’ve done your homework boy, you’re embarrassing yourself.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:39 pm
Bleater – unique visits, not “visits”. Doh!
May 6th, 2008 at 11:43 pm
You also forget Bleater that the times has a circulation of over 1 million per day. In any case it’s one of the US’s most reputable papers. But like most of reality you’ll be ignoring that.
May 6th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
So in any case – the US “bringing democracy to the middle east”! Yep Overthrowing Iran’s democratically elected government and installing a fascist dictator in its place. All in the pursuit of “bringing democracy to the middle east”. You sure are a riot bleater
May 7th, 2008 at 12:01 am
“ou also forget Bleater that the times has a circulation of over 1 million per day. In any case it’s one of the US’s most reputable papers. But like most of reality you’ll be ignoring that.”
I’m not ignoring the news that the Times is on the way out and has been for a long time. That you don’t apparently know that is just one more indication of your narrow worldview. By mid 2007, and within the 31 county area that includes and surrounds New York City, and which encompasses the New York Times’ home market, circulation had dropped 30.0% below its 1993 peak. ….and more news-
—————–
Editor and Publisher
April 28th 2008
– The New York Times lost more than 150,000 copies on Sunday. Circulation on that day fell a whopping 9.2% to 1,476,400. The paper’s daily circulation declined 3.8% to 1,077,256.
Anything to drag attention away from you getting your arse kicked on the Toll deal right Nome???
May 7th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Like I’ve said,………
You have said that several times but I would be interested as to what economic analysis exists that demonstrates the assertion.
On it’s face the assertion makes no sense at all. A true monopoly, one that has no real competition (think IBM in the 60′s) is a rentier. They can do pretty much anything they like and the money will continue to roll in. Investing more money in such a situation is actually the best business one can have. ROI, IRR and all the rest are almost irrelevant to the investment decision. The price can be adjusted upwards to whatever level is desired to compensate for the investment and the chosen profit margin. The total profit amount is limited only by the size of the market – and even that can be increased virtually risk-free.
The real problem that Toll, and Wisconsin Rail, and Railways Corporation, and the government before them, and now the government again face, is the fact that external competition does exist outside of rail. Competition that has steadily reduced railways share of the transport wealth to a tiny percentage all over the world even as the overall transport sector has grown many fold. In other words, scary competition.
Faced with that fact any rational owner, even one holding a monopoly over that remaining fig leaf, would certainly be very conservative in it’s investment. They’d be nuts to think otherwise. Knowing the other private sector transport competition as they do they’re not confident those others will fail to remain competitive with high oil prices.
Not a government though – none of those rules really apply – which is why this is going to end as badly as it has before. The overall transport market has been trying to teach you a lesson for 100 years – but you’re not listening. Not a surprise, socialists never do.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:04 am
Rabidbleater:
“By mid 2007, and within the 31 county area that includes and surrounds New York City, and which encompasses the New York Times’ home market, circulation had dropped 30.0% below its 1993 peak”
Newspaper circulation is decreasing around the world as the internet increases its share of the news market. So What’s your point?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:11 am
“Newspaper circulation is decreasing around the world as the internet enters the news market. So What’s your point?”
The New York Times is a discredited left wing rag that is dropping readers and losing value and is going the way of Air America, another failed attempt to shove your kind of left wing crap down the throat of the unwilling public.
“You have to provide evidence for your assertion.”
I don’t have to at all. I’m quite content for you to continue living in blissful left wing ignorance. Just because I’m feeling a bit sorry for you and your insane obsession with attention, I’ll give you a url. I know I’m wasting my time tho. If you had any ability to absorb new information you wouldn’t be a leftist.
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/09/the_question_ab.html
May 7th, 2008 at 12:12 am
Mostly fair enough points Tom.
One thing I would add is that high oil costs have only really been a factor for the last 3 years – and Toll made $200 million worth of investments in that time. But as Toll have said, they were struggling for liquidity, and so were unable to invest further (they were too small). That’s where the Government’s buy-out comes in.
“Not a government though – none of those rules really apply – which is why this is going to end as badly as it has before. The overall transport market has been trying to teach you a lesson for 100 years”
As the business leaders have been saying, it all depends on the model used. Quite obvious I would have thought.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:15 am
“The New York Times is a discredited left wing rag ”
According to who? The idiot redbaiter? It’s a privately run business isn’t it? Strange for a “communist mouthpiece” no?
And you’ve still yet to address the fact that newspaper circulation is decreasing around the world as the internet increases its share of the news market. Why should the Times not be affected by this trend?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:18 am
Redbaiter:
Your posts should be prefaced with a warning. I read “tiresome witless assembly line leftist bore” and, well, an accident happened
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
I’m still not convinced – you’re focusing on essentially political considerations.
I quote from the article again:
You keep saying a monopoly has a strong disincentive to commit to significant capital expenditure. An absolutist statement with limits: true in some cases, but not in others.
Toll clearly sees a future in rail and road freight – but couldn’t see a compelling business case for continued ownership of the rail operating business and ferries, particularly given the government’s negotiating stance. Please explain to me why the government might see a compelling business case where Toll can’t.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:28 am
POC:
“Please explain to me why the government might see a compelling business case where Toll can’t.”
Simple – Kyoto. Ultimately the entire economy wears the financial cost of extra Co2 emissions under Kyoto, and the subsequently the government loses revenue. So this is a business, as well as a political decision.
Also, as I’ve said above: “high oil costs have only really been a factor for the last 3 years – and Toll made $200 million worth of investments in that time. But as Toll have said, they were struggling for liquidity, and so were unable to invest further (they were too small). That’s where the Government’s buy-out comes in. “
May 7th, 2008 at 12:29 am
Quote from Yahoo Finance-
“The Times’s sliding stock price and steady decline in ad revenue has sparked anger among its outside investors, some of whom have publicly blasted its executives for poor performance.”
May 7th, 2008 at 12:39 am
“Your posts should be prefaced with a warning. I read “tiresome witless assembly line leftist bore” and, well, an accident happened ”
Heh, sorry about that…
Yeah, I sort of imagine them all popping off the end of the conveyor belt and marching off like self important little clock work soldiers and intent on changing the world..
…all with the same diminished worldview, all with the same dysfunctional narcissistic personality, all with the same dipshit ideas about environmental Armageddon just around the corner, all with the same neurotic need for attention, all full of the same old same old leftist dogma, all the same little brain damaged roger nomes…
May 7th, 2008 at 12:48 am
““The Times’s sliding stock price and steady decline in ad revenue has sparked anger among its outside investors, some of whom have publicly blasted its executives for poor performance.”
So? You still haven’t answered the relevant question, so I’ll repeat it again for you. Newspaper circulation is decreasing around the world as the internet increases its share of the news market. Why should the Times not be affected by this trend?
May 7th, 2008 at 12:56 am
Redbaiter:
“I know I’m wasting my time tho. If you had any ability to absorb new information you wouldn’t be a leftist.
http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2005/09/the_question_ab.html”
That’s about the impact of refinery shortages on petrol prices – not oil prices. The price of oil isn’t affected by refinery capacity idiot. Demand for crude oil is increasing faster than supply. That’s why the price of oil has been going up, not because petrol supplies are limited by refining capacity. Thick as pig shit.
May 7th, 2008 at 12:58 am
As the business leaders have been saying, it all depends on the model used. Quite obvious I would have thought.
And as I have been saying throughout the day, first with Tane and now with you, only a competitive market can truly test whether a ‘model’ works – by testing it to destruction – and that aspect has been removed by this action of the government. Not only will there probably never be the sort of competition you allow for (multiple train companies running on state-owned tracks) – the external competition will simply not be allowed to kill off this experiment.
Furthermore, even business leaders talk is cheap unless they’re willing to pony up the money for whatever model is chosen. In this case not only were none of them willing to do that in terms of some collective effort to buy out Toll, they were not even willing to pay sufficient fees to allow Toll to truly cover all it’s costs and provide them a profit.
What we will get will be outright losses or (at best) miniscule profits that can never compensate for the investments made, followed by endless streams of analysis demonstrating the ‘value’ of various public goods derived, usual ‘non-quantifiable’ ones (apprentice schemes, estimates of the number of trucks removed from the road and so forth). All of it an exercise in sophistry – a substitute for actual profits that could support the whole damned mess.
I’ve been through consulting exercises like this many times for big corporates, and even as one wades through the data and strings together the most tenuous causalities one knows that if they were making real money the exercise itself would not be needed. Just one last example:
But as Toll have said, they were struggling for liquidity, and so were unable to invest further (they were too small).
There is a world of cheap money out there (those Belgian dentists and Japanese housewives have not gone away yet) just begging for profitable investment opportunities. Demonstrate that a good profit can be made – especially in some monopoly or captured client environment – and investors will fall over themselves to lend money. Your internal sources of cashflow are not an issue – only the question of whether the profits will pay back the investment.
In short the professed Toll plea that they were too small and struggling for liquidity was just so much bullshit. Actually just another part of the slow, grinding sales pitch they applied to Dr Cullen, gradually leading him to where they knew he wanted to go anyway.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:32 am
“That’s about the impact of refinery shortages on petrol prices – not oil prices.”
Hehehe… Do you have a licence for owning Redbaiter, Roger?
May 7th, 2008 at 7:17 am
Tom, that just about nails it. Roger: Your monopoly argument possibly applies to the tracks, but certainly not to the rolling stock. Friedlander on morning report, 90% of what is trucked now goes less than 100Km, Braid; Happy to use rail more but Rent free = 120mil subsidy for Toll.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:43 am
wodger says:
So wodger you’re saying the business case entirely depends on a govt commitment to a regime based on questionable science? You know it occurred to me when Clark removed the strike fighters that she had no idea what she was doing, and since then, her entire term of office has consisted of one strategic folly after another, this being but one more example. Either that or she’s doing it deliberately to assist the wealth-transfer beloved by socialists.
Applying the same logic then are you going to start arguing that the govt should buy the worst polluters simply to put them out of business, in order to achieve cost-neutrality? All in the name of “good business” of course.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:00 am
“That’s about the impact of refinery shortages on petrol prices – not oil prices.”
Its about the impact of compliance on the cost of converting oil to petrol you dumbfuck, an example of where fuckwits like you are the main cause of increases in the development of oil resources. From exploration right through to the pump. As I said above- “Oil pipelines are being shut down all over the world because companies cannot comply with your idiot requirements. Drilling is too costly in so many places for the same reason. Building refineries is too hard.”
“Redbaiter: Do you need a hug, mate?”
Not from you creep. It would cost me a fortune to dry clean the slime off my suit.
May 7th, 2008 at 10:53 am
bleater:
“Its about the impact of compliance on the cost of converting oil to petrol”
Which has nothing to do with my point that demand for oil is increasing faster than supply – which is pushing price up. Now go and find the information which proves your claims that “oil production is declining in nearly all the non-OPEC countries because of environmental regulation”. You won’t of course because it doesn’t exist.
Capil: “Hehehe… Do you have a licence for owning Redbaiter, Roger?”
nah – he gets “owned” pretty much every time he has a debate. His problem is that he can only do rhetoric and abuse – he’s fucked when it comes do detail.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am
Tom Hunter:
“Not only will there probably never be the sort of competition you allow for (multiple train companies running on state-owned tracks) – the external competition will simply not be allowed to kill off this experiment.”
It will provide competition and price signals however – which if the model is sensible the government run company will have to respond to with efficiency gains. We wait and see.
“There is a world of cheap money out there”
What if say a certain share-holder wants to retain a comanding share? Not so much room for expansion then hey?
What if there were simply better opportunities else wher, with higher profit margins? The railways may be a profitable business, but are very capital-intensive, so the returns may be too long-term for many private investors who want to make a quick buck. A government has an advantage in this respect. It doesn’t have to makew an immediate profit.
“What we will get will be outright losses or (at best) miniscule profits that can never compensate for the investments made”
That’s just opinion Tom. The public ownership models have changed since the 1980s, and are much more market oriented. There’s no reason to believe it won’t be another profit-making publically owned venture (which sees capital stay in NZ instead of flying off to Australia) – i.e. Kiwibank.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am
“oil production is declining in nearly all the non-OPEC countries because of environmental regulation”
I never made that exact claim as your speech marks imply. Those are your words. That’s the second time you have been caught out in this thread in a deliberate lie. You’re like all Commies- the truth is just something to be twisted to suit your needs.
I said that the cost of regulations imposed because of braindead fuckwits like you was making oil exploration and development more difficult and affecting the economic equation that decided whether a barrel of oil was worth the investment. Hence my reference- and something you obviously can’t get your head around. Fuck off you silly little liar, this whole thread has just been a waste of everybody’s time. A typical example of Nome bullshit where you strut about basking in what you perceive as attention but always dodging the real issue. You’re sick, and you too should see a shrink.
“nah – he gets “owned” pretty much every time he has a debate.”
Haw haw, and that’s so objective its really worth writing here. You sad little mentally incompetent loon. Thanks for the laff.
May 7th, 2008 at 11:48 am
That’s just opinion Tom.
An opinion based on looking at the history of rail in NZ, the fundamental data around infrastructure and operational costs, my quarter century experience in business across three continents, my degrees in business and science, and the fact that I have had to risk my own money in various business models.
As opposed to your opinion based on a faith that we are entering a new world fundamentally different from what we have now (due to increased prices in one form of energy), faith that some new, previously undiscovered ‘model’ will work in vastly increasing the revenues, your experience as a full-time student for the last decade in NZ, and your Political Science degrees. Whether you have also had the opportunity to risk your own money on someone else’s business model I will leave you to answer.
A government has an advantage in this respect. It doesn’t have to make an immediate profit
No shit!
We wait and see
We have waited and we did see – and if we saw continuing losses for another 25 years you still would never change your mind.
Refusing to change your mind about a theory that is difficult to prove or disprove is one thing – but the enormous amounts of other peoples wealth that has been pissed away on this folly over many decades surely constitutes proof that anybody risking their own money would accept as sufficient evidence to not invest any more.
It will provide competition and price signals however
It already has done – and the signal was EJECT, EJECT, EJECT – which Toll has just done.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Bleater:
“I said that the cost of regulations imposed because of braindead fuckwits like you was making oil exploration and development more difficult and affecting the economic equation that decided whether a barrel of oil was worth the investment.”
Another lie by redbaiter.
What the idiot originally claimed:
If oil production and exploration and refining and shipping wasn’t bogged down in red tape by the political policies of extremist fuckwits like you oil would be flowing freely and less than half the current price.
I’ve been asking you to prove this over the last 20 or so posts, but you haven’t come up with a single shred of evidence to support your ridiculous claim. Game over.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Tom Hunter:
Thoughtful and well-reasoned posts – thank you for introducing some sanity into this thread.
I note PhillipJohn never got around to answering my 3 questions. He’s implicitly answered yes to (1) – he supports renationalisation of rail and ferry operations. I’ll repost 2 and 3 in case he’s still reading:
(2) If yes to (1), do you support renationalisation at ANY price?
(3) If yes to (1), do you support renationalisation of both consumer and commercial (freight) operations?
May 7th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
“I’ve been asking you to prove this over the last 20 or so posts,”
What concept of proof are you talking about? Why isn’t there drilling in Anwar, and if there was would the price of oil fall????
Are the common sense answers to those common sense questions something you need proof of you blathering fuckwit?? You’re as bad as your comrade Sonic, who dreams up similar demands for proof or answers to oblique and disconnected questions as a device to avoid facing up to his defeat on the real issues.
The fact is that you and your ilk are strangling investment industry and resource development all over the globe, and not only oil, but almost every other commodity would immediately drop enormously in price if you and your type suddenly evaporated en masse.
May 7th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Tom hunter:
“As opposed to your opinion based on a faith that we are entering a new world fundamentally different from what we have now (due to increased prices in one form of energy)”
Ok firstly let’s put your silly bracketed statement into context. Around the world, transportation relies
on oil for virtually all its fuel, so let’s not go minimising the importance of oil to the transport sector.
You say its faith-based, but let’s see what the experts say shall we?
“Switzerland has made impressive progress in its energy policy over the past few years”, said Nobuo Tanaka, Executive Director of the International Energy Agency ( a group of 150 scientists and statisticians paid by the OECD to monitor the world’s energy markets) … Switzerland continues to show leadership in its long-term policy to shift freight transport from road to rail.” – Rail results in less fuel used, and so results in less Co2 emissions.
http://www.iea.org/Textbase/press/pressdetail.asp?PRESS_REL_ID=241
The IEA also has the following to say:
http://www.iea.org/textbase/papers/2004/transporthree.pdf
The government has done as the IEA has suggested and has “shortcut market economics” in order to reduce fuel usage in preparation for the coming fuel supply crunch. The IEA has clearly signaled that price signals will come too late, and the governments need to intervene before economies are damaged.
You on the other hand seem to argue against the 150 energy market experts at the International Energy Agency. You rely on a faith in market mechanism – whereas the IEA relies on hard data. Understand yet?
May 7th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
Bleater:
“What concept of proof are you talking about? Why isn’t there drilling in Anwar, and if there was would the price of oil fall????”
That isn’t proof that “prices would be half of what they are now” (around $55 a barrel). Go and get some hard data, then we can talk. Until then stop waisting my time fool.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
So you see Tom – the renationalisation serves three primary purposes:
1) Helping to reduce fuel consumption in preparation for the coming oil supply crunch, thus protecting our economy (the market wasn’t going to do it).
2) Reducing GHG emissions by reducing fuel usage.
3) Reducing the economic burden on our economy caused by Kyoto by reducing GHG emissions (This is a reality whether you like the science or not. Under a Labour or National-led government we are signed up to Kyoto).
May 7th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
PhillipJohn/Roger Nome:
Thank you for raising Switzerland:
Slightly different topic, of course, but what did the IEA experts have to say about this?
May 7th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“Until then stop waisting my time fool.”
Its wasting you poorly educated dropkick, and if you think I’ve got time in the day to run around doing maths for an economic illiterate like you you need to think again. Anyone with a grain of sense wouldn’t be asking such a dumbfuck question, because they would know that the burden of idiots like you starts with the purchase and cartage of each and every element of any industry.
For example, every nut and bolt, every piece of steel, every piece of rubber or plastic or wood or aluminum that is used in constructing a drilling rig has a premium on it because of morons like you. Every time such a rig is built, the price is increased exponentially by your kind and your dumbfuck regulations. When Operators apply for exploration permits they have to commit to costly environmental constraints. Every time a rig is moved, or drills a well, the same extra costs can be added. When that well is completed, environmental concerns again blow the cost out enormously. Loading the oil and transporting it by tanker or pipeline has an vicious ransom to environment regulations as a cost component. Take away all of these costs and oil would be a lot less than half the price, and there would also be a lot more of it on the market.
You and your dumbfuck ideas are strangling development all over the globe, and not only in oil. But thats the idea of course, because its not really about the ‘environment’. Its just another front in the left’s everlasting war on capitalism.
Now the chooks are coming home to roost, and you’re shitting yourself because the man in the street is finally going to realise what the real cost of pandering to your idiocy is, and they’re not going to like it one bit. ..and you’re going to pay at the ballot box. ..and I’m damn glad, because its about time you got what was coming. You know the one about fooling all of the people all of the time? Well, being you Nome, a cave dwelling ignoramus who doesn’t know the NYT is a discredited left wing rag and who can’t spell wasted, maybe you don’t, but you’re about to find out in a big way.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
POC:
If Nuclear is viable for NZ’s comparatively small grid I would be in support of it in place of our coal-fired electricity production.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Bleater:
I can’t see one fact or figure amongst all of that regurgitated rhetorical bullshit. Come back with something solid to prove your original assertion instead of you usual worthless, repetitive spam.
May 7th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“Come back with something solid to prove your original assertion instead of you usual worthless, repetitive spam.”
Dodging twisting, slipping, sliding. Anything to try and escape the obvious conclusion- rising oil prices are in the main down to unrealising fuckwits like you, who think there are free lunches everywhere. The delusion is over dipshit. Prepare to pay the real price for your anti capitalist ‘environmental’ folly.
….and scare mongering on supply is only half of it.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
“rising oil prices are in the main down to unrealising fuckwits like you, who think there are free lunches everywhere.”
so now bleater’s unable to support his stupid claim, and reverts back to name-calling. What a man. Surely you can find just one reputable source that agrees with you bleater? Go on find one reputable source which says that most of the oil price increases of the last 5 years are down do environmental regulation. BTW – don’t blame the 150 professionals at the OECD for causing worries over the future supply of oil. It’s their job to objectively monitor oil markets, and report back what they see. But then again, being the moronic fanatic you are, you’ll probably accuse them of being part of a global communist conspiracy. What a fucking joke you are.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:20 pm
“Go on find one reputable source which says that most of the oil price increases of the last 5 years are down do environmental regulation.”
I work with hundreds of them you sad mental incompetent, and we’re all well aware of how fuckwits like you and your scaremongering bullshit impact upon investment in oil and every other industry all over the globe.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
“I work with hundreds of them ”
So you can’t cite but one reputable source to support your stupid claim. What a surprise. Game over.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“Game over.”
..and you never even got to serve…
May 7th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
The government has done as the IEA has suggested and has “shortcut market economics” in order to reduce fuel usage in preparation for the coming fuel supply crunch. The IEA has clearly signaled that price signals will come too late, and the governments need to intervene before economies are damaged.
Ah – the final endpoint for all academics – the Team Of Experts (TOE). I’ll have a read of the URL later but having done this during past debates with you I’m not confident I’ll be very impressed – particularly in light of their statement of approval for governments that “shortcut market economics”. I’ll give you an example of the TOE vs the market – one you will appreciate – at the end.
Much as I appreciate scientists, few have ever had much grasp of economics, and that jaw-dropping claim is further proof. People, companies, and certainly governments who have thought they could achieve such ‘shortcuts’ have always come to grief sooner or later. The timing of the fall has usually depended on whether they had a sugar-daddy or the ability to crush the resulting dissent.
In the case of the former we have our own example where our agricultural sector, via a captured market, high prices for basic commodities and high productivity, could produce sufficient cash to sustain the insanity of protected industries and useless government agencies for several decades before it all ended in tears.
I see Tane was using the same argument yesterday – that as much as he believes in market price signals (a nice change from socialists of the past) – the ‘signals will come too late’.
This may come as a surprise to you but marketplaces react with a speed that no government agency, or even private sector company can match. Fuel usage will drop rapidly under the pressure of these increased oil prices, far more rapidly than would be enabled by any government regulation, tax or induced price signal. GHG emissions will slow and eventually drop as capitalist economies continue the 150 year long process of de-carbonising via improved efficiencies (both unit and systemic) and new technologies.
Whether this is ‘too late’ is a subjective measure that you are applying to other people, ones who are involved in the market and whose judgement about whether they are acting fast enough and far enough will always bury – one way or another – the decisions of small groups of elite experts who do not agree.
Waiting until oil is at $100 per barrel before ‘doing something’ may seem irrational to you – as it does to most scientists who live in a world of determinative equations. But it is actually the most sensible thing to do as opposed to running very long-term bets involving vast sums of money, which is what this government is doing with rail.
Such efforts have most certainly damaged economies – particularly ours when Think Big was applied as the result of small groups of energy experts who assured everybody that oil would hit $100 per barrel by the mid-1980′s and stay there.
You on the other hand seem to argue against the 150 energy market experts at the International Energy Agency. You rely on a faith in market mechanism – whereas the IEA relies on hard data. Understand yet?
I’ve lost track of the number of times you have resorted to this argumentative device, but it’s what I would expect from a full-time academic with no real-world experience.
The ‘market mechanism’ is simply a reference to the collective efforts of millions of individual minds weighing the risks and rewards of their efforts and others. When it comes to such things (as opposed to developing a scientific theory) it’s wise to bet on millions vs 150.
As an example of this, consider The Smartest Guys in The Room. That’s right PM – every lefties favourite corporate hate object. Enron were another group of very, very smart people applying very smart theories to the marketplace. They were so successful they thought they could pull any stunt against the market, even ‘shortcut’ the market.
They were wrong. It took a while but eventually the market killed them, to the point where they started breaking the law to try and make their models work – as it killed the experts at IBM who dismissed the PC and networked computers – as it killed the railroad barons of the 19th century. And it should be noted by you that their hubris and arrogance was at least backed by long periods of making loads of money – unlike NZ rail.
But I write these words more for other readers than for you. As I said – you are a full-time academic and my experience of such people is that they have unbounded faith in experts so long as they do not personally have to test the models or suffer the consequences.
If the loss of billions on rail over the years does not convince you then nothing short of your own impoverishment will – and probably not even then. That I understand only too well.
May 7th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
“and you never even got to serve”
baiter logic – “‘The opposite of what is true is true if I say so’.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:10 pm
“baiter logic – “‘The opposite of what is true is true if I say so’.”
The absurdity of you simultaneously announcing yourself as umpire and winner obviously escapes you you sad moron. As does the fact that the impact of all of these environmental related price rises is going to be the death of the “Green” party. Fucken watermelons anyway. Everyone knows that.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
“If the loss of billions on rail over the years does not convince you then nothing short of your own impoverishment will – and probably not even then. That I understand only too well.”
Damn right. You’ll never convince such blockheads. There are Russians who still yearn for the mass murdering totalitarian dictator Stalin. Some Iraqis similarly wish for the return of Saddam Hussein. Likewise Nome will never budge from communism. He’s gone. For all time.
May 7th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
TH-
Nice rhetorical diatribe, but I’ve got to say, not anything like convincing.
The 190 (correction) scientists, statisticians and economists at the IEA aren’t trying to reorganise society. They just make sensible suggestions for the government as to how they can help the market adjust to the coming oil shocks. Reorganising our infrastructure is part of that.
It’s not a case of betting on millions vs 190. The IEA merely wishes to preempt the market, because the market is very short-term focused. It operates on a kind of herd mentality, where decisions regarding long term market conditions tend to be dictated by group-think rather than sound and rational analysis. This is called the “mood of the market”, and it takes time to change when faced with a new and very scary paradigm that it will resist long after most of the best informed people have seen the truth. There’s also the point that if your company doesn’t make profit in the short term it dies. As such the market’s focus is very short-term. Because these things, the market isn’t very good for medium or long- term planing. This is where rational analysis of dedicated professionals and planners can come in. They can smooth the transition, and re-jig the infrastructure for the market to operate within. They don’t exist for nothing you know.
You know this discussion is starting to remind me of one involving two “experts” at wall street journal – one an energy market analyst, and the other an economic theorist. I know which one you’ll support
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB112298166483102477.html?mod=todays_free_feature
heh – just read the following comment from the link
“oil prices have been racing to nominal highs. Benchmark crude soared to a new intraday record of $62.30 a barrel”
A little over half the current price. Seems like a long time ago hey?
May 7th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
“The absurdity of you simultaneously announcing yourself as umpire and winner:
You made a claim which you were unable to back up. That’s an abject failure I’m afraid.
“Likewise Nome will never budge from communism”
I’m a center-left, democratic liberal, you idiot. But I forget that everyone to the left of bleater is a communist. Fucking lunatic.
May 7th, 2008 at 5:26 pm
“You made a claim which you were unable to back up. ”
Not true. I said I did not have the time to cater to every irrational time consuming requirement of logically challenged fuckwits like you. Moreover, your apparent belief that providing a paragraph (or two) of partisan or irrelevant or inaccurate garbage from any website you choose, and then providing a link to that website qualifies as “backing up” is just infantile nonsense. You can never back your claims up, because every one of them is unfailingly wrong. Except when you’re right in error.
“I’m a center-left, democratic liberal,”
Mere deceitful euphemisms- you’re so politically constipated you wouldn’t even know.. and you’re light years from ever being anything even remotely like a liberal..
May 7th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Bleater:
“Not true. I said I did not have the time to cater to every irrational time consuming requirement ”
Just one article from a reputable source on the net to back up your claim. That was all I asked. If it existed it wouldn’t be hard to find. But it doesn’t exist, which is while you’ve spent so much time thrashing around, typing out screeds of hollow rhetoric instead. This whole thread you’ve been nothing but a waste of space and a failure.
May 7th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Bleater:
“partisan or irrelevant or inaccurate garbage from any website you choose”
It was a discussion about the coming oil crisis on the wall street journal (yes just another part of the global communist conspiracy) website between to professors who specialise in the oil market. Of course despite both endorsing the free market they’re just communists, and because redbaiter doesn’t like what they’ve got to say, they’re “partisan, irrelevant or inaccurate”.
Also, along with the International Energy Agency, they both support my argument for government intervention in the economy in preparation for the coming oil crisis – so it was an entirely relevant link.
May 7th, 2008 at 7:01 pm
“Just one article from a reputable source on the net to back up your claim.”
Something you’ve never provided. The fact that you don’t acknowledge what is common understanding to every other person just shows what a time wasting and ignorant fuckwit you are. If the Green’s obsession with stopping oil drilling in Anwar does not help to drive up the price of oil what does it do?
May 7th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
“Something you’ve never provided.”
That’s right, the wall street journal and the international energy agency – both completely disreputable. All part of redbaiter’s fantastical global communist conspiracy.
oh, and what do you know. I’ve found a reputable source (the US Government’s Energy Information Administration) which shows just how stupid your claim is.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
May 7th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Rabidbleater:
More information from the global communist conspiracy which makes you look stupid:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4542853/
May 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Rabidbleater:
More information from the global communist conspiracy to make you look stupid:
May 7th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
deleted double post
May 7th, 2008 at 7:38 pm
So what? Anwr of course will not have any substantial impact upon oil prices until that oil is available. But Anwr is only the tip of the iceberg. There are millions of explorable acres potentially holding billions of barrels of oil locked up and unaccessible because of fake concerns about polar bears etc generated by fuckwits like you.
They include parts of Alaska, other public lands, the Gulf of Mexico and offshore areas. The American Petroleum Institute reports that opening up these areas would provide enough oil to power 60 million cars for 60 years, plus enough natural gas to heat 60 million homes for 160 years. But 85 percent of coastal waters have been declared off limits, along with similar restrictions on 75 percent of the onshore prospects.
By conceding that even the decision to drill for ANWR oil will reduce prices you have just acknowledged that I have been right all along. Imagine if the above mentioned restrictions were lifted? See. I don’t need spurious web references. I can prove my point by logic and common knowledge.
“Thou art New Zealand’s true king of comedy”
Yawn.. the compulsive obsessive is back with even more fascinating commentary on Redbaiter… Bet readers, you just can’t wait for more of the same…
May 7th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
““Not true. I said I did not have the time to cater to every irrational time consuming requirement ”
Jesus H Christ on a 10 Speed Bike… That’s fucking funny… He’s got the time to rant away day-after-day, finding new and exciting ways of calling someone a fuckwit, but he doesn’t have the time to find one piece of evidence to back up one of his ridiculous dogmatic assertions. Superb, Mr Baiter!
Thou art New Zealand’s true king of comedy
May 7th, 2008 at 7:49 pm
“There are millions of explorable acres potentially holding billions of barrels of oil locked up and unaccessible because of fake concerns about polar bears etc”
Really? Do show…
“By conceding that even the decision to drill for ANWR oil will reduce prices”
By 0.5%. That proves nothing other than the best hope for turning around declining US oil production makes virtually no difference at all. US production has been in steady decline since the 1970s, aside from a brief bump in production when Alaska was tapped.
http://www.seacoastnrg.org/img/us_crudeproduction.jpg
May 7th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Bleater:
Even you must admit – he does kind of have a knack for hitting the nail on the head when it comes for you. Dogmatic, ridiculous, too stupid to avoid consistently contradicting yourself.
“Thou art New Zealand’s true king of comedy”
Yep, I’ll drink to that
May 7th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Are you tossers still arguing the rail thing a day later. Listen Nome have I got a deal for you. N gauge layout 21 points miles of track a Norfolk & Western 2-8-8-2 Mallet, a Burlington 2-8-0, a Conrail diesel and a classic 4-8-4. 40 wagons of various style. A railroad crossing, two controllers and enough peco flexitrack to keep a finance minister happy till he sees the election results. What do you say Nome? $50,000—-&100,000. Come on make me an offer, fuck I’m not an Aussie cunt. I won’t gloat in public after I’ve screwed you. Don’t be shy now y’hear!!!!
May 7th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
“Really? Do show…”
I have. Above. What part do you claim is untrue?
May 7th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
“Are you tossers still arguing the rail thing a day later.”
Only a fanatic would argue that green based restraints on oil exploration and production, in force in prime oil drilling regions all over the globe, would have no impact on prices.
“Even you must admit”
There is no such thing to admit. He’s a fatuous obsessive bore whose self aggrandizing belief that he is funny/ witty is so delusional its painful to observe. You might not see that Nome, mainly because you’re at a similarly infantile intellectual level.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:18 pm
“It (the market) operates on a kind of herd mentality, where decisions regarding long term market conditions tend to be dictated by group-think rather than sound and rational analysis.”
That’s what real people call an OPPORTUNITY, take your superior knowledge and use it and you could make yourself some serious dosh. If you don’t have the knowledge you could organise the 190 experts (policy analysts) to go in together. Then you wouldn’t have to hang around here being a pain, you could join us all patting each other on the back about how wealthy we are.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
“Redbaiter (2654) +0 Says:
May 7th, 2008 at 8:17 pm
“Are you tossers still arguing the rail thing a day later.”
Give me a break here RB, Nomes boss parted with a billion for a pile of shit don’t queer my pitch here I am only after 50 to 100 grand for a $1000 dollar toy train. Shit man give me a fair go at the socialist dumbfucks!
May 7th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
John, sorry to break this to you boy, but they’ll never spend their own money. Give him some of the taxpayer’s stuff and like Kullen, he’d be right in..!!
May 7th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Woger Nome
“I’m a center-left, democratic liberal”
If I was to take that at face value then how I would I square it with the fact that you have not posted one fucking comment that would support your statement.
From what I have read here there is not one single post that would even hint at you being anything but a rabid left wing bully and a member of the ruling elite, the mere suggestion that Labour are going to take a hiding in November is enough to send you into a lather of abuse and a mad panic, hardly the actions of somebody who claims to be “center left”
If you really are “center left” then the prospect of John Key running the country should not worry you one bit, if anybody is truly center left it is John Key (sadly) therefore one can only assume that you are a liar as well as a bully/communist.
May 7th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Sob–Sob—Sob RB: The Mallet is a lovely piece of engineering 230mm overall including the tender–huge in N gauge!!!!!!
Fuck the socialist pricks it is now not for sale at any price–no matter how desperate Micky Cullen gets!
May 8th, 2008 at 9:51 am
roger nome:
“Toll NZ was a natural monopoly wasn’t it? Thanks to the eternal wisdom of Roger Douglas’ and Richard Prebble’s ideologically driven, crony-capitalist, helter-skelter state asset sales (I’m sure the $3 million of donations from the New Zealand Business Round-Table to the NZ Labour Party just before the 1987 election had everything to do with NZBR members inheriting the natural monopolies of the state-sector at a pittance). ”
How ignorant can some people be? NZ Rail was sold in 1993 by a National Government.