I ask because the Christchurch Press today (March 11) and presumably other Fairlyfukked-owned newspapers have a story by Michael Field saying the WSJ hailed John Key for his economic stimulus package. John Key came out favourably in the WSJ report, but only because of what he said. There was no suggestion the WSJ was “hailing” him. It was a professional, well written story by Kissel, not a puff piece.

Can anyone throw light on whether the WSJ has printed a subsequent editorial on Key, because I can’t find it?

End result:

New Zealand Farmers have to pay just as much to access it as Foreign ones despite the taxpayer contributions (as well as in kind contributions from farmers offering paddocks for trials)
AND it was marketed and available overseas before it was released in NZ.

NZ’s room to move on interest rates is just about the only thing we have got. We mustn’t blow it. The advantages of interest rate cuts must be reflected in PRODUCTIVE investment, not in continuing to inflate housing speculative price bubbles.

Fiscal incentives for productive activity (or rather the removal of disincentives) and removal of obstacles to development are a necessity right now.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/2023650/Baa-humbug-The-US-verdict-on-farm-burps

It is truly remarkable that our scientists are spending our money on this unscientific dead-end methane non-problem while US farmers are getting the benefit of New Zealand science developed at Massey University called Zero Till which means that US cattle pastures can be counted as carbon sinks. Hence, when our cattle farmers have to buy carbon credits because of our methane they will probably buy them off US cattle farmers who have focused on the use of pasture soils as an efficient means of sequestering carbon using our technology developed by scientists who were not corrupted by the climate change research bonanza.

This makes a mockery of Key’s claim that we are focusing on improving our productivity. We are actually hell bent on destroying the competitive advantage of our most productive sector.

HE needs to get better advice urgently and make sure the Select Committee can at least discuss the science of our own pastures – the IPCC says nothing about them so he would not be challenging the Testaments.

The US scientists who developed these theories also conceded that New ZEaland farm pastures are more efficient carbon sinks than US pastures because our pastures grasses are perennials unlike the US grasses which are annuals.

When will someone in Parliament ask why we the only country which counts ruminant belching as an anthropogenic greenhouse gas.
Last time I looked our cows were not running on fossil fuel but were eating grass which had captured carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But junk science goes round and round and of course this is really about indulgences and flagellation more than science.

By avoiding a larger fiscal stimulus, the Government not only avoids increasing Government debt, but also gives the Reserve Bank more room to provide a monetary stimulus, which costs the government nothing. New Zealanders’ owe more than they lend, so there is a net gain to the economy in reduced interest rates. People who hold cash do see poorer returns, but that gives them an incentive to place it in productive investments instead. This increase in the supply of cash (outside traditional bank deposits) improves the corporate bond market, will improve the sharemarket, and encourages capital investment in innovation, all of these will offer better risk-adjusted returns. Meanwhile, the cost of capital has reduced, also increasing capital productivity. The strengthening of the local bond market will also reduce reliance on foreign capital and, over time, reduce the invisibles deficit in the balance of trade.

Conversely, if the Government put in a larger fiscal stimulus, the Reserve Bank would be less likely to cut interest rates (in Australia they made no cut this month), and Government borrowing would further crowd out private sector investment and raise interest rates due to the increased demand for money. The UK and the USA are likely to have nasty problems in this regards.

Far better to have a bigger interest rate cut than a bigger clumsy stimulus program. IMHO. Especially if the Reserve Bank has room to cut rates. We do in New Zealand. They don’t in the UK and USA.

That may well be your perception. The reality is that NZ’s mainstream media is virtually a closed shop of one dimensional socialists who will only ever report from that perspective.

By “coloured” I meant any question will inevitably be followed up with questions about the political implications, or questions will simply be framed in a ‘opposition party says this, what do you say to that?’ way. The WSJ doesn’t give a damn about that stuff, so Key probably feels more at ease with them.

Good Grief

the 3 Musketeers I mentioned have taken an elephant gun to it and are spraying it around like there was no Tomorrow

And their wont be at the rate their going.

I mean if their fix was so successful why arent the markets responding in a positive rather than negative way Cause the markets dont believe they can fix the problem

Governments cant fix this problem on their own

What they have to do is stayout of it and give the taxpayers and citizens the means to do it. All the Gumint should be doing is going after the bastards who caused the problem and stringing them up as a leeson and passing good governance based laws and getting rid of the laws that encouraged the bastards in the first place.

Haha, so damn stupid couldn’t even pick up the logical error. When I said

“As for the WSJ being “left wing” that is wrong.”

I of course meant “right wing”.

The left’s great comprehension skills on show again.

Right on to “laff”, but can’t even get close to identifying a major mistake in the logic. (even when it is the result of an error)

No, gd, please read what I actually said. The world is far too complex a place to reduce everything to “you’re either with us or you’re against us”

(1) Spelling of laugh. It does not rhyme with chaff.
(2) So your main form of argument is still just sneering at people, not actually explaining why you’re right? No surprises there…

Derivatives claims are not stayed in bankruptcy. (Yet another brilliant innovation from the 2005 bankruptcy reform legislation.)

Additionally, naming AIG’s counterparties without knowing/naming those counterparties’ counterparties and clients would be at best useless, and very likely dangerous. Let’s say Geithner acknowledges that Big French Bank is a significant AIG counterparty. (Likely, but I have no direct knowledge.) BFB then issues a statement confirming this, but stating it was structuring deals for its clients, who bear all the risk on the deals, and who it can’t name due to confidentiality clauses. Since everyone knows BFB specialized in setting up derivatives transactions for state-affiliated banks in Central and Eastern Europe, these already wobbly institutions start to face runs. In some cases this leads to actual riots in the streets, especially since the governments there don’t have the reserves to help out. If you’re Tim Geithner, do you risk it? Or do you grit your teeth and let a bunch of senators call you a scumbag for a few more hours?

That may well be your perception. The reality is that NZ’s mainstream media is virtually a closed shop of one dimensional socialists who will only ever report from that perspective.

As for the WSJ being “left wing” that is wrong. Anyone who knows of the political schism between the WSJ journalists and its editorial staff would have to laff at the ignorant left wing propaganda of Ratbiter et al.

News item-

Just hours after the public learned on May 1 that Murdoch had popped the $5-billion question, the WS Journal’s union – representing roughly 2,000 Dow Jones employees – released a statement opposing the sale. Journalists across the nation joined in, criticizing Murdoch’s “ego” and questioning his “editorial integrity.”

The Journal’s union, which has openly opposed Murdoch’s bid, is now courting several “billionaires with integrity,” according to IAPE Local 1096 President Steve Yount’s June 5 statement. But the prospective buyers contacted by the union – Warren Buffet and Ron Burkle – are both left-wing supporters of prominent Democrats.

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2007/20070606153803.aspx

There are no people so intelligent and excellent that they are irreplacable.

Einstein.

No, seriously.

Well of course, but productive people cannot be so in the mire of socialism. In case you missed it Ruth, socialism is an attempt by ivory tower academics to regulate capitalism. There is a difference between the two economic/ political concepts.

Some productive people rightly object to fuckwits messing with their objectives and tend not to live in places where they are not permitted to produce. They move elsewhere. Ever heard of Monaco? Its a stark contrast to Havana.

You need to decide what you want Ruth, just as productive people do, and have the right to do.

Not IMHO What we need is less government more good governance less moronic laws more sensible workable laws more good morals more good ethics less bad ethics less bad morals more money in the taxpayers pockets so they can make their spending decisions free from government dictate.

Inshort out with the old in with the new.

Someone tell the ‘going John Galt’ types — you know the ones who intend to drop out of society and take their magnificent ‘productivity’ elsewhere because they don’t like John Key or Obama or whoever. The people who think they are indispensable to society.

There are no people so intelligent and excellent that they are irreplacable. That’s capitalism.

And I liked Key’s optimisim – as I always do- in the article.