Comments on: More on BERL

By: Crampton

Crampton — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 22:51:38 +0000

Auberon: Nana was on tv slagging me off? When? Is it on the web anywhere? I heard him on National Radio, but I hadn’t seen anything on tv. Did he have anything beyond “world view” and “we weren’t asked to count benefits”? Anything that we haven’t already addressed in our rejoinder, which DPF links above?

By: thedavincimode

thedavincimode — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:56:38 +0000

deity thingy

Don’t know about the economics of passive smoking, but if you want to consider the physiological effects, then look no further than the chimp that does all of Magpie Phil’s typing.

By: Auberon

Auberon — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 09:53:25 +0000

Fair enough David, but it was Ganesh who went on TV and rubbished Matt and Eric’s critique, and said everyone else who had critiqued the research to date had done so out of context, which in my opinion was fatuous twaddle. But I get your point.

And deity, I think that’s very, very likely to have been how the whole dirty process went down.

By: the deity formerly known as nigel6888

the deity formerly known as nigel6888 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 04:13:00 +0000

Sounds like a typical piece of government social engineering propaganda, that unfortunately for BERL came to light under a less sympathetic government.

It goes something like this, here’s $135,000. Come up with some impressively large number and some pseudo scientific economicky mumbo-jumbo that we can use as “independent” evidence to support our predetermined course of action. No questions, no packdrill. If you don’t agree to the bent terms of reference then don’t bother bidding for another contract.

Then Taa DAAA! the useful idiot from the Law Commission starts the campaign for more activist legislation to “protect us”.

Seen it all before, will see it again as soon as the nanny staters get back into power (or if Nick Smith ever gets the keys to the policy car that is climate change)

Anyone want to look at the real economics of passive smoking now? Or the cost/benefit of breast cancer screening, or the new anti-cervical cancer drug, or how much difference a NZ ETS will really make to the global environment as opposed to the NZ economy and jobs….etc… etc

By: wreck1080

wreck1080 — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 02:58:14 +0000

Sounds like a cop out by me. Berl surely were intelligent enough to point out that it was a pointless study.

By: Auberon

Auberon — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:43:29 +0000

I guess you reap what you sow – I’d been hoping for some time that that arrogant little imp Ganesh Nana would have a bad day. Mean of me, I know, but the sneering way he critiques people and policy gets up my skirt!

[DPF: I would rather you don't personalise this]

By: david

david — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:26:55 +0000

Also the Law Commission has been deafening in its silence since Sir Palmer leaped into print on the back of the original report. Perhaps he should call himself Sir G Palmfrond as he blows with the prevailing wind so readily.

By: RightNow

RightNow — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:05:27 +0000

Identifying a use for BERL’s report on the important issue of alcohol misuse is a matter that remains unexplained

Perhaps they could fold the pages into little vomit bags for binge drinkers.