On your knees

October 29th, 2010 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

The Dom Post editorial says:

Labour MP welcomes the fact the films are staying here, but is disparaging of Prime Minister ’s efforts, telling Parliament “he has been on his knees to Warners …

Just imagine for a second that Helen Clark was still Prime Minister, and she had just done a deal with Warners to rescue . And imagine if a senior National MP got up and said in Parliament that “Helen Clark has been on her knees to Warners”.

Could you imagine the outcry? That MP would be condemned from all sides.

Something else not hard to imagine is what would have happened if Labour wins the next election, and Mallard is the relevant Minister again. The editorial reminds us:

A little more grovelling and a little less posturing might have enabled New Zealand to hold on to the 2003 Rugby World Cup co-hosting rights when Mr Mallard was sports minister.

Declaring that he wanted those who had thwarted New Zealand to insert beer bottles in “particularly uncomfortable places” didn’t get the job done.

Mallard would probably have ended up offending Warners even more than Simon Whipp, if he was the relevant Minister.

In contrast, Mr Key has struck a deal that will provide work for thousands of New Zealanders, have hundreds of millions of dollars spent here and boost the tourism industry.

He has also ensured that New Zealand stays on the list of countries where it is good to make films. Those in Wellington have particular reason to be pleased he succeeded.

So John Key manages to save the films after Trevor’s union buddies scared them off, and this compares to Mallard in 2003 who oversaw the loss of the co-hosting of the rugby world cup.

There’s an old saying – you can be competent and nasty and people will tolerate you. You can be incompetent and pleasant and people will forgive some of your screw ups, but when you are both incompetent and nasty, then you have no future.

It is the credibility of the unions that is now in tatters, not the film industry. Mr Key has achieved the best possible outcome, given the hand New Zealand was dealt by the unions. Mr Mallard should buy him a beer.

Only if ESR can test it first!

Tags: , ,

85 Responses to “On your knees”

  1. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    An abundance of sour grapes is yielding a profligacy of cheap bitter whines.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    Mallard is living proof that if you ever think that the opposition benches could not possibly lower the tone in Parliament any further, you will be proven wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. dime (9,980 comments) says:

    Thanks for the mental image of helen on her knees.. just before lunch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. 2boyz (262 comments) says:

    Trevor, an easy guy to dislike. He’s an MP for life, no one in the private sector would have him. I guess he’s holding out for the plum posting to London, Paris or Washington! (thank goodness for tax payers)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Jimbob (641 comments) says:

    Is he trying to out do Paul Henry? You would have to say Mallard is out of his class.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. poneke (280 comments) says:

    Not everyone has your filthy mind, David.

    “On your knees” means begging, not what you’re trying to make it out to be.

    [DPF: As another Labour MP was going on about the PM bending over for Warners also, I don't think there is any doubt about what they intended]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. niggly (830 comments) says:

    Yeah, the BS & spin coming out of Mallard’s mouth of late has been disappointing and suprising – because as a former Minister who had to talk to the likes of Warners (and he was making a big deal about that a few days ago), I was imagining how he would be able to face up to them again if he ever found himself a Minister in a future Labour Govt needing to discuss film projects etc.

    (On the other hand perhaps he knows he can talk like this because he knows there won’t ever be another Labour Govt again and he won’t be a Minister again) :-)

    Mallard … hopefully won’t end up in a job where decorum and manners is a requirement, like being an ambassador etc (in fact best simply to keep him away from people full stop then to save further offence and embarasement)!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Seriously ponoke, you seem to be the one with the filthy mind. DPF didn’t suggest the meaning you seem to have inferred

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    poneke – I had never thought of the rude inference to “on his knees”. Thanks for the image just before lunch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Sarkozygroupie (207 comments) says:

    “New Zealand Actors’ Equity president Jennifer Ward-Lealand has expressed her gratitude on behalf of performers for the Government’s leadership in negotiating a positive outcome with the studio executives and producers.”

    Her gratitude? For saving the country from the monumental fuck-up she and those other idiots orchestrated? For the govt having to go in to bat by offering extra incentives and deals?

    She seriously thinks everything is rosy enough to test the waters by poking her head above the parapet now and come across all sweetness and light? Robyn ‘I have the IQ of a coffee table’ Malcolm did the same yesterday trying to wish Peter Jackson, New Line and Warner Bros all the very best of luck with filming.

    Surely these two don’t think this level of smarmy disingenuous sycophancy will now earn them a job in this production or others, or return to them the hearts and minds of the New Zealand public again?

    Apart from which, given that a good percentage of actors have nothing to do with her or the unions who the hell does she thinks she is thanking the govt on behalf of her fellow actors. The idiot still has no frigging idea.

    Both of them can fuck off to Australia or outer Mongolia for all I care, I won’t ever be watching or paying to watch anything either of them act in again in this country, and I wrote directly to NZEA and told them so a number of days ago.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. dad4justice (8,238 comments) says:

    Did Angry Trevor get on his knees while he was in the criminal dock at the District Court?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. s.russell (1,642 comments) says:

    “From Stuff:
    “Mr Mallard said it was “convenient” for the Government to blame unions for the saga surrounding The Hobbit, but they had worked hard to settle the dispute. ”

    Ahhh! So it was actually the unions who saved The Hobbit! Trevor’s perspicacity knows no end.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Brian Smaller (4,023 comments) says:

    I thought Trevor said something fallacious, not fellacious.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Tim Ellis (251 comments) says:

    Pull the other one Poneke.

    Labour have been also liberally using the expression “bend over for Warners”. It doesn’t take a very filthy mind to understand what that reference means either.

    You are also deliberately missing DPF’s point. If a National MP in opposition had used either phrase about one of Helen Clark’s ministers, she would have ripped them a new one. And yes, in case there’s any doubt from you, I do mean ripped them a new asshole.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. niggly (830 comments) says:

    Mallard …. a man who lies, uses unpleasant sexual inuendo …. and lest we forget is a bully and a thug who is happy to give opposition MP’s the bash.

    Mallard is nothing short of a disgrace.

    Mallard’s behaviour (noted above) would have seen him dismissed from any reputable organisation, business or company (if he wasn’t a MP).

    And Paul Henry had to fall on his sword? The hypocrisy is mindblowing.

    Oh well, keep it up Mallard, at least you are good at discrediting the Labour Party in the eyes of the public!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. jaba (2,143 comments) says:

    Sue Moroney doesn’t want the Govt to give Warner Bro’s further tax breaks but is keen for them to support our gambling industry more like Winston Peters did ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Maybe it was both Brian, he lied while he was on the job as it were?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    jaba – I saw that, she’s complaining about lack of taxpayer money being thrown at the racing industry when the government apparently has money for The Hobbit. Perhaps she is unable to reconcile the fact that The Hobbit pays more than they receive in tax breaks. A simple test to apply to the racing industry – how much tax do they generate vs how much they get in subsidies.

    I wonder if the left will be happy for all their sacred cows to receive a similar test.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Key and Mallard – both from NatLabour, the political consortium that picks business winners and subsidises some industries, such as film industries.

    Lies or ignorance. Film industry supporters denials that tax deductions for targeted foreign investors are subsidies are either one of these – lies or ignorance.

    I repeat the definition of subsidy from Investopedia:

    A benefit given by the government to groups or individuals usually in the form of a cash payment or tax reduction

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Its a sacred cow burger kind of weekend Rightnow.

    Ah that works on so many levels.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Paulus (2,633 comments) says:

    I do wish the media would not give “the f. duck” breathing space.

    He is irrelevant but this supports the media’s move against the government.

    Look at the Herald editorial and letters this morning – pathetic little sods. Damn the government, that’s all that matters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    mmm, sacred cow burger.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Jack5 – thanks for confirming that the government is not actually giving Warners a big bag of cash, but that the subsidies are in fact a reduction of the total amount of tax they will pay. NZ will still benefit massively from having these films made here. Do you disagree?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    I just love it when the Maoists have to turn puce and lie like flat fish when they get found out for being crapsters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. DJP6-25 (1,388 comments) says:

    Yes, sacred cow burger, with a large side dish od schadenfreude!. What’s not to like?

    cheers

    David Prosser

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Mmmmmm schadenfreude!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. KevinH (1,229 comments) says:

    Since Helen’s departure Mallard has morphed into a debarked attack dog, lost, bewildered and desparate for friends.
    Sadly for Labour Mallard is all they have got, without him obscurity beckons.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    In response to Rightnow’s 1.29 post:

    Here’s the guts of what the Gummint is doing for the film industry, as spelled out in an excellent editorial in today’s NZ Hooer-ald whoops NZ Herald.

    … a further $10 million in tax breaks to add to the $50 million to $60 million already on offer. Additionally, the Government will offset the films’ marketing costs by $13.4 million.

    As this editorial says:”It is foolish to go down the slippery slope of offering ever-greater subsidies to attract industry or investment. That race always ends in tears.”

    The editorial is at:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10683762

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. RRM (9,933 comments) says:

    NO NO NO – people still have the innuendo completely the wrong way around. I’ll just have to repost AGAIN this gem I read on another forum:

    Jessica Alba befriends you on Failbook and after chatting a while she says she wants to make the beast with two backs with you. She’s coming round now.
    You open the door and she discovers that you’re not as hot as she thought. Her immediate reaction is to walk away.
    “Wait!” you call out in desperation. “Not even a blowjob?”
    “Well…ok” she says.
    And you get a gobby from Jessica Alba.
    You win.

    Labour should be congratulating Key on a job well done. Not doing their “we’re the opposition, so we have to be against whatever that was the Government just did” thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Murray (8,847 comments) says:

    Its not an excellent ediotrial, its a factually challenged bit of drek worth a D at any respectable polytech pedling journalism courses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    @ Jack5; I believe that the amount of the tax rebate is something of the order of US$30m. Bear in mind, as RightNow has noted, that this is NOT a cash hand-out, but a rebate. On our present population, I read somewhere that that equates to around $4.46 per man, woman and child per movie, which to me seems cheap at half the price. The GST take from increased spending in areas where the film is being produced and the PAYE and RWT boost which occurs should more than compensate.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Re RRM’s 1.48:

    What does this smutty metaphor mean. That leftist politicians who believe in subsidies and picking winners are perverts or madly promiscuous or both?

    That Hollywood moguls (mostly men) are gay perverts? Or madly promiscuous or both?

    Please explain after your marijuana wears off, RRM.

    However, RRM is right that Labour should be congratulating the leftist Nats for “a job well done”.

    P

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Jack5, it would have been nice to have had the films made here without increasing the subsidies, but that turned out not to be the case (unless you’re in the camp who think John Key caved too easily, in which case it’s all your fault for not being the Prime Minister and doing a better job).

    Clearly the Herald writer is not big on crunching the numbers. The net benefit to the country in this instance is far bigger than the subsidies.

    Here’s a newsflash for you Jack5 – I think the NZ Herald editorial is written by a union/left sympathising economic ignoramus.

    And that’s something you can quote me on.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. trout (939 comments) says:

    Mallard also said the Key had been ‘royally screwed’. Perhaps his apologists should step back and look at Mallards behaviour over the years and wonder why this idiot continues in the employment of the taxpayer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    “US$30m…equates to around $4.46 per man, woman and child per movie” – also bear in mind that this isn’t a sum that anyone actually has to pay. The reality is that the NZ economy would have benefited to the tune of (say) $10 per man, woman and child per movie, but (since the actions of the meddling unions) the NZ economy will now only benefit to the tune of (say) $5.54 per man, woman and child per movie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    Mallard will be getting ready to defend a Ladies honour again soon? Wonder whether he has got the bottle to actually face the man next time?

    Fuck a Duck is a National disgrace and a dreary coward.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Re Inventory2 at 1.50:

    It ain’t a rebate. The tax won’t be collected in the first place.

    Inventory2’s argument about compensation from GST and PAYE compensating for tax cuts could be used in support of tax cuts for hundreds of other enterprises and industries. The point is, that the Government has singled out the film industry for this benefit. That’s wrong. It’s picking winners.

    I don’t understand Inventory2’s reference to RWT. My understanding of resident withholding tax is that it is a deduction from interest income before investors receive it, and that this is then deducted from the final tax payable for the year, so it isn’t paid twice. Inventory2 may like to enlighten me on this.

    Re RightNow at 1.55:

    …I think the NZ Herald editorial is written by a union/left sympathising economic ignoramus.

    So it’s leftist to argue against subsidies for selected industries and against governments picking winners? Bullshit.

    And Rightnow argues that the subsidies granted to the film industry will result in a bigger return to the country than offering no subsidies. This is definitely not an argument against subsidies. It’s an argument in support of subsidies (for selected industries or enterprises of course, which is picking winners).

    You believe in subsidies and picking winners or you don’t. If you believe in them you are advocating a leftist philosophy.

    That’s okay, but it’s fucking hypocritical then to portray yourself as a Right-wing, free-enterpriser.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    Excuse me if I stuffed up my acronyms Jack5 :-)

    What do self-employed contractors pay?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    Inventory2:

    In my experience, which is limited in this field, RWT is on dividends and interest and perhaps on those who do odd jobs or casual work without meeting the role of employees. On the other hand contractors in my experience would invoice the customer for the gross amount of service or product, without RWT. Perhaps film industry contractors fit the former type of arrangement.

    Someone more expert in the field please correct me.

    But the role of RWT seems to me to give the state earlier access to some of the tax money ultimately payable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. niggly (830 comments) says:

    Mallard, Labour, the Unions and co, how they forget about the real workers and those that were the meat in the middle of the sandwhich.

    Like these everyday kiwi fellas etc.

    “It’s my livelihood, you know, it’s my mates, it’s my mates’ livelihood. It’s the only thing I can do, it’s what we’re good at.”- Sam Genet, head of the sculpture department at Stone St Studios

    “”It was really hard. It did paralyse people. It just made you think about all the bad things in your life. It was tough.”
    – Kathryn Lim, film technician

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington/4284135/Hobbit-deal-saves-a-way-of-life
    But these people won’t forget who caused all this, so keep it up Mallard, Labour, Greens and Unions!

    It can’t be nice for that lot to be on the end of a public flogging. Take for instance this, these words hurt, ouch!

    “I’m pretty sure I’ve witnessed the most inept industrial action of my lifetime.

    The word I’m struggling for – and which is so missing in The Hobbit fiasco – is professionalism, or the art of knowing what you’re doing”

    Fully agree with the article!
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/4280040/Union-vision-dimmer-than-a-Hobbits-burrow

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Offshore_Kiwi (500 comments) says:

    Inv, contractors generally pay (and pay, and pay, and pay some more) Income Tax and GST (although GST isn’t really “paid”, it’s collected by service providers from service consumers, held in trust for, and then passed on to, the gummint).

    Jack5 and RightNow, I suspect you’re actually discussing parallel tracks. Yes, it was wrong (WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG) for the government to introduce legislation specifically for the fillim industry. As a professional, it should be up to me and the organisation I provide services to, what arrangements we make for those services. As a project worker, I prefer to be an independent contractor on a daily rate. In cash terms, significantly higher than what a permanent employee would pay in the same circumstances. That’s because I don’t have (nor do I expect, or want) the protections afforded to employees (paid holidays, sick leave, ridiculous exit requirements, etc.) Sadly in NZ, if one company provides >=80% of my income, I am deemed their employee. Ridiculous.

    RightNow, you’re right. John Drinnan is a union-sympathising leftard. And an economic ignoramus.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Jack5:
    “So it’s leftist to argue against subsidies for selected industries and against governments picking winners?”

    Actually it’s economic ignorance to argue against picking winners. People don’t get rich picking losers (unless they’re betting against them, like George Soros aka “the man who broke the bank of England” did to the British pound in the ’90s). It’s leftist to wish for a negative impact to our economy in order to strengthen the power of unions.

    The Herald editorials statement that “It is foolish to go down the slippery slope of offering ever-greater subsidies to attract industry or investment. That race always ends in tears.”

    When an investment has an overall input to the economy of (for example) $100, and to attract the investment the government offers an incentive in some form to the value of $50, then the remaining input to the economy is $50.
    If the government increases the incentive to $60 (eg due to competition from another government who are offering an incentive valued at $70), then the resulting economic input to to the economy is reduced to $40.

    Now here’s an example for you:
    You want to buy a product and can choose from two suppliers.
    Supplier A says “My price is $100 and not negotiable”.
    Supplier B says “My price is $80, but if you can find it cheaper somewhere else then I will beat their price”
    Both suppliers have the same identical product. Which one will you buy it from, and which one do you think will make more money from their attitude?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Rex Widerstrom (5,354 comments) says:

    Inventory2 calculates:

    that that equates to around $4.46 per man, woman and child per movie

    And divided per hour of tedious, overlong, selfindulgent claptrap that will result (LOTR was, what, 300 hours long? It felt like it when I was made to sit through more than 30 minutes by some enthusiastic fanboi) it works out to about 0.1 cents an hour! :-D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    I should have pointed out above (missed the edit time) that even a reduced input to the economy is still an input we otherwise would not have had.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. James (1,338 comments) says:

    From Not PC….for Jack5’s benefit..

    But what they’re negotiating isn’t a “subsidy,” it’s a tax break. To describe a tax break as a “subsidy” is no more honest than to call what a burglar leaves behind a “gift.”

    It’s been objected that it makes no sense to offer tax breaks to get companies doing business here because there’ll be no revenue gain to the New Zealand Government. Anyone saying this is more dumb than they look. If companies come here and pay no tax at all every single person in New Zealand will still be richer by to the extent of the capital they do invest here, and by the jobs and wealth they create. And the extent they’re not stolen from by the tax man is the greater extent to which they’ll actually be able to create new wealth.

    http://pc.blogspot.com/2010/10/subsidising-hobbit-enterprise-sounds.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. BeaB (2,125 comments) says:

    Unlike Labour’s fawning legislation for the RWC which actually robs us of some of our freedoms (surprise surprise) like being able to use the phrase or selling our tickets on to someone else or putting up a sign, this is a minor piece of tidying up.
    I am still amazed we had a march of workers protesting AGAINST the unions! Must be a first!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Yvette (2,824 comments) says:

    Inventory2 _ $4.46 per man, woman and child per movie

    This covers only the US$ 15 million John Key announced Tuesday evening.
    All up the rebates/costs appear to amount approximately NZ$ 100 million, but the Government has gone ‘commercially sensitive’ on it.

    And why could it be ‘commercially sensitive’? Well, little things like –

    The Wall Street Journal
    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703927504575540961308300830.html?mod=ITP_pageone_0,/i>

    LOS ANGELES—Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.’s latest drama is near a denouement.

    [last two paragraphs]
    “Spyglass’s Messrs. Barber and Birnbaum are behaving as if their deal will go through. They have parking spaces at MGM and have already helped the studio with a key project: two “Hobbit” films in partnership with Warner Brothers, a project MGM’s financial woes had jeopardized. Those much-anticipated films should eventually give the MGM library a boost.
    The pair have helped get the Hobbit films back on track under “Lord of the Rings” director Peter Jackson. The new plan under consideration: Warner will foot the production bill and be partly paid back by MGM later.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Jack5 (5,137 comments) says:

    James at 3.04 trots out again and again the same propaganda despite definitions from authoritative sources I have provided of “subsidy” in this thread and others.

    Makes you wonder who is the master filmmaker in Wellington – Jackson or Leni Riefenstahl.

    Similarly with Rightnow at 2.50. Rightnow tries to square the circle to show that subsidies for selected industries and Governments picking winners are not leftist and dirigiste. Can’t be done, Rightnow.

    Key and National are as centre-left as Labour.

    They may be lucky. They may be correct according to their own inner political compasses.

    What they are not is Right and for free enterprise, and those who argue they are reveal themselves to be deluded, irrational, and just damned wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    So I try to “show that subsidies for selected industries and Governments picking winners are not leftist”?

    Meh, call it leftist if you like. I consider myself a pragmatist. For me the main thing is that a win was snatched from the jaws of defeat.
    I live in Wellington and I’m happy that these movies are going to be kept in NZ because there is a huge economic boost that comes with it (as well as lots of happy people about the place, making it more vibrant).
    I don’t side with those who moan about NZ offering incentives, to me it is just good economic sense to attract this business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. GPT1 (2,122 comments) says:

    Worth remembering that the last time a PM got, figuratively, down on their knees because NZ wanted something (apparently) we ended up donating a billion odd to Australia for a broken train set. I think Key was somewhat more successful.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. tvb (4,432 comments) says:

    Key got something in return from Warners when they upped the ante. Key correctly read that with $100m already committed the trade union thing dealt with, the extra money could come at a price. So he leveraged some tourist promotion off it. Does anyone think Mallard could have got a deal as clever as that??? Mallard is a cheap thug in a bad suit. But where is Phil Goff????

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    yeah, Where’s Wally?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. gravedodger (1,566 comments) says:

    Trev the Miss puts a disparaging vid on Mr Key’s rescue success on Red Alert and Grant deletes my suggestion that Trev with a Heinekin Bottle could have done so much better as offensive.
    What chance that a ban will follow my protest about them not liking history recalled and if they dish it they should be able to take it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    gd, I wonder how they’re liking Key saying he got a better deal for The Hobbits than Clark got for LOTR’s
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4287506/Hobbit-better-deal-than-Lord-of-the-Rings-Key

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. djg (72 comments) says:

    Has there been any analysis done comparing the Labour gift to LOTR and Nationals gift to The Hobbit.?

    Is the increase in GST take from 12.5% to 15% on $600,000,000.00 enough to compensate the extra gift. It is curious that the govt. Have not offered the The Hobbit movie an increase on the % rebate but two fixed amounts, $7.5 mill each movie.

    I’m just asking someone smarter than me to give this some thought.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. djg (72 comments) says:

    Thinking a little further on this, I wonder how many independent contractors in the film industry turn over less than the threshold to be required to be GST registered and therefore do not claim the GST output credits. This of course is a nett gain to the treasury.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    djg – I doubt very many of the contractors will be earning below the threshold. IIRC it was around $30k wasn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Yvette (2,824 comments) says:

    Didn’t Phil Goff come up with some gaff this morning ? – I heard the tail end of Michael Walls [Radio Live] condemning some statement Goff had made, saying that was why he would go even lower in the polls and his Party nowhere – that he would have let THE HOBBIT go for some ‘principle’.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Yvette – Chris Trotter has a piece on Stuff: “For worst supporting role, I nominate Phil Goff”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4286985/For-worst-supporting-role-I-nominate-Phil-Goff

    “with Parliament in session, Mr Goff could have made full use of parliamentary privilege to launch a devastating counterattack against Sir Peter and his growing chorus of anti- union acolytes.

    By refusing to fight back, the Opposition transformed what was rapidly escalating into a full-scale, Government-led attack on the entire union movement into a complete rout.

    In the absence of unassailable Labour counter- arguments, the mainstream news media stuck slavishly to Sir Peter’s anti-union script.

    The week, which had begun with such high hopes for organised labour’s triumph, ended with its total, ignominious and unnecessary defeat.”

    Yes Chris Trotter, what a shame Goff didn’t launch an attack on Sir Peter Jackson.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. adze (2,126 comments) says:

    “Yes Chris Trotter, what a shame Goff didn’t launch an attack on Sir Peter Jackson.”

    He’s getting decidedly moon-battish. And yet he has the odd moment of great insight; It’s really weird.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    I don’t get the whole “picking winners” complaint. This isn’t picking, this is backing ourselves. There was no other NZ company in the running here.

    In fact, Jackson and his company would have been making the film anyway, no matter where it was made.

    “Picking winners” is when the government supports one company over another which puts the unsupported company at a disadvantage, meaning that it has an uphill struggle to survive. What that means is that a company that might otherwise have won in the marketplace is put at a considerable disadvantage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Guy Fawkes (702 comments) says:

    Just why do Socialists not understand ‘Comparative Advantage?’

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    Why is Liarbore making all this noise now and not a week ago, or even back in August when the Unions first started its intimidation campaign?

    Duckboy has an account here. Maybe he can explain it, considering now he’s the de facto head of Liarbore.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. thedavincimode (6,803 comments) says:

    Rex W

    “And divided per hour of tedious, overlong, selfindulgent claptrap that will result (LOTR was, what, 300 hours long? It felt like it when I was made to sit through more than 30 minutes by some enthusiastic fanboi) …”

    Allah be praised. I’m not alone. Big raps on Rex for his courage in coming out first.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    And why did the left wait until now to start its letter bombardment to the Hooerald? Shane Dobson of Sunnyvale, a persistant offender, had pride of place today.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. trueblue (23 comments) says:

    “Sue Moroney doesn’t want the Govt to give Warner Bro’s further tax breaks but is keen for them to support our gambling industry more like Winston Peters did ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm’

    Is this the same Sue Moroney who has 2 brothers that are horse trainers, who gave an alibi to Winnie in the Owen Glenn saga?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. noodle (151 comments) says:

    Harr …Ms Clark sensitive about “on your knees”? She used the term “donkey deep” more than once, which, to my mind is err, um ..filthier to dirty minds than any reference to knees.
    Jeez, nuns pray on knees. Little kiddies scrape them. Old ladies break them. Healthy sportsmen sprain them. How many people discuss donkey depth? Just saying.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. wikiriwhis business (4,019 comments) says:

    JK managed to win the Hobbit because he is JK.

    Liarbour has no one in their ranks as prestigious as JK.

    And I’m not saying that as an anti socialist. JK was the man for the season, simple as that.

    Now, on another point, I just read on Facebook that JK is committed to dropping the age of consent to 13.

    I find this curious. Parents went ballistic when Phil Goff tried to legalise minors being sexual.

    Anyone heard anything??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Hurf Durf (2,860 comments) says:

    I just read on Facebook

    There’s your answer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. slightlyrighty (2,475 comments) says:

    One thing that the left and the media has failed to realise (in the main) is that the issue of contracters vs employees is an issue that the NZ film industry has also grappled with due to the lack of certainty cretaed by the supreme court.

    Peter Jackson is on record as having expressed a wish to have this matter resolved. So the NZ filmaking industry wanted to have this issue addressed as much as Warners. Now we have certainty. Warners, as the company that injected 600 million to have it’s intellectual property made into a movie in NZ, certainly has a right to make it’s feelings known on this issue. In this regard they are also supported by SPADA, Jackson, and by a large number of their own contractors.

    We now have confirmation that Avatar, which was largely filmed in NZ, will be spawning 2 sequels. Spielberg will be filming here. The Dambusters in in pre production. We are talking billions of dollars here.

    Surely the investment of 35 million, of which 14 million is directly involved in marketing NZ as a tourist destination, is a wise one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Viper Mk II (54 comments) says:

    Just why do Socialists not understand ‘Comparative Advantage?’

    Comparative advantage is DE-AD. Wine from Portugal and cloth from England? Pu-leahse.

    Socialists understand that comparative advantage is an obsolete economic theory in the modern age because the greatest wealth generators of the modern age of innovation come from knowledge and technology – not the vine growing weather in Portugal versus the vine growing weather in England – and knowledge, innovation and technologyis instantaneously transportable.

    Gawd its like the Socialists (lol) are the only people who actually understand actual economics these days, all the Right understand is finance.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Viper,

    That is too ludicrous to be polite. You are a complete, bumbling, useless twat.

    Knowledge and/or application of technology = Intellectual Property. It might be able to be stolen/copied (as with any other material product) but it is property none the less.

    IP is comparative advantage. If I know how to do something you don’t (like make an intelligent argument for instance) and that has a marketable value, then I have an economic comparative advantage with respect to that product. The same is true if we both know how how, but my IP makes the product, production or end service better or more efficient.

    To claim that knowledge and/or technology not only doesn’t provide comparative advantage, but refutes it, shows an absolute zero comprehension of economics. You are a disgrace

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Viper Mk II (54 comments) says:

    Knowledge and/or application of technology = Intellectual Property. It might be able to be stolen/copied (as with any other material product) but it is property none the less.

    Ah yes, but the owners of this IP can transfer it to any country at will for the benefit of their shareholders. As a basic example: China, an agrarian based Communist economy 25 years ago, had no idea how to build complex electoronics, an iPod or an iPad.

    Today they build millions for Apple. Surprisingly China did not develop that IP, and it did not own it to start with. So how did they acquire it? Apple, a US company, WILLINGLY TRANSFERRED that valuable competitive IP to China for profit.

    To claim that knowledge and/or technology not only doesn’t provide comparative advantage, but refutes it, shows an absolute zero comprehension of economics. You are a disgrace

    ‘Comparative advantage’ as a theory which describes the intrinsic competitive advantage of one country versus another is therefore obsolete; in the modern age any such IP based comparative advantage is fragile and non-durable – it does not last because the advantage can be quickly transferred away. I have just shown above that IP is instantaneously transferrable from one country to another. It can be done as quickly as an email or an FTP transfer occurs. And especially by a corporate owner who can transfer their IP at will to any other country in the globe: therefore IP in itself gives no country any lasting or durable competitive advantage.

    My conclusion therefore stands: the theory of comparative advantage is largely or wholly obsolete – in the modern age.

    You are a disgrace

    It appears that this Socialist agent still knows more about real economics than you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. labrator (1,850 comments) says:

    Viper Mk II, using your economics, please explain open source software where the IP is openly and freely distributed and how some people are making a living off it and some aren’t?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Viper Mk II (54 comments) says:

    Open source software does not give any individual country any comparative advantage.

    Assuming the country has electricity and access to basic PC’s of course.

    To answer your point more directly: yes some people can make a living off open source software, certainly. But these people can reside in any country. They can develop their software from anywhere in the world, and can sell to clients anywhere else in the world. Therefore open source software tends to provide no country any significant comparative advantage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Viper,

    I repeat – you are an absolute disgrace. Your inability to grasp simple economics would not be so appalling if you didn’t actually try to comment on it.

    Here goes:

    ‘Comparative advantage’ as a theory which describes the intrinsic competitive advantage of one country versus another is therefore obsolete; in the modern age any such IP based comparative advantage is fragile and non-durable – it does not last because the advantage can be quickly transferred away.

    1. Comparative advantage is not the same as competitive advantage. Competitive advantage refers to the trade of the outputs and an advantage in production is not necessarily required – e.g. tarriffs on imports can create a competitive advantage for a local product, even if that local product is not produced as efficiently locally.

    Comparative advantage is an advantage in the production of the good or service – that is, an ability to produce more efficiently (which includes an ability to produce at all.) It is focused on inputs.

    2. You do not understand your own argument. Your argument rests not on an ability to transfer knowledge at all, but to transfer it more quickly. All comparative advantage in the process (i.e. other than fixed inputs such as land & climate) can be transferred and it has laways been so – people can be trained, processes can be shared, tools & other technologies can can be sold or copied (you, in effect, cite these very examples when you note China’s manufacturing development over time.)

    Being able to transfer knowledge more quickly now doesn’t refute the theory of comparative advantage. What it does do is increase the risk that such advantage will be short lived (and it is shorter lived now, which is why ‘speed to market’ is so important to producers, particularly in intensely knowledge-based industries such as IT.)

    This would also be a reason why economies have protections such as patent laws – to protect that advantage.

    Knowledge and technology have been fundamentals of production from ‘day dot’ – from simple farming through to the ipods you refer to. Comparative advantage has always existed and always will. Just because knowledge can be transferred more rapidly now doesn’t mean compartive advantage is obsolete, nor largely so. What it means is that the lifespan of an incremental advantage is likely to be shorter than in the past – which creates competition to keep improving (one advantage lost leads to another being found.)

    If you are going to make wild assertions, please try and back them up with some sort of credible logic.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    Viper,

    They can develop their software from anywhere in the world, and can sell to clients anywhere else in the world. Therefore open source software tends to provide no country any significant comparative advantage.

    As the saying goes “It’s what you do with it that counts.”

    Try explaining India. They would seem to have a comparative advantage in the area of software development. An area that requires Intellectual Property (which can be reasonably easily transferred) and also professional skills (which have to be learned and developed.) Their advantage cannot be explained away as labour rates as cost of labour is not the only key factor – the skills (which must be developed over time) are also key.

    So, given your argument that knowledge portability renders comparative advantage obsolete, how is it that India has just that in an area that is i) intensely knowledge-based and ii) in the area of software development (which you seem to think is even less able to create and advantage)?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    > So John Key manages to save the films after Trevor’s union buddies scared them off

    Jeez, your hyperbole is in over-drive, David. Any idiot can give away taxpayers money, and John Key has just shown he’s very adept at doing that.

    At least it bodes well for the teachers’ pay negotiations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    [DPF: As another Labour MP was going on about the PM bending over for Warners also, I don't think there is any doubt about what they intended]

    Well, the PM has bent over backwards to accommodate foreign movie moguls. It’s nice to know that taxpayers are going to be contributing to their profits. On the upside, Key will also want to do a similar deal with teachers, and I understand their pay negotiations are now expected to head in the right direction.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    ross,

    I think you have every chance of Key offering the same sort of tax concessions to the teachers on the day they start to introduce large sums of new money into the economy.

    Incidentally, to help you with your logic processing a little, Key didn’t give away taxpayer money to WB – we don’t have any to give yet. What he did agree to do was take less than the ‘rate card’ states, which is still an enormous amount more than the $0 we would have received had the movie been filmed elsewhere.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. kiwi in america (2,456 comments) says:

    Ross
    So what about the money Clark gave away for the LOTR – more than is ‘given’ away for the Hobbit? I guess she’s one of your idiots as well. Its not a give away – its a tax rebate. It gets taken off the tax’s paid AFTER and ONLY if there is a profit made and it is capped at USD$7.5m per movie. If Key has not stepped in this movie was heading offshore and the taxes paid to NZ – nil. With it would’ve gone the industry so a net loss of 2,500 jobs and countless millions in tax. There would’ve been any tax to rebate.

    The spin offs go far beyond the Hobbit. In addition to the tourism boost there are other movies that will likely come as a consequence of the government ending the threat of union standover tactics in the industry once and for all. Cameron announced 2 more Avatars – a good chunk of Avatar was filmed/developed in NZ. Chances of those movies coming back to NZ if Jackson had been forced to take the Hobbit elsewhere – nil. Chances now after Key’s negotiations – high.

    What part of a GLOBAL BOYCOTT do you not get? Do you have any possible remote clue that this threat (which was carried out) is the kiss of death to a movie? Are you with the Greens (and likely Labour) who would throw 1000’s out of work and rob the economy and Treasary of hundreds of millions of dollars of revenue all so an actor can have the right to change his mind at the end of the movie and demand holiday pay and sick pay AFTER earning $5,000 a week as an independent contractor?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Inventory2 (10,342 comments) says:

    @ Wikiriwhi’s Business (7.42pm) – that is how rumours start; I’ve just read this in a story on The Guardian’s website:

    The prime minister came through. Like The Lord of the Rings before it The Hobbit films will be shot in New Zealand. And all it took to make the Warners people happy was famed Kiwi hospitality. That and new employment legislation. And an extra NZ$10m (£6m) in tax relief. And a NZ$13m top-up to the films’ publicity budget. As one wit put it, if Roman Polanski wanted to make a film in New Zealand, the government would be more than happy to lower the age of consent to 13.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/29/the-hobbit-new-zealand-actors-union

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. ross (1,437 comments) says:

    And as another commentor has noted:

    New Zealand is in danger of looking like a film set masquerading as a country.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. RightNow (6,994 comments) says:

    Better than the poor house the unions want us to resemble

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. tvb (4,432 comments) says:

    Socialists understand nothing about investment risk. In the film industry it is not the unit costs of labour that is the main issue (why come to NZ if it was) it is the “stability” of employment. A highly unionised workforce that can implement a ban is the greatest risk to the movie business because of the THREAT of delays and the huge costs associated. The movie industry is full of film projects that have had huge over-runs and associated costs that have broken the back of the studio. Huge finance has considerable finance costs and the longer a film is delayed for release the higher those and other costs can be. No one is going to rely on the pie crust promise of a Union Official not to strike or implement a ban when they already have.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote