Most Opposition Leaders go up in the Preferred PM polls after they get elected. Goff and Shearer did. Cunliffe has only declined since he was elected. The opposition his poll ratings seem most similar to are Jim McLay.

Andrew Geddis blogs on the issue of whether the Internet Party’s selection rules comply with the obligation in the Electoral Act for them to be democratic. He first points out that regardless of the rules, they can get registered:

There are two separate points here. The first is whether the Internet Party’s rules governing candidate selection are consistent with the Electoral Act’s requirement that parties use “democratic processes” when choosing who will stand under their banner. The second is whether that first question is at all relevant to the Party gettting registered. I’ll answer them in reverse order. …

One is that this obligation applies to registered parties. In other words, for it to kick in, the party already must be registered with the Commission. (In fact, a party doesn’t have to have any rules at allbefore being registered, as it is only required to provide the Commission with a copy of the party’s rules a month afterregistration.) And when it comes to the Commission carrying out the party registration process, it has no legal authority to look at a prospective party’s candidate selection rules (assuming these exist). 

So the Internet Party can definitely get registered. So how can they be held to account in terms of if their rules are democratic enough:

The only real teeth and claws to this provision is that it gives a disgruntled prospective candidate (or ordinary party member) a ground on which to challenge candidate selection rules (and the way they are applied) in court. But, of course, that relies on there being some individual upset enough to get litigious against the party she or he purportedly supports and wants to represent.

So a member of the Internet Party could challenge the rules in court. Would they have any grounds for doing so?

There are a couple of initial points stacked against any such claim. The actual demands of the Electoral Act are pretty minimal: so long as there is “provision … made for participation in the selection of candidates …  by … delegates who have (whether directly or indirectly) in turn been elected or otherwise selected by current financial members of the party” then s.71 is met. Additionally, the Internet Party has as its legal advisor one Graeme Edgeler, and I’d be very, very loathe to think that he’d allow the Party to run under a set of rules that aren’t consistent with the law.

Having said that, however, I think he might just have done so (or, at least, will do so if and when the Internet Party is registered with the Commission under its current set of rules).

That is significant. Geddis is saying that he thinks there is an arguable case the rules are not consistent with the law.

The Executive Committee (at its sole discretion) gets to both select who will be on the list and where they are placed on it. The membership gets to rank the Executive Committee’s initial choices, but with the Executive Committee then only required to “have regard” to the outcome of this process when making its final decision.

What, then, is this “Executive Committee”? Well, the relevant point to note for this election is that it consists only of the people who are setting up the Internet Party without any membership input at all.

Also the Executive Committee can not be changed by the membership, as only nominations made by a current member of the Executive Committee are valid. The party founders basically can stay there as long as they want, by refusing to nominate anyone else for their Executive Committee.

So, when it comes time to choose the candidates for 2014, the Internet Party’s Executive Committee will be made up of the self-appointed “founders” of the Party … irrespective of the party membership’s views on their suitability or otherwise. Which means that any initial screening of prospective candidates for the Party’s 2014 list (consistent with rule 12.1), as well as the final decision on the list’s makeup and rank order, will be taken by individuals who have not been (either directly or indirectly) “elected or otherwise selected by current financial members of the party”.

Not very democratic is it.

All of which means that I rather think that DPF might be right when he questions whether the Internet Party’s rules will meet the requirement of s.71 of the Electoral Act (once it is registered with the Electoral Commission) – at least, with respect to how those rules apply for the 2014 election.

It will be very interesting to see who gets appointed to the all powerful Executive Committee.

The Herald reports:

Former radio show partners Willie Jackson and John Tamihere were knocked back in a bid to handle distribution of $14 million of taxpayer funding for health and social services because they wanted too much money in overheads.

The pair put the total cost of distributing the Whanau Ora funding in the North Island at $21 million.

They wanted $21 million to hand out money? I’ll do it for half of that!

The document said the proposal was based on getting $21 million.

Of this, $1.7 million was to be spent on staff, $3.3 million on operating costs and more on governance.

Not quite it seems. They said it would cost $5 million to distribute the remaining $15 million or so. That sounds grossly inefficient.

TPK said the contract bid should be reduced from the $5 million in costs sought to $2.3 million at most.

It asked the authority to reduce its estimated $2 million cost to set up the distribution scheme.

I’d say the cost of distribution should be around 5% of the amount being distributed – at most!

Rhythm of Peace And Power, Drepung Monastery, Lhasa, Tibet

Purists may have an issue with using an 8 second exposure on a people shot however sometimes breaking the ‘rules’ pays off. In Drepung monastery in Lhasa, Tibet this was one such case when it paid off for me as I purposely captured the movement and a little of the eternal mantra of these monks.

When I looked at the film many months after taking the image I was amazed to see that some of the monks were actually sharp. I have always loved this photograph.

Click on the image for a larger view of this photograph.

Cheers

Richard [richardhume.com]

YouTube: Timeless – A Panoramic Journey

Anna Leask at the Herald reports:

A pensioner scammed out of more than $140,000 by a woman he met on a legitimate dating site is ashamed and embarrassed that he was deceived for almost three years.

Police say he is one of thousands of Kiwis being sucked in, and today the man is sharing his story to prevent others being financially and emotionally destroyed.

The elderly man, who spoke to the Herald on the condition his name was not published, is one of an increasing number of people being tricked by romance scammers.

They prey on the emotional vulnerability of lonely or older people and police say they are making phenomenal amounts of money from New Zealand victims.

The man met his scammer after he signed up to a dating website. He said he was very lonely at the time and was desperate for companionship.

A woman who claimed she lived in a small town in West Africa made contact with him.

Sadly that should have been the first danger sign.

As she and the victim became closer, she suggested travelling to meet him in New Zealand. He was thrilled, and although he was hesitant when she asked for money to renew her passport and for flights, he was assured she was genuine because of their “natural” conversations.

Best in that case to pay for the tickets directly. Never ever send cash.

But each time she purportedly set off for New Zealand, something went wrong. She told the man of visa and passport issues and being detained for trying to travel with a large number of gold bars without an export licence. Each time, she needed more cash to get her out of trouble.

That’s a pretty big warning sign. I don’t know anyone who tries to travel with gold bars!

She never came to New Zealand, but kept in constant contact with the victim. He was soon sending her money for her daughter’s school fees, uniform and swimming lessons.

He paid for a new laptop for his “friend” and was sending regular amounts to “maintain her”.

The woman also conned him out of $1000 each week, supposedly to pay a security company to store her gold bars, which she said were worth more than US$28,000 ($32,320).

Gold is around US$1,300 an ounce so that’s around 21.5 ounces or 600 grams of gold. That’s not gold bars. That’s a small slice.

There were times when he questioned the woman or suspected a scam, but each time she would come up with a plausible explanation.

The requests for cash would stop for a time, but as soon as she had his trust again, she would slowly convince him to keep making deposits.

He made the deposits through money-transfer companies, and when he was turned away from one because it was concerned about how often he was sending cash to Africa, he found another service.

Okay now that’s beyond stupid. It’s one thing to be gullible, but another to ignore the fact that even the money transfer company is telling you it is a scam.

Police were alerted to his frequent money transfers and went to see him.

At first, he did not believe what they were telling him. He went online to confront the woman, and she “explained it all”.

After several days going back and forth with the Auckland city fraud squad, he finally realised he had been duped.

Good on the Police for being pro-active, but really sad they had to intervene.

Stuff reports:

Analysts are picking demand will be high for shares in the country’s biggest electricity retailer, Genesis Energy, when its public offer opens today.

The price for shares in the state-owned energy company was announced at $1.55 last night after a bookbuild with institutional investors. The sale would raise up to $736 million for the Crown.

Finance Minister Bill English said already $620 million had been committed through the bookbuild, which was the first stage of the share offer.

At that price the shares will yield a gross dividend of 14.3 per cent, he said.

I wasn’t going to buy Genesis shares as I had purchased Meridian and Mighty River Power shares. But that yield was too attractive.

As the possibility of a clear Labour/Greens Government fades, the chance of their barmy competition destroying policy being implemented fades, and the share prices of the sector shares should all improve.

Hamish Rutherford at Stuff reports:

Kim Dotcom says he does not want political intervention in his extradition case, even if it was to prevent him being handed over to US authorities.

The internet multi-millionaire is wanted by the US, who are seeking to have him extradited over charges of copyright infringement in relation to his Megaupload website, claiming he cost the entertainment industry hundreds of millions of dollars. 

Earlier this year Green Party co-leader Russel Norman said while he had made no promises to Dotcom, he did not believe there was a case for the German to be extradited and he did not support the process.

Dotcom is fighting extradition, but in an interview with Q&A screened this morning, said he was unhappy with suggestions of political interference.

“I was quite unhappy when some politicians suggested that they might interfere with the judicial process. If a court ultimately finds that I should be extradited, I don’t want any political interference, alright? I’m not asking for it.”

Excellent. That should be noted for the future.

While the Minister of Justice makes the final decision, the criteria for them are normally pretty narrow such as if the death penalty could be applied etc. So it is good to see Dotcom saying he doesn’t want the Minister to refuse his extradition if the New Zealand courts finds the extradition order is valid.

3 News reports:

Green Party co-leader Russel Norman wants to be deputy prime minister if Labour and Greens become government after this year’s election.

Any cabinet formed after the September election should be proportional, and the deputy prime minister role would certainly be on the table, Dr Norman told The Nation today.

“Obviously it depends on the size of the vote,” he said.

It would. On current polls if there was a Labour/Green Government you’d expect Labour to have 70% of the Cabinet and Ministry and Greens 30%. If you assume a Ministry of 28, then you’d have 8 Green Party Ministers. Based on their draft list ranking they would be:

1. Metiria Turei
2. Russell Norman
3. Kevin Hague
4. Eugenie Sage
5. Catherine Delahunty
6. Gareth Hughes
7. Kennedy Graham
8. Julie Anne Genter

I presume Norman and Turei would be co-Deputy Prime Ministers.

Marama Davidson writes:

Abortion is only legal if two consultants agree that there would be serious physical or mental harm to the woman’s health, or if the foetus has a serious disability. As a result, 99 per cent of abortions are approved on “mental health” grounds. This is a forced dishonesty that also requires women to justify our decisions. This is not a lightly made lifestyle choice.

I acknowledge that abortion is not the ideal solution to unplanned pregnancies. I support the continual plea for better education, improved access to contraception and more support for adoption and whangai avenues.

In an election year, we should demand that any government will decriminalise abortion. I and many others are not criminals. This is a healthcare matter. And for Lent we should give up judgment.

I agree that the current law is basically a sham, and the law should be changed to reflect the reality – which is abortion is the mother’s choice (at least in the early stages). However I don’t expect there would be any desire among most MPs to have an abortion law reform debate.

Colin Espiner writes:

It isn’t a crime to buy a copy of the autobiography of one of the 20th-century’s most monstrous figures, unless you live in France, Germany, Austria or Hungary – which ban the sale of Nazi memorabilia.

And there are legitimate scholarly reasons for owning a copy of Mein Kampf. No doubt the book is in most major libraries in New Zealand.

But let’s be honest. Owning a rare first edition personally signed by Herr Hitler and gifted to Hermann Esser, one of the founders of the hated and feared Third Reich, is just a little bit creepy.

Actually, given Dotcom’s German nationality, it’s more than creepy. It’s boorish, stupid, crude, and unthinkably insensitive. Most Germans would rather collect excrement than have anything to do with a regime they remain deeply ashamed of to this day.

This is very true.

But then, most Germans don’t hold multiple identities, flee criminal charges, make a fortune out of hosting a web site that enabled large-scale internet piracy, live a self-described lifestyle dedicated to “fast cars, hot girls, super-yachts, amazing parties and decadence” before buying their way into a foreign country, fighting extradition to the United States on counts of fraud and racketeering and deciding to set up a political party dedicated to bringing down the prime minister.

Colin forgot to mention and leaves scores of creditors out of pocket, has almost all his friends and staff turn on him, and faces a lawsuit for paying below the minimum wage.

Susan Edmunds at the Herald on Sunday writes:

The cost of feeding your family a cooked weekend breakfast rose by more than three times the rate of inflation over the past five years — and the price increases aren’t likely to stop.

This makes it sound like breakfast food prices have been rising faster than other costs. Their calculation:

If you served tomatoes, mushrooms, bacon, toast, eggs, tinned spaghetti and cereal, with coffee, tea and orange juice this weekend, it would have cost you 6.9 per cent more than the same meal in 2008, and almost 3 per cent more than in 2012. Breakfast food prices have risen more quickly than other prices.

Over the past five years, the compound average annual rate of inflation was 2.1 per cent.

This is so wrong and deceptive, it is appalling.

The story is comparing the cumulative five year price increase of cooked breakfasts with the average annual inflation rate. That is not apples and apples. That is comparing the cost of five apples to one apple.

Yes the average annual inflation rate has been 2.1%. What that means is that prices overall have increased 10.8% from December 2008 to December 2013. The CPI for those quarters was 1072 and 1188 respectively.

So if the cost of breakfast has increased by 6.9% over five years, then the cost of breakfast has increased by around 60% of the overall inflation, not by three times as much. The average annualized increase in breakfast is 1.4% – again far less than 2.1%.

This story should be pulled from their website it is so wrong. I’m not sure a correction can fix it, as its central premise is flawed.

I also doubt some of the data in there. I presume they got more detailed data from Stats NZ than on Infoshare, but even what Infoshare has doesn’t support some of the assertions such as:

A loaf of bread is now 11 per cent more expensive than it was in 2008.

The bread sub-index was 1290 in Dec 2008 and 1374 in Dec 2013 (and down to 1359 in Feb 2014). This is a five year increase of 6.5%, not 11%.

But even if you accept their figures are correct, their assertion is fundamentally wrong. The cost of a cooked breakfast has not risen three times faster than inflation. It has risen slower than inflation.

If you’re away tramping for say a week or more, and want to read Amazon e-books you own, what do people recommend is best – a Kindle or an iPad (which has Kindle on it)?

The three factors for me are:

1. Battery life (very impt as no or little power)
2. Weight
3. Ease of reading

I have an Ipad 1 (I know, very old but does the job) so it is either take that or buy a Kindle. Would be a fairly basic one as only need it for book reading. Welcome feedback as to whether to buy a Kindle to take tramping, and if so which one.

The Electoral Commission publishes details of large (over $30,000) donations to parties as they are disclosed. These are the seven large donors since 2012:

To put this is context, during the last three months of an election campaign a party that contests all 71 seats can spend up to $4,740,400.  Of that $2,915,700 can be spent on party vote campaign and $1,824,700 on getting electorate candidates elected.

The Herald reports:

Kim Dotcom has paid back about $400,000 of up to $900,000 he owes to creditors — but one sees the late payment as a public relations ploy.

Which it is. He could have paid them years ago.

Paul Davis supplied uniforms to the staff at the Dotcom mansion and is one of the creditors who spoke publicly to the Herald last month. He was owed $1138 and said yesterday he was paid as promised.

“But I don’t think it’s his conscience. We had absolutely no movement on this for two years until the Herald story and the TV stations following up. It was pressure which was needed, so I think he’s desperately trying to get some good PR.”

He certainly needs some.

Millions of dollars of assets were seized in raids and Mr Dotcom did not have a legal obligation to pay the debts of the limited liability company.

But creditors became more frustrated in recent months as Mr Dotcom started a high-profile marketing campaign for his Good Times album, took helicopter trips to the Rhythm and Vines music festival and a weekend at Huka Lodge and started the campaign for his Internet Party.

A lack of funds was also cited in the departure of Wayne Tempero, Mr Dotcom’s longtime bodyguard, who was being paid half of what he was getting before the raid.

Mr Dotcom has since obtained an injunction to stop Mr Tempero giving a tell-all interview, and four security guards who worked for the tycoon are also believed to be about to file proceedings in the High Court to seek backpay.

That will be interesting, as they claim they were effectively paid under the minimum wage. This court case could happen at the same time as the Mana Party does a deal with them, which will tell us a lot about how deeply Mana cares for low wage workers.

Fran O’Sullivan writes:

Kim Dotcom bought his New Zealand residency with a $10 million cheque; now he wants to buy off Hone Harawira to try to secure the balance of power at the September election.

Hone’s price is much cheaper.

Nor the fact that Dotcom owns a signed copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf. So what? Mere ownership doesn’t make him a Nazi sympathiser. (I own a Chinese tract signed by the disgraced Bo Xilia and that doesn’t make me a Communist either).

This issue will remain a red herring unless evidence is made public — not merely hinted at — that Dotcom is a closet Nazi and anti-Semitic to boot.

It’s the combination of the book, the flag, the helmet and the testimony from his former friend.

What Dotcom is offering is a gift. Money and resources for a shared tilt at power.

The big question is whether Harawira sticks to the principles on which he founded the Mana Party, or sells out to Dotcom in a naked dirty deal to get more seats in Parliament.

Of course he will sell out.

John Armstrong also writes:

To help the left remove John Key, the internet mogul has to attract voters that are beyond the reach of Labour and the Greens. Indeed, the best chance for the Internet Party to establish itself as a viable political force and (eventually) get anywhere near the 5 per cent threshold is to position itself in the centre of the political spectrum or slightly to the right, just like New Zealand First, but targeting a much younger catchment of voters.

Instead they’ll mainly take votes of the Greens I’d say.

That he is willing to contemplate a vote-sharing deal with Hone Harawira’s Mana Party is tacit admission that Dotcom knows he will not beat the threshold in September’s ballot. But taking advantage of Harawira’s hold on a threshold-removing electorate seat comes at what may be a heavy, even crippling price.

Harawira made it a precondition of further talks on such a deal that Dotcom commit himself to not working with Key and National post-election.

The immediate impact of that is to drastically cut any leverage — and thus appeal — that the Internet Party might have had if it had taken the same position as New Zealand First and hedged its bets on whether it would back a Labour-led or National-led Government .

Can you imagine a Labour-Green-NZ First-Mana-Dotcom Government!

Even more dangerous in political terms is the suspicion — quickly fuelled by National — that Dotcom’s purpose in setting up the Internet Party is solely to make it a bottom-line of any post-election talks that whoever is Minister of Justice quash any court ruling which would force his extradition. Such a bottom-line would be preposterous and would amount to Dotcom’s party being the sickest joke played on New Zealand voters.

I believe that is the of course the major intent of the party.

Every day that Dotcom deprives Key’s other opponents of the oxygen of media coverage is one day closer to election day on September 20. It is one day less for the real election issues and priorities to take centre stage.

National’s opponents can complain all they like. But the never ending Dotcom saga is a freak show of epic proportions with ever more twists and turns. The media simply finds it impossible to avert its eyes.

Yep, he is starving them of oxygen.

Stuff reports:

The country’s largest teachers’ union will march on Parliament today protesting against growing inequity in schools at the same time as the education minister is hosting an international summit.

NZEI has organised rallies in Wellington and Auckland timed to coincide with the hosting of OECD education ministers and union leaders, who are discussing best practices for lifting student achievement.

Education Minister Hekia Parata said she was disappointed with the protest timing, especially given NZEI’s involvement in the organisation of the summit and being part of previous delegations to New York and Amsterdam.

She would continue to have a relationship with the union, which was one of the objectives of the cross-sector forum that was set up following the first summit.

“We will continue to try to work together but it does take two.”

Nga Kura-a-Iwi, a federation representing Maori schools, has also spoken out against the NZEI and the “disrespect” it has shown the summit.

Co-chairwoman Arihia Stirling said it was an “inappropriate time to be airing dirty linen”.

“It’s wrong to do this now, we don’t have people dying in the street, we don’t have people bleeding at the hands of the education sector . . . it’s poor judgment of the leadership of the union to do this at this time.

“Why would you air your dirty linen in front of the world when it’s imperative we get the rest of the world down here to learn and strengthen our education system?”

The NZEI was welcoming summit guests with one hand and slapping them in the face with the other, she said.

The organisation is calling for Maori union members to withdraw their membership immediately.

NZEI seems to have given up any pretence of being constructive. Other teacher unions can work with Government when they agree, and criticise them when they disagree. But NZEI seems to go out of its way to do nothing but protest and attack. They’ve got so bad, that finally some schools are saying enough is enough.

S71 of the Electoral Act states:

Every political party that is for the time being registered under this Part shall ensure that provision is made for participation in the selection of candidates representing the party for election as members of Parliament by—

• (a)current financial members of the party who are or would be entitled to vote for those candidates at any election; or

• (b)delegates who have (whether directly or indirectly) in turn been elected or otherwise selected by current financial members of the party; or

• (c)a combination of the persons or classes of persons referred to in paragraphs (a) and (b).

Now there have been some court cases over this part, and the requirement to be democratic is not specific. It doesn’t rule out a party’s board having a veto on the basis that the board is elected by the members or their delegates.

However having just been reading the Electoral Law in NZ textbook by Andrew Geddis (it was my relaxing reading on the Milford Track – yes seriously!) the requirement does not mean there is no obligation at all, and Russell Brown has provided a quick analysis of the Internet Party rules:

1. There is a special role called ‘party visionary.’ This is defined as Kim Dotcom, or a person selected by Kim Dotcom. THis visionary has the automatic right to sit and vote on the party’s executive and policy committee and cannot be kicked out by the membership.
2. To stand for election to the party’s executive, in addition to being nominated by current members of the party you’ve got to be nominated by a current member of the National Executive. This locks in the incumbents.
3. The party’s executive has nearly unfettered control over the list: they put together an initial list, send it out to the membership to vote on, and then they ultimately decide what the final list should be having regard to the member’s choices.
4. The national executive chooses who stands in what electorate. No local member input at all.
5. The party secretary has a very important role (eg they get to solely arbitrate over disputes; they set out the process for amending the constitution, they decide the process for electing office holders; they’re a voting member of the National Executive). The only problem is they’re legally an employee of the party’s shell company, meaning that it is very hard for the members to exercise democratic control over the secretary (you can’t just fire an employee).
6. On a related note: the way the Internet Party is structured is so all its assets are kept in a shell company (Internet Party Assets Inc), away from the party itself. I don’t know what the purpose of this one was TBH. (the rules of this company were meant to be attached to the constitution in a schedule, but as far as I can see they’re not there)

The full rules are here.

They key thing is the combination of the second and fourth point. The members have no ability to change the National Executive and the Executive selects electorate candidates with no input from members. I believe that the combination of those two aspects raises a serious case for the Electoral Commission to consider that the Internet Party does not meet the democratic requirement of S71 of the Electoral Act.

Other parties (including National) have strong National Executives that can have a final say in candidate selections. However those Executives are able to be voted out by the party grassroots if the members are not happy with them.

With the Internet Party, Dotcom effectively appoints the inaugural Executive Committee.  The founders are the inaugural members of the Internet Party Assets Inc.

Clause 8.13.2 requires all nominations to future Executive Committees to be nominated by a member of the current Executive Committee. That means they can block ordinary members standing. It’s not dissimilar to the old politburo elections – anyone can stand as long as you are approved by the current leadership.

So the Electoral Commission may need to determine if the Internet Party is democratic enough to be registered as a political party. It is definitely arguable it is not. Basically the founders can maintain permanent and total control of the party by not agreeing to nominate anyone else to join the Executive Committee. And the Executive Committee makes all the selection decisions.

The Washington Post has compiled a list of what it says are the biggest President lies since WWII. They include:

• Eisenhower on the U2 spy plane, which he lied about
• JFK stating that the US does not intend to militarily intervene in Cuba
• LBJ on the Gulf of Tonkin incident which allowed him to escalate the Vietnam War
• Nixon and secret bombings on Cambodia and Watergate
• Reagan in denying Iran-Contra
• Bush 41 on claims Iraq had pulled Kuwaiti babies from incubators
• Clinton on not having sex with Lewinsky
• Bush 43 on claims Iraq had WMDs
• Obama on claims Americans will be able to keep their insurance plans if they want to

The Bush 41 and Bush 43 ones are debatable as there is no evidence that they did not believe what they said was correct. The other earlier ones are all clear lies, where the President knew what they said was false.

From the NZ Initiative:

As George W. Bush allegedly once said, “the problem with the French is that they don’t have a word for entrepreneur.” That may not be entirely correct as the French may be short of business sense but certainly not of words. What is clear though is that most people have no idea what entrepreneurship really means.

So let’s take the word ‘entrepreneur’ and dissect it a little. It was actually coined by (quelle surprise!) a Frenchman (of Irish origin): Richard Cantillon (1680-1734). Quite literally entrepreneur means ‘under-taker’ and this is how it translates into many other languages (e.g. ‘Unternehmer’ in German or ‘imprenditore’ in Italian).

Unfortunately, the connotation with funerals and gravediggers prevented a similar English translation. It might have helped to elucidate what entrepreneurs do because, well, they undertake things.

Undertaking itself is a word with many potential meanings. It is about committing oneself to a task, taking charge and obligating oneself to a project, often while bearing risks. In a nutshell, this is how most economists would describe entrepreneurs.

There are two definitions of entrepreneurship which one can often find in economics textbooks. One focuses on the risk aspect that is inherent in entrepreneurial activity. While employees do not bear any residual risk for the company they work for, entrepreneurs stand to lose some or all of their investment if things go wrong. Seen from this angle, an entrepreneur is the bearer of insecurity relating to his income. Therefore, a small shareholder is an entrepreneur while a highly paid employee like a CEO is not.

The second way of looking at entrepreneurs focuses not so much on their responsibilities but on their activities. For Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter, entrepreneurs are people who are always on the lookout for new and better ways of doing things: inventing new products, conquering new markets, finding more efficient production methods. In this way, their actions promote a process of ‘creative destruction’.

US economist Israel M. Kirzner, meanwhile, emphasises that an entrepreneur’s core function is spotting hitherto unexploited opportunities. In a way, this is also what Schumpeter’s entrepreneur does but Kirzner takes it a step further: we all behave as entrepreneurs in this sense, even in our roles as consumers.

So next time you are looking for a better bargain, or a new job, you may feel a little like Gordon Gekko, Citizen Kane or Mr Burns: we are all entrepreneurs now … even the French.

I can relate to the insecurity of income as a small business owner. But the benefits outweigh the risks, which is why we do it.

Looking forward to F for Freedom next week.

Labour announced:

New Zealand’s supermarket duopoly needs to do some serious explaining as to why their fruit and vegetables are so pricey, Labour’s Consumer Rights spokesperson Carol Beaumont says.

“An Otago University report shows Kiwi households are likely to be spending upwards of $2500 a year more on their fruit and veges if they buy them from a supermarket rather than their local market.

“Given ever increasing power prices and rising interest rates, there are not too many families that wouldn’t find an extra $49 a week in their pocket helpful.

“Unfortunately not everyone has access to a market, and the supermarkets know that.

“It’s past time for some transparency around pricing.

“Under this Government it seems the rewards are concentrated at the top. Lower down the food chain everyone else appears to be getting a raw deal.

“Supermarkets don’t have to wait for the Commerce Commission’s report to change their behaviour.

“They could start now – by bringing their fruit and vegetable prices into line with local sellers.”

The reader who e-mailed this to me comments:

The stupid, it hurts! 

Seriously, oh my god! Are they really that dumb? Do they really think that a person selling goods at a farmers market has the same costs as a supermarket? 

Supermarkets have massive costs. advertising, power, wages for 1000’s of staff, time and a half, days in lieu, sick leave, stat days, holiday pay, … some of which gardeners have, but at a much smaller scale.

Small time and medium gardeners, some of which will not even have any staff, selling goods at markets will not have anywhere near the costs of a large supermarket, and lets face it, i’m guessing that half of them probably don’t even pay tax on the cash they get for their goods, let alone pay any GST. 

I give up, they really are that stupid. That 30% of the New Zealand public cant also see that astounds me even more.

Yes they are that stupid, or hoping enough NZers are.

As it happens fruit and vege prices are just 3.4% higher in February 2014 than five years ago in February 2009. That’s an average of just 0.7% a year.

And how much did fruit and vege prices rise from February 2006 to February 2009. A whopping 29.6% or 9.9% a year!!!

Sir Michael Leigh blogs at the German Marshall Fund:

New Zealand is enjoying an export-led boom. At 3.1 percent, it boasts the highest GDP growth rate of any developed country. Reconstruction after the devastating 2012 Christchurch earthquake has provided an additional boost. Prime Minister John Key of the National Party is expected to win a third term of office in September, an achievement paralleled only by German Chancellor Angela Merkel in the period following the global financial crisis.

National is at 79% on iPredict to still be in Government after the election. This is exceptionally high. In 2011, I don’t think they were ever above 61%.

Much of New Zealand’s growth is fueled by trade with China, which has displaced Australia as the country’s largest export market. New Zealand’s exports to China rose by a spectacular 45 percent in 2013. Milk powder and other dairy products were by far the largest export items but meat and forest products also made major inroads into the Chinese market. Four factors explain the phenomenal growth figures: the implementation of the 2008 free trade agreement between China and New Zealand, Beijing’s first such agreement with an OECD country; rising demand for quality food products from China’s growing middle class, which is set to double within a decade; the high quality and competitive pricing of New Zealand’s agricultural products; and the proactive export strategy of Fonterra, the dairy giant owned by 13,000 New Zealand dairy farmers.

The FTA was Labour’s greatest gift to NZ. It’s appalling that Greens and NZ First opposed it. But one has to also credit Fonterra for their export strategy. An FTA provided an opportunity only.

Observers here worry about the country drifting into a dairy-fuelled version of the Dutch disease, with insufficient economic diversification, inflation, and a property bubble. To counter this, New Zealand’s agricultural production is moving up the value scale. The country’s eight universities are teaming up with industry to foster innovation. New Zealand increasingly exports know-how, technology, and services, linked to investment projects. Still, agriculture remains the mainstay of the economy.

It is not a choice of high tech or agriculture. We need to do both.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), now being negotiated by the United States and the European Union, excites curiosity and concern. New Zealanders share Europe’s apprehensions about its possible implications for food security and about the need to maintain high health, safety, and environmental standards. They are also concerned about the bilateral nature of the agreement and the apparent absence of provisions for accession by third parties.

New Zealand is one of only six WTO members that do not have current or expected preferential trade deals with the EU. The abolition of transatlantic tariffs on food exports could put New Zealand at a further competitive disadvantage. There are high tariff peaks for dairy and meat products in the EU and United States which would still apply to New Zealand exports.

This is why the best outcome would be to conclude the Doha round and have a multilateral agreement to reduce tariffs. Without that we run the risk of bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements disadvantaging New Zealand in a relative sense.

More fundamentally, New Zealanders recognize TTIP’s potential for strengthening the rules-based international trading system, in which they have a strong interest. After the failure of the Doha Development Agenda, there may never again be another comprehensive round of global trade liberalization, despite the modest breakthrough in Bali last year. New Zealand would then have to rely on bilateral agreements such as its FTA with China, or the agreement under negotiation with Russia.

It is hard to see the Doha round ever being completed.

Kiwis are under no illusion concerning these countries’ commitments to intellectual property protection, health and safety standards, or judicial independence. New Zealand suspended trade negotiations with Vladimir Putin’s cherished Customs Union after Russia’s forceful annexation of Crimea. This and tensions in the South China Sea are reminders that Moscow and Beijing may not always be reliable partners. TPP and TTIP would effectively set global standards which could be adopted by countries around the world and codified by the WTO.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described TTIP as the economic equivalent of NATO. For all their geographic isolation and growing economic integration with Australia, Asia, and the Pacific, New Zealanders feel they belong to the West and would broadly welcome TTIP as reinforcing values they share with Europe and the United States.

I’ve not paid too much attention to TTIP (as opposed to TPP), but maybe it could be the base for a NZ-EU agreement of our own one day?

Duncan Garner blogs:

There’s one major and terminal problem with Kim Dotcom’s Internet Party: he can’t be the leader.

He can only be the shadowy, backroom figure that pulls the strings. He will do that. And that will turn off some voters.

The other thing that should, and will, turn people off is that he collects Nazi memorabilia. He should be treated the same as any other political leader found draped in the Nazi flag: they would be crucified.

If it was David Cunliffe or Peter Dunne or, in the past, Don Brash or Rodney Hide et al, they would be forced to resign. They would be shamed and sent packing. Dotcom should not be seen as any different. Why treat him as special?

Could you imagine the outcry if it turned out that (for example) the Leader of ACT purchased a signed copy of Mein Kampf, had a photo of him wearing an SS helmet and displayed a Nazi flag at his house? They’d be gone within hours.

I agree New Zealand needs better internet, but does it take an “internet party” to get us there? This party is a sham and a side-show feeding Kim Dotcom’s vast wealth and ego – not to mention his desperate ambitions to stay in New Zealand, rather than rot in some American jail.

This is the truth. He has a host of convictions:

He owes money to creditors; good hard-working Kiwis who are now out of pocket.

And he could have paid them months ago. He has chosen not to.

Chris Keall writes at NBR:

The first “action agenda” item listed on the website is 50% cheaper internet – and unlimited and universal, to boot.

I’d also like the price of books to be 50% cheaper, and the price of food.

I agree with the Internet Party’s stance that broadband at half the price would be “awesome.”

However, it’s not clear how we get to this state of awesomeness. 

The party doesn’t price any of its policies, say how they would be achieved or offer any other details. 

Details would be nice.

The 50% internet policy is actually the most fleshed out – if three sentences can be called fleshed out – with the line that  “We will take direct action to expand New Zealand’s infrastructure by building a second submarine cable.”

I’d like to see a second cable, too. I find it curious National has been quite willing to out-Labour Labour by sending $1.5 billion on the UFB and related projects, but offer only a paltry $15 million to assist a submarine cable startup (Pacific Fibre and others have estimated it will cost around $400 million to challenge the 50% Telecom-owned Southern Cross Cable’s monopoly on our broadband connection to the outside world).

I would also like to see a second cable. But Hawaiki is planning such a cable, and until we see if they succeed or not, I don’t think you can say the Government needs to step in. Far better to let the private sector compete.

I don’t think a second cable would make broadband 50% cheaper. In fact, I’d be surprised if it yielded savings of 10% or 5% or anything, based on what ISPs tell me (Orcon boss Greg McAlister recently said a $75 monthly connection includes about $7 in international bandwidth charges). 

This is correct. The price of international data is not a huge proportion of what we pay. The prices drop around 20% every year as capacity expands on the current cable. Also more of our international data is coming from Australia, not the US. 10 years ago it was over 90% US and 1% Australia and today it is 50% US and 37% Australia.

This is not to mean that a second US cable would not be a good thing. It would be. But it is not a silver bullet and will not reduce costs of broadband by 50% or probably even 5%.