Stuff reports:

McCarten’s original plan was to have union funding, but it seems that was not forthcoming.

A big donor did back the plan, but their identity has not been released to the party or to the public.

Little said the party had disclosure obligations, both in terms of donors and spending. The party was dealing with that.

The campaign was a campaign to get votes for Labour. It used the Labour brand to recruit people and we have evidence that some of those recruited were going work directly for Labour in electorates like Auckland Central or making videos.

I believe the donation to the campaign was an effective donation to Labour and if over $15,000 (I hear it is well over $100,000) needs to be declared to the Electoral Commission.

The whisper I have heard is that the identity of the donor will cause huge embarrassment as the donor is an entity funded by the taxpayer to provide social services.

I look forward to Labour revealing who the donor is. It’s ridiculous to claim they don’t know when the entire campaign was run by Labour party staff and officers.

Stuff reports:

The .22 rifle used to kill the Bain family will be returned to David Bain through his longtime advocate Joe Karam despite objections from surviving family.

In one of the last throes of the 23-year Bain murder saga, the case’s 200-odd exhibits, including the rifle and David Bain’s bloody gloves, T-shirt and socks are being disposed of by the Crown. …

The distribution of the exhibits, which have various owners, was initiated by a request last year from Dunedin lawyer Colin Withnall QC, acting for Joe Karam, who was acting for David Bain.

The most emotionally-laden exhibit was the semi-automatic Winchester rifle with a telescopic sight and a silencer, which belonged to Bain and was kept in his wardrobe cupboard under trigger lock with about 1000 rounds of ammunition before the shootings.

The request caused some “soul searching”, according to sources, but finally Crown Law decided it had no legal grounds on which to keep the rifle and other articles belonging to Bain.

My response to this is WTF!

According to David Bain his father slaughtered his entire family with this gun, before killing himself. And he wants to keep it as a souvenir!

Other items to be returned to David Bain include the bloody white gloves allegedly used by the killer, his T-shirt, socks and underpants, and items from his bedroom. He will receive his Telstar running shoes, red anorak, a red sweatshirt and items from his bedroom.

More delightful souvenirs.

If you accept the Bain version of events, why would you want souvenirs or reminders of that day?

Stuff reports:

Notorious murderer Liam Reid is set to marry his disgraced lawyer Davina Murray in prison on Tuesday.

Reid is serving a life sentence for the 2007 rape and murder of deaf Christchurch woman Emma Agnew and the rape and attempted murder of a Dunedin student a few days later.

Murray smuggled an iPhone, cigarettes and a lighter to Reid in Mt Eden prison in 2011, while acting as his lawyer.

She has previously said she and Reid fell in love when he was her client, leading to her smuggling a phone and tobacco to him in prison. 

She defended herself in the Auckland District Court where she was rebuked by Judge Russell Collins for her bizarre defence tactics including repeatedly talking over the judge and witnesses, emailing demands to the registrar, and laughing and grinning at the media.

In 2015 she was struck off as a lawyer after a disciplinary committee heard of her “concerning and worrying” history of unsatisfactory conduct. 

Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal chairwoman Judge Dale Clarkson said Murray’s behaviour was of “such a serious level” that no response short of being struck off would be a proper one. 

It is bizarre and some what sickening to see someone throw away their career for such a repugnant criminal.

You wonder why anyone would want to marry a convicted murderer and rapist, let alone one that may well never be freed.

But there has been quite a few studies done into this phenomenon as it is more common than many realise.

It seems the major factors are:

• A prisoner can’t cheat on you (well not with other women)
• A prisoner becomes so reliant on you, it makes you feel special
• You think you can redeem them
• The prisoner convinces you that you are the only thing that keeps them going
• A prisoner is less likely to be judgmental of you
• As contact is limited, you feel the time with the prisoner is more special

Doesn’t make it any less sad though.

Stuff reports:

New Zealand First is promising to wipe student loans for new students who stay and work in the country for five years, and it says that it will only cost $4.6b a year.

Only cost $4.6 billion a year.

Just imagine what the cost will be if there is a Labour/Green/NZ First Government. That surplus will disappear faster than the Flash, and it will be borrow, borrow and hope.

Tertiary Education Minister Paul Goldsmith had similar misgivings – and didn’t trust the NZ First costings.

“The universal student allowance alone could cost an additional billion dollars per year,” Goldsmith said.

“Our approach is to provide most students with interest-free student loans to contribute to their living costs, and to target student allowances only to those most in need.

“We know that graduates go on to earn around 40 per cent above the median income and that the median repayment time for New Zealand-based students is just under 6.5 years.

The NZ First policy (and Labour’s) is an appalling bribe taking money off taxpayers and giving it to the most privileged in society. They claim to care about inequality yet they want to spend billions more on the most well off.

Universities NZ research has found:

New Zealand university graduates earn between $1.3-$4 million more over their careers than a non-graduate after their costs of study are taken into account.

Taxpayers already fund around 70% of the cost of tertiary study. NZ First and Labour (and probably Greens) want taxpayers to fund 100% which is bonkers. Tertiary education produces both public and private benefits which is why both taxpayers and students should contribute towards it.

The Herald reports:

Lorde has narrowly secured her first number one album, with her new album Melodrama making its debut in the top spot of the Billboard 200 chart today.

She scored the top spot by just 3000 album sales over her nearest competitor, rapper 2 Chainz.

The news was confirmed today by Billboard magazine, with the magazine reporting Melodrama secured 109,000 album units in the first week after release.

The achievement makes Lorde the first-ever Kiwi artist to top the Billboard 200 chart. New Zealand-born country singer Keith Urban has topped the chart twice, but is an Australian-American citizen.

 

Melodrama is her first No. 1 album in America. Despite her first album Pure Heroine earning more copies in its first week with 129,000 units, it debuted and peaked at No. 3 in 2013.

When you consider how tiny our population is, I’m always amazed and delighted when Kiwis dominate globally. And to top the US Billboard 200 is a huge achievement.

In July and August 2016 Curia did some polling for the NZ Drug Foundation to establish views of New Zealanders on a number of scenarios relating to cannabis, ranging from commercial sale of cannabis, personal growth or use and growing or using for medical reasons such as pain alleviation or terminal illness.

The specific questions for the medical use was:

• Growing and/or using cannabis for any medical reasons such as to alleviate pain
• Growing and/or using cannabis for medical reasons if you have a terminal illness

They were asked in this situation whether such an activity should be legal, illegal or decriminalised (an offence but only punishable by fine).

The topline findings were:

• Pain relief – 63% legal, 16% decriminalised, 16% illegal.
• Terminal illness – 66% legal, 16% decriminalised, 15% illegal.

This is massive support. Around four out of every five voters wants there to be no criminal sanction for the medical use of cannabis. Only one in six think it should be illegal, as the law currently stands. Note this is about cannabis itself, not medical drugs based on cannabis. It was specifically on whether using or growing for medical reasons should be legal.

What was also fascinating was how even this support was across all party’s supporters. The percentage who favoured it being either legal or decrimalised was:

• National supporters 75% (pain relief) and 77% (terminal illness)
• Labour supporters 85% and 87%
• Maori Party supporters 82% and 90%
• NZ First supporters 78% and 79%
• Green Party supporters 92% and 93%
• Swinging voters 78% and 81%

As people will know a bill making it legal to possess or grow cannabis for medical reasons has been drawn out of the ballot and will be voted on in this Parliament or the next one.

I really really hope as many MPs as possible vote for it at first reading. A select committee is the ideal place to work out details such as how best to make cannabis available to people suffering from terrible pain (do you allow them to grow their own, or do you have some sort of shop they can buy it from). But voting against the bill even going to select committee would be massively tone deaf to the vast majority of New Zealanders who don’t want terminally ill New Zealanders to be forced to become criminals in order to have effective pain relief.

Perfect is the enemy of good. No members’ bill is perfect, but unless the bill is fatally flawed, it should proceed to a select committee where expert advice can be submitted on how best to have a regime where those in pain can legally get effective relief, but also minimising the ability of people to game the system.

Emirates Team New Zealand have done it and won the America’s Cup off Oracle Team USA.

This feels more special than when we won it the first time, as Oracle had all but rigged the competition to favour them. I genuinely thought it was unwinnable but Peter Burling and the entire team really were magnificent.

Burling is only 26 years old. Boy does he have a bright future ahead of him.

The outcome of the nine races were:

1. NZ wins by 30 seconds
2. NZ wins by 88 seconds
3. NZ wins by 49 seconds
4. NZ wins by 72 seconds
5. NZ wins by 124 seconds
6. US wins by 11 seconds
7. NZ wins by 12 seconds
8. NZ wins by 30 seconds
9. NZ wins by 55 seconds

Can’t wait for the victory parades!

Also looking forward to Team NZ changing the rules so it is a fairer competition. Yes we still managed to win, but when we defend the Cup I’d like many more challengers.

From the Timaru Herald.

NZIER released:

The New Zealand Institute of Economic Research (NZIER) has today released a new Insight titled “Peak Inequality – New Zealand’s False Truth”. The Insight is based on new data and shows that despite popular opinion, income inequality in New Zealand hasn’t changed in the past 20 years, and it’s been at the current level before.

Derek Gill, a Principal Economist from NZIER, said “The data tells us that our current level of income inequality is actually the same as it was in the 1930s and 1940s. A real concern is poverty and how this leads to reduced social mobility. Social mobility is not necessarily related to income inequality.”

NZIER are absolutely right. What we should care about is helping families so they don’t spend their lives  in poverty. But that is very different to inequality which is comparing the wages of a 16 year old unskilled shop assistant to a 45 year old professional and complaining they are not the same.

Gill would like to see the debate focus more on poverty and how that limits social mobility. In a place where social mobility is limited, people stay poor and have very few opportunities to improve their situation.

Yep which is why social investment strategies are so important – spend money early on to give them opportunities.

Their paper includes this chart. So powerful. If there is a Labour/Green Government at some stage I predict the number of articles will fall away again.

So not only has inequality not increased in the last 25 years, it is at the same level as the 1950s and before.

Whether inequality is a problem depends upon how you come at the issue. It is hard to find any people who think inequality is good. Equally it is hard to find any anyone who thinks all inequalities are bad. Adding additional surgeons and other highly skilled people to the workforce would increase inequality. But most Kiwis would see
that as a good thing. It is important to understand what factors have driven any changes in inequality to understand whether these are ‘good’ or ‘bad’.

A key point.

The ODT reports:

High country land near Queenstown, including the Remarkables, needs to be made into a national park, Federated Mountain Clubs (FMC) says.

The organisation today launched its Remarkable Outdoors campaign headlined by a proposed new national park – ‘The Remarkables National Park’ in the Otago Southland high-country near Queenstown.

FMC President Peter Wilson said the proposed park was a long-held dream of conservationists and recreationalists, notably Sir Alan Mark, who was one of the first to see the beauty and the botanical richness in our high-country tussock landscapes.

The proposed park would span a vast area of Otago Southland including the watersheds of the Wye, Nevis, Waikaia and Pomahaka rivers, the iconic Remarkables Mountain Range, along with the Hector / Tapuae o Uenuku, Garvie, Old Man / Kopuwai and Old Woman ranges.

It is an incredibly beautiful area.

He said it was the third time conservationists had tried to get the area classified as a national park. “Tramping as a core sport is booming for Kiwis, so is hunting, so is fishing,” he said. “So what we are seeing is a huge re-emergence of New Zealanders’ interest in the outdoors. So we think now is the time to put that centre stage and ask politicians to establish a new national park.”

If it has been turned down twice before, I wonder why? What is the argument against?

Bloomberg reports:

Donald Trump will tout surging U.S. exports of oil and natural gas during a week of events aimed at highlighting the country’s growing energy dominance.

The president also plans to emphasize that after decades of relying on foreign energy supplies, the U.S. is on the brink of becoming a net exporter of oil, gas, coal and other energy resources. …

“The fact that we’re no longer in the age of energy scarcity — that we’re in the age of energy abundance — positions the United States in a totally different place,” said Dave Banks, a special assistant to the president for international energy. “This gives access to affordable, reliable energy in the United States, and gives the U.S. a major competitive advantage.”

This is pretty remarkable. For decades the US has been critically dependent on importing energy sources such as oil. And within a short period of time they have gone from critically dependent to becoming a net exporter.

Also worth recalling is all the doomsday prophets such as the Greens who insisted the world had reached peak oil and we were facing decades of energy scarcity. They were totally wrong.

Today

• Race 7 – NZ win by 12 seconds
• Race 8 – NZ win by 30 seconds

Overall

• NZ won 7 lost 1
• US won 1 lost 7

Points

• NZ 6
• US 1

You need 7 points to win so it may be over tomorrow. But we all know that no matter how big our lead, it is never over until someone wins. So fingers crossed.

Incidentally if it were not for the rule inserted by Oracle having the non-winner of the round robin start at -1, we would have won it today!

A reader has sent me a copy of their complaint to the Speaker over Labour using taxpayer funded resources to organise their Campaign for Change. The complaint is:

Dear Mr Carter

In light of a story by Richard Harmon which appeared on the blog Politik this morning, I wish to ask you to investigate the use of the Labour Party leader’s budget for campaign purposes. It is my understanding that political parties are prohibited from seeking votes or recruiting members, among other things. The link to the Politik story is here: http://politik.co.nz/en/content/politics/1124/Labour-Party-volunteer-workers-rebel-over-living-conditions-Labour-party-Matt-McCarten-Andrew-Kirton.htm

In August last year, it was announced that Matt McCarten was standing down as Labour’s Chief of Staff, and moving to a position in Auckland where he would be involved in outreach activities. On 6 September 2016, the New Zealand Herald carried a story where the Leader of the Labour Party gave a clear undertaking that McCarten would not be involved in any campaign activities. The Herald story quotes Mr Little thus:

Labour leader Andrew Little says his adviser Matt McCarten’s taxpayer-funded salary is within the rules because McCarten will be doing “outreach” work for Little rather than campaign work.

McCarten is leaving his job as Little’s chief of staff to head a new Auckland office for Little as part of Little’s election year strategy.

That office was on a lease taken out by the Labour Party but Little’s Parliamentary budget was paying for some of it at market rates under a sublease agreement.

Staff would be a mix of party workers and those, including McCarten, whose salaries were paid out of Little’s Parliamentary budget.

Parliament’s rules provide some flexibility on how political parties use their staffing allocations but prohibit taxpayer-paid staff from campaigning. That includes trying to sign up party members, get donations or ask for votes. However, there has always been a thin line between Parliamentary and campaign-related work, especially for those in more political positions.

Little said McCarten’s work was not campaigning but “outreach” for Little such as organising events and meetings when Little was in Auckland.

He denied he was trying to use taxpayer funds for campaign-related work, saying party work would be done by party workers in the same office rather than McCarten and other Parliamentary-funded staff.

“I know the level of scrutiny that is applied to Parliamentary Services funding. We are always looking to make sure we are well within the rules, not just the written word but the spirit of it as well. That will continue to apply in every appointment I make, every activity I do.”

He said there was nothing unusual about the arrangement.

Little got defensive after further questions, saying the media could “pick apart employment arrangements” but he was more concerned with the issues facing Aucklanders such as housing and burglaries.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11704572

On Saturday 17^th June, Scoop carried a media release from the “Campaign for Change”, which talked about Mr McCarten having established a programme which was “independent of any political party”. This link to that media release is here: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO1706/S00237/new-zealand-launches-campaign-for-change.htm

Today’s Politik story alleges that the Labour Party has brought 85 foreign nationals to New Zealand and states “It is part of  Matt McCarten’s “Campaign for Change” which he describes as a non-partisan campaign to get people engaged and involved.

But how non-partisan is debatable.”

I would agree that the independence of Mr McCarten’s campaign is now looking highly debatable. The fact that today’s Politik story contains a number of quotes from the general secretary of the Labour Party, Andrew Kirton, which would support the view that the Labour Party has had clear knowledge of what Mr McCarten has been doing.

“Last night Labour’s General Secretary Andrew Kirton confirmed that there had been issues with the scheme which had arisen over the past week.

He said the scheme had been originated by Andrew Little’s former Chief of Staff, Matt McCarten, who now runs Labour’s campaign office in Auckland.

“There were some issues with capacity, “he said.

“He couldn’t really supervise them on a daily basis.”

This leads to a very strong suspicion that the Labour Party, via Matt McCarten, has indeed been using taxpayer funds to campaign for the upcoming General Election. As a taxpayer, I strongly object to public money being used other than for the purpose it was intended. It is particularly ironic that just in the last couple of days, Andrew Little and other Labour MP’s have been highly critical of Rt Hon Bill English for the way in which National’s leader’s budget has been spent.

I am uncertain of what powers your office has to investigate as to whether there has been an unauthorised use of taxpayer funds for party political campaigning in this instance. However I urge you to open an investigation if that is permissible. I recall that in the mid-2000’s, the then Auditor-General investigated a similar issue, and found that there had been abuse of the rules around taxpayer funded campaigning. If deemed necessary by your office, perhaps the A-G could be invited to investigate what are serious allegations that go right to the heart of the transparency of our political system, and the separation between legitimate political party activities and overt election campaigning.

I look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely

I think The Parliamentary Service has to investigate. The Auditor-General made very clear in 2006 that parliamentary budgets (including staff) can not be used for campaigning, and it is obvious that Matt McCarten has not been spending his time arranging visits for Andrew Little, but instead importing 85 campaign workers for Labour into New Zealand.

Stuff reports:

Major political parties have found a way around electoral campaign rules by calling hundreds of public meetings across the country.

Like Easter eggs in supermarkets straight after Boxing Day, people have been confronted with a barrage of party political billboards months before the official, regulated election period began midnight, on Thursday.

Gone now, the typically large, party authorised billboards sported sitting MPs and wannabe electorate candidate’s faces and extolled constituents to attend meetings discussing electorate issues.

Yet weeks past the advertised meeting date, the signs lingered in places like public parks often right up until the start of, or even past Thursday’s election advertising oversight period.

The Labour Party’s Auckland Central candidate Helen White removed her Western Park, Ponsonby meeting sign by mid-Friday – the advertised meeting was held June 14.

I’ve noticed this a lot in seats Labour are desperate to win such as Hutt South and Auckland Central. They organise public meetings purely as a pretext for being able to put up lots of billboards early. And then they leave the billboards up.

The Electoral Commission is getting a legal opinion on whether White’s sign constituted advertising.

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck …

“I’m a new candidate, meeting billboards are the only way people are going to get to know me,” White said.

Really? Ever heard of door knocking?

The latest Roy Morgan poll is out, and as usual is showing some big movements. I’ve blogged the results at Curia.

Today

• Race 5 – NZ win by 124 seconds
• Race 6 – US win by 11 seconds

Overall

• NZ won 5 lost 1
• US won 1 lost 5

Points

• NZ 4
• US 1

You need 7 points to win so at least two more days of racing.

USA Today reports:

People from all over the country are calling for a University of Delaware adjunct professor to be fired after she wrote on Facebook that Otto Warmbier “got exactly what he deserved” after being taken into custody by North Korea, falling into a coma and dying.

On her personal Facebook page, Kathy Dettwyler, an anthropology professor, wrote Tuesday that Warmbier was “typical of a mindset of a lot of the young, white, rich, clueless males who come into my classes.”

“These are the same kids who cry about their grades because they didn’t think they’d really have to read and study the material to get a good grade. … His parents ultimately are to blame for his growing up thinking he could get away with whatever he wanted. Maybe in the US, where young, white, rich, clueless white males routinely get away with raping women. Not so much in North Korea. And of course, it’s Ottos’ parents who will pay the price for the rest of their lives.”

What a vile person this professor is.

She seems to be celebrating his death because he is a young, white rich male.

His only crime, if it was that, was taking a poster as a souvenir. She seems to equate this with rape.

And to think this vile person is a professor who is entrusted with teaching people.

A guest post by Liam Hehir:

I have been lucky enough to attend the National Party conference in Wellington as media. As a writer who has allowed to attend as an observer, it is fascinating to be able to watch what goes on.

One of the things you won’t see much of this in the news is the members. Going by what you see on television, the members are there to clap and laugh at the right times. They are the studio audience providing the soundtrack for the performers onstage.

In reality, political party members are the unsung heroes of New Zealand’s democracy. Many of them do an enormous amount of work for no other reason that, in their perception, they are doing it for the good of the country. Sure, a few of them are ambitious politicians in training, but they don’t tend to stick around.

Most volunteers spend a lot of time doing things that are not fun. They stuff envelopes and deliver pamphlets, sell raffle tickets and ask for donations, knock on doors and erect hoardings. They attend meeting after interminable meeting.

There is no real personal reward for this. Do a good job and the chances are you will be shoulder-tapped for more unpaid responsibility. In fact, membership can be costly as you are forever pestered for donations and required to travel at your own expense.

And not all MPs treat party members well. Some almost seem to regard them as low-level employees. The risk here tends to be greater where the MP does not have a history of time with the party.

This matters, because organised members are crucial force multipliers for election campaigns. They man the infrastructure that truly gives bigger parties the edge over smaller ones. I would bet that a party’s pool of unpaid labour is a bigger predictor of success than its campaigning spending is.

And, most importantly, volunteers are the people with whom unaligned voters are most likely to have contact. They are a vital bridge the Wellington hive and the rest of the country. They give their party some ability to circumvent the media filter.

At the local level, they are just indispensable.

If you are more interested in making a difference than personal glory, joining and being active in a party is something you should consider. You’ll certainly have a bigger impact doing that than by winning arguments on the Internet.

In such matters, National supporters should take encouragement from the conference so far. So far, ministers and party officials have kept much of the focus on the members. There have been expressions of gratitude and morale building for the campaign to come.

Chances are this won’t come through in the media coverage, which tends to focus on the theatrical side of things. It’s a useful reminder that there’s an awful lot that goes on in elections that you just won’t see on the six o’clock news.

Stephen Davies writes:

We commonly read or hear reports to the effect that “If trend X continues, the result will be disaster.” The subject can be almost anything, but the pattern of these stories is identical. These reports take a current trend and extrapolate it into the future as the basis for their gloomy prognostications. The conclusion is, to quote a character from a famous British sitcom, “We’re doomed, I tell you. We’re doomed!” Unless, that is, we mend our ways according to the author’s prescription. This almost invariably involves restrictions on personal liberty.

These prophets of doom rely on one thing—that their audience will not check the record of such predictions. In fact, the history of prophecy is one of failure and oversight. Many predictions (usually of doom) have not come to pass, while other things have happened that nobody foresaw.

For a couple of decades were were told we had reached peak oil. Then fracking occured and suddenly we’re right for another 100+ years.

The fundamental problem with most predictions of this kind, and particularly the gloomy ones, is that they make a critical, false assumption: that things will go on as they are. This assumption in turn comes from overlooking one of the basic insights of economics: that people respond to incentives. In a system of free exchange, people receive all kinds of signals that lead them to solve problems. The prophets of doom come to their despondent conclusions because in their world, nobody has any kind of creativity or independence of thought—except for themselves of course.

Forecasting five years out is hard enough, let alone 100 years. Imagine it is WWI and you are predicting what are the problems the world will face in 2017? You’d be wrong on pretty much everything.

A classic example of this is a problem that was getting steadily worse about a hundred years ago, so much so that it drove most observers to despair. This was the great horse-manure crisis.

Nineteenth-century cities depended on thousands of horses for their daily functioning. All transport, whether of goods or people, was drawn by horses. London in 1900 had 11,000 cabs, all horse-powered. There were also several thousand buses, each of which required 12 horses per day, a total of more than 50,000 horses. In addition, there were countless carts, drays, and wains, all working constantly to deliver the goods needed by the rapidly growing population of what was then the largest city in the world. Similar figures could be produced for any great city of the time.*

The problem of course was that all these horses produced huge amounts of manure. A horse will on average produce between 15 and 35 pounds of manure per day. Consequently, the streets of nineteenth-century cities were covered by horse manure. This in turn attracted huge numbers of flies, and the dried and ground-up manure was blown everywhere. In New York in 1900, the population of 100,000 horses produced 2.5 million pounds of horse manure per day, which all had to be swept up and disposed of. (See Edwin G. Burrows and Mike Wallace, Gotham: A History of New York City to 1898 [New York: Oxford University Press, 1999]).

In 1898 the first international urban-planning conference convened in New York. It was abandoned after three days, instead of the scheduled ten, because none of the delegates could see any solution to the growing crisis posed by urban horses and their output.

The problem did indeed seem intractable. The larger and richer that cities became, the more horses they needed to function. The more horses, the more manure. Writing in the Times of London in 1894, one writer estimated that in 50 years every street in London would be buried under nine feet of manure. Moreover, all these horses had to be stabled, which used up ever-larger areas of increasingly valuable land. And as the number of horses grew, ever-more land had to be devoted to producing hay to feed them (rather than producing food for people), and this had to be brought into cities and distributed—by horse-drawn vehicles. It seemed that urban civilization was doomed.

And the car wasn’t invented to solve the manure crisis. That just happened to be a beneficial side effect. Somethings the solutions are accidental.

The great crisis vanished when millions of horses were replaced by motor vehicles. This was possible because of the ingenuity of inventors and entrepreneurs such as Gottlieb Daimler and Henry Ford, and a system that gave them the freedom to put their ideas into practice. Even more important, however, was the existence of the price mechanism. The problems described earlier meant that the price of horse-drawn transport rose steadily as the cost of feeding and housing horses increased. This created strong incentives for people to find alternatives.

Price signals are very important.

Some interesting findings in the 2017 Lowy Institute poll:

• A net -1% are satisfied with how things are going in Australia
• A net -60% are satisfied with how things are going in the world
• A net +63% think globalisation is good for Australia
• A net +44% think free trade is good for the Australian economy
• Asked to pick the country which is Australia’s best friend
  • NZ 53% (+21%)
  • US 17% (-18%)
  • UK 17% (nc)
  • China 8% (-1%)
• Most critical threats:
  • Terrorism 69%
  • North Korea 65%
  • Climate change 57%
  • Cyberattacks 55%
  • Global economic downturn 53%
  • Donald Trump 53%