Short term thinkers

27 comments on “Short term thinkers ”

• Comments are now closed

1. lprent 1

   16 September 2009 at 1:52 pm

   My natural inclinations are towards the centre-right. I’m mostly an economic dry, work exclusively in high-tech export based industries, post-university I’ve never had any any money from the government and pay high taxes for NZ.

   But I’ve never supported a right party. The reason is that the right parties here are fundamentally stupid short-term thinkers. They seem to have the same kind of time-frames as business planning, 3 to 5 years. Problem is that most of the process of government is long-term with decade long plans. It is there to cover the many medium and long-term failings of a market model.

   National in particular seems too stupid in my opinion to ever do well in government. To date I’ve never been disappointed.
   • rainman 1.1

     16 September 2009 at 3:15 pm

     So here’s the question (to which I don’t know the answer):

     Is this an attribute of the NZ National Party, the NZ right in general, or right-wing groups in general? If the first, is there room for a party of the intelligent right? Who comes closest?
     • BLiP 1.1.1

       16 September 2009 at 3:28 pm

       The science is clear – the Right is insane.
2. BLiP 2

   16 September 2009 at 1:53 pm

   Your headline is misleading – it implies that anyone in the National Ltd government actually thinks.
3. ieuan 3

   16 September 2009 at 2:00 pm

   Yep, I have to agree with you on this.

   National does seem to make decisions only looking at the short to medium term. The suspension of contributions to the Cullen fund is another good example and the fact that changes to pensions are ‘not up for discussion’ (or however Key put it) when it is clear to everyone that some hard decisions need to be made sooner or later.
4. Clarke 4

   16 September 2009 at 2:00 pm

   I agree with lprent on this one … the problem is not short-term government thinking so much as short-term business thinking that filters through to the politicians they’ve purchased.

   Business doesn’t need more “certainty” to start dealing with climate change. It’s been obvious since the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 that there would be a price on carbon, yet far too many businesses have failed to plan for the day when it finally occurs. And it’s equally predictable that the price of carbon will rise over the medium to long term, yet I’m sure there are plenty of strategic planning spreadsheets that incorporate a fixed cost of carbon into the indefinite future.
5. tsmithfield 5

   16 September 2009 at 2:06 pm

   I see that some of those in the inner sanctum of global warming theory are starting to doubt its validity:

   http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17742-worlds-climate-could-cool-first-warm-later.html

   Quoting specifically from the article:

   “Latif predicted that in the next few years a natural cooling trend would dominate over warming caused by humans. The cooling would be down to cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the North Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO).

   Breaking with climate-change orthodoxy, he said NAO cycles were probably responsible for some of the strong global warming seen in the past three decades. “But how much? The jury is still out,” he told the conference. The NAO is now moving into a colder phase.”

   According to Latif, quite a lot of the warming was due to natural cycles. He is just not sure how much. If that is the case, then the amount of warming attributed to global warming phenomena might be exaggerated.
   • BLiP 5.1

     16 September 2009 at 2:14 pm

     More denialist propaganda. Why don’t you quote what Latif actually said instead of some half-informed journo looking for a scoop?

     First a bit of background: Pearce’s story was written about a recent climate summit: the World Climate Conference-3. Part of the summit was dedicated to Advancing Climate Prediction Science; Latif’s presentation was concerned with decadal-scale climate predictions- concerning not only their potential value and viability but also the significant challenges that remain before we can make useful ones.

     . . . snip . . .

     While this might be surprising for some readers, let’s be clear: This is not “new’ information. This does not represent a “shake up’ of the climate science community’s understanding of the system, or a blow to “settled science’. This is acknowledged in the IPCC’s most recent Assessment Report (AR4 WG1 8.3 and 9.4) as well as in the relevant primary literature.
   • Galeandra 5.2

     16 September 2009 at 11:49 pm

     Well, if Latif’s right, won’t we be lucky!! We’ve enjoyed a huge and wasteful consumption party, but maybe won’t have to clean up the place in the morning. Of course, we’ve gobbled up a lot of next week’s groceries, but aw, what th’ heck.

     Or in other words, so what?
6. tc 6

   16 September 2009 at 2:30 pm

   This is a classic short term thinking gov’t, you’ve got the flat earth ACT party, the ‘we get limo’s, bigger offices and whine about how Labour didn’t love us enough’ Maori party, and party of 1 Dunne…..hardly a world beating combination bristling with future proof stratgey/policy.
   More like a trough fest where they dish out as many benefits to big business as they can especially those lovely folk at Rio Tinto who just can’t afform the emissions so the taxpayer can pick it up from their smelter.
   What do you expect from the former currency trader …….a long term vision, get real, JK’s a puppet with Sir doug and others pulling his strings.
   Nice to see the media finally letting the intellect out for a run on this one whilst TVNZ in the 10.30 slot last night didn’t even cover it even with the fiery pictures from parliament….can’t upset anyone before bed by provoking thought now can we or upset our SOE bosses.
   • Swampy 6.1

     17 September 2009 at 4:19 am

     The Left want NZ to become a basket case just so Helen Clark could use her political career as a stepping stone to the UN. They force through these ideological policies, there is no need for NZ to be a “leader” way out in front because the difference it will make to climate change is miniscule, the damage to our economy and our way of life will be much more massive.
     • Maynard J 6.1.1

       17 September 2009 at 2:25 pm

       She already is in the UN you munter.

       Good theory. Come up with it all by yourself, or is the latest brainwave of the VRWC?
7. randal 7

   16 September 2009 at 2:53 pm

   the more natoinal does deals like these the quicker their demise will be. My guess is only keys has a personal exit strategy the rest will go back to being yesterdays men just like they they were before the right wing media pumped them up with ritalin and blew their minds out ina car. they didnt notice that the lights had changed. bye bye woger woger and wodney your time is nearly up
8. toad 8

   16 September 2009 at 2:57 pm

   Just how duplicitous can the Maori Party get? Compare what they said in their minority Select Committee report, with what they’ve actually signed up to.
9. tc 9

   16 September 2009 at 3:57 pm

   Spot on Randal…..JK will have a seat being warmed for him by their business backers whilst oblivion awaits ACT as either way Wodney will not win Epsom ever again. As for Maori…they have a place but not with the pathetic/inept/self serving Turei/Sharples who have sold out for the comfy seats and MP limo’s.
   This gov’t is a classic style/spin/sellout over substance………if they win in 2011 it’ll be as a result of a poor campaign from the opposition….they only won because Labour lost the plot in 2008 on the run in anyway and not by much.
10. Bill 10

    16 September 2009 at 4:25 pm

    On the one hand we have market disciples and on the other a climate reality that flat stick contradicts their belief.

    They will prove that their market ideas are correct by riding the market to the bitter end while denying any intrusive corrective measures vis a vis climate because that would be messing with their god.

    And the market acolytes have well and truly captured the political arena of western social democracies. They are the pipers to who every and all else dances.

    So, meaningful climate action is not going to stem from any policy hatched by the politicians of our social democracies because our politicians are dancing to well, I already sad who..

    Meaningful action on climate will only eventuate from a surge in expressions of democracy/ civil disobedience. You and me and the streets and an upping of the anti to the point where the cost of pursuing their present policies attracts more downside cost for government personnel and institutions than does caving to popular democratic demands is probably the only option left.
    • BLiP 10.1

      16 September 2009 at 4:36 pm

      I couldn’t agree more. How wonderful to see Greenpeace back in action. Bollocks to the politicians!
      • Bill 10.1.1

        16 September 2009 at 5:02 pm

        Aye. Nice to see some direct action, not that direct action is the only available instrument in a citizens tool box.

        And, never been a great fan of Greenpeace, but that aside I think you should have linked to their press release where some hard facts pertaining to the issue are available, rather than to the vacuous corporate media fudge which gives more time and space to Fonterra than Greenpeace and allows them to further perpetuate their misleading b/s.
        • Swampy 10.1.1.1

          17 September 2009 at 4:20 am

          LOL. Greenpeace are extremists and their methods reflect the fact that the public at large ignore their radical views.
11. Macro 11

    16 September 2009 at 4:26 pm

    I agree with you rOb that on the whole National can only ‘think” short term – they are conditioned to that by the fixation with short term “goals” – a hobby of the “objectivized” work place. But I think the real problem with those in both Labour and National and the ETS in particular, is the underlying belief that we can still plod along with “business as usual” and a little tinkering here and there is all that’s required and who knows it might all go away. I include the majority of NZers because sadly there really has been very little education of the general public on the impending chaos that is looming. Yes there is the occasional story about drought or floods and sea water rising glaciers disappearing etc etc but as far as the msm are concerned, reporting on climate change is really about the gamesmanship of the sides involved.
    So its no wonder that our politicians take such a “hands off” approach to the problem. They think that Global Warming really doesn’t affect them, and they are generally as ill-informed as the general population. Sure some have sat in a select committee – mostly with their own agendas – but the majority have to find out like every one else.
    Until the signs are staring us in the face (and for the informed they already are); until the water is lapping on the steps of parliament, we can expect little real action. And by then of course it will be too late.
    • Maynard J 11.1

      16 September 2009 at 5:09 pm

      I always thought Humanity’s epitaph was going to be “We were trying to do the right thing!”

      But you have just enlightened me, Macro. It will be:

      “But nobody told us!”
      • gargoyle 11.1.1

        16 September 2009 at 5:56 pm

        I thought the public had voted for

        “This is what happens when monkeys are allowed to use tools.”

        for the epitaph.
        • Bill 11.1.1.1

          16 September 2009 at 6:06 pm

          Apes. Monkeys in’t this fucking stupid and we in’t monkeys.
    • Bill 11.2

      16 September 2009 at 5:25 pm

      Hands up for NW passage or the passing of thousands of years of stable/predictable climate!?
      For Alpine snow coverage or skiing industry!?
      Catastrophic crop failure or ‘Indian summer’!?
      Half baked ideas of profits flowing from speculative carbon bubble or democracy rearing it’s unpredictable head and the streets delivering a swift kick in the nads to the whole affair?
12. luva 12

    17 September 2009 at 3:49 am

    You have claimed Labour’s long term plan of bringing down debt (which followed the precedent set by National in the late 1990’s) as long term planning for the fututre.

    For the very same reason the current government is reluctant for quick fixes to the recession, e.g massive government borrowing. They are looking at the long term and do want to leave the next generation with a considerable debt.

    They are borrowing but only to a level which is absolutle necessary.

    A short term option would be increase government spending by borrowing excessivley. Something many from the left advocate.
13. Zaphod Beeblebrox 13

    17 September 2009 at 9:32 pm

    And their plan is??????

Links to post

1. It isn’t a game at The Standard: posted on 17 September 2009 at 2:31 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS