Tag Archive for 'articles'

Does money buy happiness after all?

In 1974, economist Richard Easterlin, published a study in which he argued that economic growth didn’t necessarily lead to more satisfaction. In poor countries, gaining the necesseties of life raised happiness but beyond those gains there was no increase. This became known as the Easterlin paradox.

Just last week, two young economists presented what they claim is a refutation of the paradox.

Read the full story in the NY Times.

(The graphic below is from the article, I’ve circled New Zealand in red. Click the image for full size.)

happiness.gif

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand

analysts08.jpg

The NY Times reports on the symbiotic relationship between media “military analysts” and the Bush administration.

Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.

Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.

In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.

Problems logging in? Try BugMeNot.

Beware the Tory wolf in liberal clothing

Polly Toynbee of The Guardian writes: “Beware the lesson of the Tory wolf in liberal clothing: Sweden’s great social democracy has been transformed for the worse - and Britain risks importing the nightmare”.

At the previous election [the moderates] had crashed at just 15%, so Reinfeldt, an appealing and eloquent 41-year-old, had a free hand to change everything. His tactic was to adopt virtually all social democrat policy so there was no observable difference - familiar?

… What has Reinfeldt done? A lot more than voters bargained for. Welfare reform has been radical: benefits are cut and so are taxes… National insurance contributions have been raised sharply, with the unplanned effect that nearly half a million of the lowest paid have walked away from the scheme, leaving them nothing if they lose their jobs. Since the scheme is administered via the unions, union membership has dropped by the same amount…

Meanwhile more of the health service is contracted out, with GPs free to charge for the first time, raising alarms that they are moving out of poor areas to richer places where they can earn more. The prime minister’s wife, in charge of the Stockholm region’s health service, has been particularly radical. State-owned Absolut vodka has been sold to the French, and state-owned liquor stores are about to be sold off too…

Read the full article here.

 

Finlay MacDonald: The Audacity of Hype

finlay_d.jpg

A reader wrote to us to say that they’d recently seen Finlay MacDonald speak at Otago University as part of the Distinguished Communicator Lecture Series for the Centre of Science Communication.

The talk is now online: The Audacity of Hype: John Key and the new National Socialism.

In case you hadn’t picked up on this already, the title of my speech tonight is firmly tongue in cheek. The title of Barack Obama’s first volume of memoirs is The Audacity of Hope. My facetious suggestion is that our own Great Pretender should call his memoirs The Audacity of Hype. Call me a cynic if you must, but it strikes me that John Key’s reputation and rise to political prominence has been enabled by fairly shameless marketing and spin.

Click here for the full text.

Guest post: Simon Tegg on Peak Oil

Meet Guest post. Guest post is 32 years old, he likes long walks on the beach and lively political debate. He is our new vehicle for experts on interesting and relevant topics to contribute posts to The Standard.

Our first guest is Simon Tegg, who has done research on peak oil. It says something about how under-prepared we are for peak oil that Simon’s papers have caused a considerable stir even among those who are well-informed on environmental issues. Anyone who is concerned about New Zealand’s long-term, even medium-term, prospects should read what Simon has written.
___________________________________________

Guest post: Simon Tegg on Peak Oil

oil-barrels.jpgThe theory that oil production is about to enter an irreversible decline has gained currency as oil prices have rocketed upward. Contrary to popular perception, this does not mean oil is “running out”, but is rather a decline in the rate at which oil can be extracted.

A peak in production rate of a finite resource typically occurs when half the resource has been extracted. There is still a lot of oil out there (perhaps half of all the oil that will ever be extracted), but as this oil is much harder to get at (eg. deepwater, Canadian tarsands) the rate of production will fall, approximately mirroring its rise over the last century. Oil discoveries peaked in the 1960’s. We have discovered less oil in every decade since then and there is no basis to believe that financial incentives and improving technology can turn around a 40 year trend. While prices have risen, oil production has been essentially flat and yearly average production is still down on 2005. A number of large oil projects are due to come online in 2008 and 2009 and production may shift up somewhat, but beyond 2012 the projects thin out dramatically. It looks like we are now at Peak Oil.

Continue reading ‘Guest post: Simon Tegg on Peak Oil’

SST recycles discredited National party spin

Rob Stock apparently holds several awards for personal finance reporting but looks unlikely to win another based on his rehash of National Party lines in the SST this weekend.

I can understand the desire to get these pesky articles to the publisher when the sun’s shining and there are better things to be doing outside but surely, as readers, we should expect more than “cut and paste”.

In his article “The hidden pain of inflation” Mr Stock points the finger for increased household costs squarely at the government:

Essentials such as petrol, household energy, local authority rates and running cars have all spiked dramatically in cost since Labour came to power, by more than the official rate of inflation.

If the obvious political bias weren’t enough - the phrase “since Labour came to power” appears three times - Stock later resorts to dredging up National’s fictional ‘Joanna Average‘ - an example intended to show someone worse off only slightly better off [cheers Chris S] financially after (then) seven years of a Labour government.

The example was widely discredited to National’s embarrassment back in October last year when it turned out that Bill English had misrepresented the situation by using gross income rather than net income and had also ignored many of the income entitlements to which Joanna would be due.

With corrected numbers, Joanna, rather than being $500 better off turned out to be $1800 better off. What’s more, that $1300 rise still didn’t take into account Working for Families, cheaper doctors’ visits, cheaper prescriptions and a range of other cost-saving policies.

Undoubtedly there is increasing pressure on household incomes but partisan and poorly researched pieces like this from Rob Stock do little to further the debate.

(Hat-tip: Bill)

Fairtrade: More than just branding

fairtrade-coffee.jpgDo you buy Fairtrade products? Or do you think of it as just another marketing ploy? This recent article “Teach us how to fish - do not just give us the fish” from the Guardian puts a personal perspective on consumer purchasing power. Three producers talk about how their lives and those of their communities have been transformed.

Gerardo Arias Camacho, coffee producer, Costa Rica: “As a Fairtrade farmer, I finally feel competitive - I feel that I have a tool in my hand. It has given me knowledge, so that I am more able to defend myself and my people. I feel there is a future in front of us, because we can stay in our own country and make a living growing coffee… Fairtrade is not charity. Just by going shopping, you can make a difference.”

Do you or will you buy Fairtrade? Can one person’s consumer choices make that much of a difference? Can we afford not to hope so?

Espiner on National’s hypocrisy

From Colin’s blog:

It’s time for National to put its mouth where its money is.

After a week of climbing into Labour boots and all over the Owen Glenn saga, one thing has become abundantly clear: the Nats have lost any defence of their right to keep their own campaign donations secret.

It is the height of hypocrisy for National to claim, as both its leader John Key and deputy Bill English have done this week, that “Labour’s relationship with its largest donor looks very murky indeed” when National’s own relationship with its donors is not so much murky as totally hidden.

All week National has been stirring the pot, demanding to know more about what Labour promised Owen Glenn in return for his financial assistance. Right, I’d like to know just what National promised its donors last time around. Well first I’d like to know who the donors were, full stop.

Click here to read on

Getting emotional about economics

Michael Shermer of the LA Times asks:

“Would you rather earn $50,000 a year while other people make $25,000, or would you rather earn $100,000 a year while other people get $250,000?”

Somewhat surprisingly you might think, it turns out that most people chose the first option. They’d rather earn twice as much as others even though that means earning half as much as they otherwise could have.

Read on to find out why…

Is inequality closing down our concern for others?

Jenny Russel of the Guardian writes, “As the middle classes feel the pain of comparison with the super-rich, we lose all enthusiasm for the common good”.

The rise of the super-rich, and their capacity to outbid others in the competition for houses, schools, space and possessions, has produced a new definition of success. It is one that excludes whole swaths of professionals. Doctors, publishers, managers and academics who began their careers in the expectation that they would lead comfortable lives and feel proud of their social position are now experiencing a sharp sense of dislocation. But that experience isn’t leading, as one might expect, to a generalised support for greater equality. Instead it’s frequently giving rise to a sense that individuals must fight to preserve what they have at all costs.

Read the whole article.

Salvation Army report finds poverty in Godzone

salvation-army-report-feb-2008.jpgA report out today from the Salvation Army acts as a reminder that despite a suite of policies designed to improve the lives of those most in need there’s still work to be done.

Major Campbell Roberts says: “As a country we have invested hugely in core social spending, from $23b 10 years ago to $39b this year, but with very little increase in social progress. In fact, the gap between rich and poor appears to be widening.

If we are to make real social progress then we need as a country to reflect on the relative priority we give to economic issues versus social concerns. We have a duty to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society are not left behind.”

George Bush’s favourite painting

koerner372.jpg

What does President Bush’s favourite painting say about him? The Guardian trys to find out.

Bush claims that the artwork, which hangs in his office, is a “beautiful painting of a horseman determinedly charging up what appears to be a steep and rough trail. This is us.”

It turns out that the painting was first used in the Saturday Evening Post in 1916 to illustrate a story about a horse thief, and captioned as a picture of his flight from the law.

Four experts weigh in with their opinions.

(Via BoingBoing)

The political brain - listen to this

A must hear for anyone interested in political marketing and influencing voters. This item played on Chris Laidlaw’s Sunday show on Radio NZ National yesterday.

“When we decide who to vote for, are we making a rational choice? Or does emotion dictate our voting choice?”

This is useful for people of all political stripes and of course the essence of it is that politicians need to be able to tell their story and that people, especially swinging voters, decide who to vote for rather more with their hearts than their heads. Bulleted lists of achievements don’t cut it for them. Go figure.

It includes interviews with Drew Western, author of The Political Brain, an analysis of the Australian election by Rod Cameron and an interview with NZ political marketing expert Claire Robinson amongst others.

It’s riveting stuff and a delight to hear some intelligent commentary on politcs and tactics.

Is Barack Obama dull?

will_smith.jpg

Armando Iannucci from The Observer wonders whether he’s the only person to find Barack Obama dull:

Like Will Smith, who in the new film I Am Legend wakes up to find himself the last man alive in a world of zombies, am I now the only person left on the planet who finds Barack Obama a little bit dull? Every time I listen to him, I start off thinking I’m about to wet my pants, but a minute-and-a-half later find my mind wandering, asking itself things like: ‘What does “the challenge of hope” mean?’

Yet I turn and look around and everyone is shouting and screaming. Obama chants: ‘Something better awaits us if we have the courage to reach for it’ and there’s a collective swoon from grown pundits and hardened reporters, all of them tearing off their shirts and pleading for Obama to sign their chests with indelible marker pen. Will Smith woke up to a world of zombies: in my personal nightmare, everyone around me has an overactive thyroid.

So why does Obama, billed by everyone as a cross between Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln, but without the terrible looks of either, just leave me puzzled?

Read on…

The best of The Standard in 2007

As we contemplate a bad year in the polls for Labour, the signs are pointing to National cruising onto victory in 2008. Or are they? Labour’s mistake may have been that it assumed a booming economy would be enough to carry the day, given that its credentials for a social agenda will always leave National struggling.

But what does National have going for it against Labour’s credentials? They appear to be fresh-faced and will offer tax cuts - that’s about it. No real indication of how they would cope with international relations, the climate-change-challenge, escalating health needs, etc, etc.

But consider this. The fatal chink for National may well be the weakness that is John Key. For me The Standard highlight for 2007 was this YouTube post by all-your-base in August.

I’d be interested in any comments with nominations for the best-of-The Standard in 2007.

Happy New Year.

A New Year’s wish

As a kid growing up in the countryside I recall being startled by the realisation that there were people in the world who had never seen a farm animal of any description. How one-dimensional and narrow their view of the world must be, I thought.

Another aspect of life in rural New Zealand, which I came to appreciate from an early stage, was the idea that we all live in a community where the benefits of sharing things and looking out for each other should be regarded as a virtue. These ideas even seemed to cross the political divide where Labour supporters generally expressed it in terms of social justice and public service, while National voters seemed prepared to nurture communities in a similar way to the manner in which they nurtured their own families, schools, businesses or farms. If there was a political difference it appeared to be more simply between National’s conservativisim and Labour’s more egalitarian doctrines, although even that could be blurred.

Perhaps as startling to me, as the realisation about farm animals, came the realisation that there were some within our communities who do not believe in the time-honoured notion that people need to look out for each other. The rights and strivings of the individual should be regarded as king, even when set against the greater good of the wider community. In its toughest guise, this is a dog-eat-dog scenario and as such, naturally sits as support for a minority of people who may stand to benefit most. These are the people who proclaim themselves as ‘winners’ on the basis that ‘losers’ can be dismissed as weak and pathetic. Most obviously these people now hail from the ACT party but, as Nicky Hager’s Hollow Men attests, it is now firmly entrenched at the National party’s top table as well.

As with those who had missed out on some of life’s basic experiences, such as seeing a cow, it seemed to me that the views of many of these people simply mirrored the narrowness of their own life experiences & John Key, the bond dealer or Don Brash, the banker, immediately spring to mind.

If this trait does hold sway in modern National, when attempting to win elections, the major question for National is how to present an acceptable face to an electorate which fundamentally holds ‘community’ as its core value-set? The answer is obvious; they do it by appealing to the other side of human nature & the ’self-interest’ side in all of us & ‘opportunity’ and ‘aspiration’, with an appeal to most peoples’ desire for individual freedom and to get ahead. But they also do it through deceit and under a veneer of ‘inclusiveness’ all the time withholding true policy positions & well canvassed in earlier posts in The Standard.

Of course, as the recent polls indicate, the philosophical battle also poses a problem for Labour. As seems the pattern in New Zealand electoral cycles the electorate, after three terms, is increasingly regarding Labour in government as ’self-serving’ and out-of-touch in rapidly changing times. Maybe this can be partly attributed to the government’s own misreading of the electorate, but more likely it’s the result of a restive electorate searching once more for a party that can properly express a deeply held value-set based upon ‘inclusiveness.’

In the modern age perhaps a different way is needed to express the freedoms that individuals rightly crave, whilst retaining the overwhelming need for inclusiveness and a strong sense of community.

In a recent television documentary I heard a family councilor put it this way;

“We should wish for everyone to have the same opportunities to make choices in life.”

If Helen Clark said this, it would be believable. If John Key said it, it’s what we might expect, but we should only believe half of it.

Happy New Year.

Rules of the game

Just had a read of Colin Espiner’s latest opinion piece. He certainly doesn’t pull any punches. Here’s what he has to say about the EFB:

But despite attempts by Labour to patch up the worst of the bill’s flaws, it remains a shoddy piece of legislation that should be consigned to the dustbin.

And, in the interests of balance, here’s what he had to say about the Nats:

There can be no doubt that National is every bit as motivated by self-interest as Labour over the bill. While the Opposition in public keeps its comments focused on the impact on legitimate public debate, it is deeply concerned its ability to campaign will be constrained by this legislation.

So far so ordinary but then…

There is also no doubt that the debate has been effectively hijacked by Right-wing supporters of National such as David Farrar and John Boscawen, who have even appeared in the media as “independent” commentators, despite one being National’s Wellington Central campaign manager and the other an Act Party fundraiser.

Excuse me? Did I read that right? “hijacked by Right-wing supporters of National such as David Farrar and John Boscawen”?? But this was a grassroots uprising wasn’t it? It’s not about partisan politics or big money at all. Surely?

Nah.

I’d thought the tide was turning for these astroturfers after nearly every media story covering last Saturday’s march mentioned how much money they’d pumped into it but to have it called by a senior political commentator is pleasing indeed. The anti-EFB campaign has hurt Labour. There’s little doubt about that but for DPF it’s been a Kamikaze run in terms of his credibility and his usefulness. Oh, he’s trying to inoculate it with the old “Aw shucks they just asked me what I thought and I told them” angle but given DPF’s work at National’s HQ and his years working for them in Parliament nobody but the blindest KB disciple would believe that. And it looks like the media has rumbled him.

It all reminds me of something an old hand in this game once told me, “backroom boys should stay in the backroom”. There’s a lot of slight of hand in politics. Always has been, always will be. Nearly every political story you read or view has been orchestrated by someone in the background - it’s all about tactical leaking, running lines and generally shaping the discourse and one of the things about being a backroom “boy” is you never get the credit for it publicly. But if you let your vanity get the better of you and step out into the media spotlight you’re marked. People know you as the face of a single issue or political position and bring that idea of you to everything you’re involved with. And that means you’re a one-trick pony and your value as an operator is shot. Who knows whether that’s fair or not, but DPF is learning about it now.

Electoral Finance Bill - some sense at last?

I’m not always a fan of Colin Espiner’s work, but thank goodness someone’s injected a bit of sense into this morning’s hysteria over the EFB.

This morning’s blog post kicks off by pointing out the credibility hit the Herald will take for its shameless National Party propagandising this morning:

The Electoral Finance Bill comes back before Parliament this week, and from the hue and cry over this legislation you’d think Labour was trying to introduce the black plague. If the National Party and the bill’s chief opponent, the New Zealand Herald, are to be believed, this legislation makes the Government’s botched Suppression of Terrorism Act look like the Magna Carta.

Granny Herald has got so flustered over the Electoral Finance Bill that it’s devoted this morning’s front page to it, complete with a sinister-looking photograph of a woman with a gag over her mouth, a front-page editorial, and the headline: Democracy under attack. Inside, there are another two full pages devoted to why this bill is so bad, under the page banner: Threat to free speech.

Um, right then. Readers of this Auckland newspaper know not to turn to this organ for balanced, unbiased coverage on this particular topic.

He then turns his attention to National’s utter hypocrisy on the issue:

“What particularly annoys me is the bleating from the National Party over this. The Nats escaped virtually scot-free from the AG’s report by sheer luck. The party had spent most of its leader’s budget on political advertising earlier in 2005, believing the election would be in July. The AG only looked at the last few months leading up to the September polling day.

Don’t believe that National won’t spend every penny of the almost $7 million it receives from the taxpayer for “parliamentary purposes” either. National gets more than any other party (because ministers of the Crown don’t count in the funding formula, meaning Labour loses out) and recently received an increase in its budget of $668,000 - the most of any party.

If National really believed this law was a travesty, it would hand this money back and refuse to use its leaders’ budget for any purpose the AG originally deemed to be unlawful - including hiring expensive Australian election consultants, push-polling, and billboards featuring its leader.

It won’t, of course. But National is relaxed in opposing this legislation, confident in the knowledge that it will pass anyway, and because its leader could himself bankroll National’s entire election campaign if necessary. Other parties don’t have that luxury.”

It looks like the Herald tried its best this morning to break National’s anti-EFB campaign out of the beltway and into the public arena, but they stuffed it by making their bias too blatant. Let’s hope the rest of the press gallery take a tip from Espiner and think twice before running with National’s scare campaign.

Defining political conservatism

325-nailgun-1.jpgA month or so ago we posted on a study that appeared to show that the brains of conservative and liberals differed.

A related study has been conducted recently by UC Berkeley.

It was looking for consistent underlying motivations to politically conservative agendas.

Four researchers who culled through 50 years of research literature about the psychology of conservatism report that at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include:

  • Fear and aggression
  • Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity
  • Uncertainty avoidance
  • Need for cognitive closure
  • Terror management

… “[Conservatives] are more comfortable seeing and stating things in black and white in ways that would make liberals squirm,” [a lead researcher] said.He pointed as an example to a 2001 trip to Italy, where President George W. Bush was asked to explain himself. The Republican president told assembled world leaders, “I know what I believe and I believe what I believe is right.”

(Hat tip: r0b)

UPDATE: here’s a like to the full study (PDF)

Trotter in the Independent

Apologies to The Independent Financial Review and to Chris Trotter for this rather large cut and paste from the second half of his article but it’s good stuff. If you enjoy it perhaps you’ll consider either buying or subscribing to the The Independent.

The Press political editor Colin Espiner, in his “On the House” blog, has characterised the government’s counter-attack as a case of the Labour pot calling National’s kettle black: “For the fact is this Labour government is every bit as donkey-deep with the private sector as the previous National government and very probably the next one. Labour’s record of selling state assets is no better (or worse, depending on your point of view) than National’s. Labour insists on the tendering of services provided in the state sector, just as it should.”

There is, of course, a huge difference between the state seeking tenders from the private sector for the creation of assets which remain under public control, and the state being willing to guarantee a hefty return to private sector investors, for periods of up to 40 years, in return for providing services which citizens believe themselves to be entitled to by right - such as health, education and housing - and which the state can provide at a much more competitive price.

The first Labour government may have awarded Fletcher Construction the contract for building the first state houses, but, having built them, the company was not then given the right to pocket the rent for the next four decades, or sell the properties back to the state at a profit.

Continue reading ‘Trotter in the Independent’