Oh dear, it only took a few days and Trump has gone overboard with his travel ban. Note, he did not ban people travelling from Saudi Arabia or Indonesia, when both are countries that breed terrorists.
And his ban has unfairly included those with the legal right to live, work or study in the US. Did he do this to get attention? Well it succeeded, but at what cost?
January 30, 2017
January 27, 2017
New Zealand Bureaucracy
Not only does New Zealand have a bureaucracy the size of which would be more appropriate for a country with ten times the population, it is also chronically inefficient.
To illustrate: I've got a child now enrolling at University and going through the student loan rigmarole. Well I never, we had no such thing in my day you see, so I'm out of touch. Well, the story behind getting through the system is circuitous and ridiculous all at the same time. Forms upon forms, and then the student loan people send erroneous information. Ring the call centre and they give advice that is plain wrong, how do I know this? They call back sometimes to correct the wrong stuff they've just been spouting.
If there is an outfit that needs a firm stick shoved up their arse, then it's StudyLink or whatever they call themselves.
National are in power. They were meant to sort this shit out. Did they? Not on your life, what we got was Labour Not Very Lite. National used to be the less socialist party, now they're the trying to be more socialist than the socialists party.
To illustrate: I've got a child now enrolling at University and going through the student loan rigmarole. Well I never, we had no such thing in my day you see, so I'm out of touch. Well, the story behind getting through the system is circuitous and ridiculous all at the same time. Forms upon forms, and then the student loan people send erroneous information. Ring the call centre and they give advice that is plain wrong, how do I know this? They call back sometimes to correct the wrong stuff they've just been spouting.
If there is an outfit that needs a firm stick shoved up their arse, then it's StudyLink or whatever they call themselves.
National are in power. They were meant to sort this shit out. Did they? Not on your life, what we got was Labour Not Very Lite. National used to be the less socialist party, now they're the trying to be more socialist than the socialists party.
January 26, 2017
Market Report UK
Looking at the UK, a situation I've been well aware of for some time never improves. Depending on your point of view, this is either a problem or an opportunity.
I'm talking about the supply of construction materials, namely sand and gravel supplies; and in the broader context all quarried materials, ready-mix concrete, and other products that consume crushed and processed stone.
The UK has the problem of steadily depleting reserves. The sand and gravel reserve base is most stark, there the replacement rate is a low 61%. What that means is that for every 100 tonne of sand sold, only 61 tonne is replaced. What am I going on about?
If you're extracting and processing sand, an important component in concrete and asphalt particularly, you need to have the stuff in the ground to extract. Imagine all of the UK's reserves being in one place, a huge tract of land (it isn't, actually it's spread out amongst hundreds of sand pits). As you dig, process and sell the sand just below the surface, the hole keeps getting bigger. Then to replace what you sell, you buy some land off the neighbour, but never as much as the volume you sell out of the gate. Do you see? Eventually your reserves run critically low and you go out of business. No construction supplies business for you.
But wait, that's not the first and last word on the subject I hear you say, there are other options which can be explored, and you'd be right. Dredging offshore for sand below the surface of the water. Okay, that's possible and already done. Then there is manufactured sand, never quite as good but you can do that. Okay, that's done too but the hard rock quarry environment is only just managing to increase its reserves from where they are now and not at the pace the natural sand deposits are being depleted. Then you can import sand from somewhere else I hear you say. Fine that too I answer, but sand is high volume low value and barging from other countries is expensive.
So what is going to happen to the UK? The price of sand and gravel must rise, that's what. And rise a lot over the next twenty years. That's because it takes fifteen years just to get a new sand and gravel pit on stream from initial proposal, so even if they went gangbusters right from this day forward they'd still end up sand critical.
This is a lesson in not allowing environmental nut-jobs anywhere near proper planning, real world industry with consequences. But for the investor, this is heaven sent. Investing in existing sand and gravel reserves is money in the bank. That message comes with qualifications though, naturally, as the company that does the work has to be well managed.
What candidates exist to get involved with? The list is; LafargeHolcim (which owns the UK's Aggregate Industries), HeidelbergCement (which owns Hanson), CRH (Tarmac), CEMEX and Breedon. Of these, Breedon is the UK specialist and heavily into rock products, see them here...https://www.google.com/finance?q=LON:BREE
Breedon are small and quite acquisitive, you can see their share price keeps climbing and their price to earnings is quite high at 31., maybe too high. I'll leave it for you to decide if you're comfortable with that.
Then you can also look for private companies to invest in, with focus on sand and gravel. Most of these are tightly held, I'm not saying any of the following are for sale or any share of them, but they're good businesses and this is the type of thing to look for:
http://www.rotherhamsandandgravel.co.uk/about.aspx
http://www.sandandgravel.uk.com
http://www.bromfieldsand-gravel.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=1
Sand and gravel UK.
I'm talking about the supply of construction materials, namely sand and gravel supplies; and in the broader context all quarried materials, ready-mix concrete, and other products that consume crushed and processed stone.
The UK has the problem of steadily depleting reserves. The sand and gravel reserve base is most stark, there the replacement rate is a low 61%. What that means is that for every 100 tonne of sand sold, only 61 tonne is replaced. What am I going on about?
If you're extracting and processing sand, an important component in concrete and asphalt particularly, you need to have the stuff in the ground to extract. Imagine all of the UK's reserves being in one place, a huge tract of land (it isn't, actually it's spread out amongst hundreds of sand pits). As you dig, process and sell the sand just below the surface, the hole keeps getting bigger. Then to replace what you sell, you buy some land off the neighbour, but never as much as the volume you sell out of the gate. Do you see? Eventually your reserves run critically low and you go out of business. No construction supplies business for you.
But wait, that's not the first and last word on the subject I hear you say, there are other options which can be explored, and you'd be right. Dredging offshore for sand below the surface of the water. Okay, that's possible and already done. Then there is manufactured sand, never quite as good but you can do that. Okay, that's done too but the hard rock quarry environment is only just managing to increase its reserves from where they are now and not at the pace the natural sand deposits are being depleted. Then you can import sand from somewhere else I hear you say. Fine that too I answer, but sand is high volume low value and barging from other countries is expensive.
So what is going to happen to the UK? The price of sand and gravel must rise, that's what. And rise a lot over the next twenty years. That's because it takes fifteen years just to get a new sand and gravel pit on stream from initial proposal, so even if they went gangbusters right from this day forward they'd still end up sand critical.
This is a lesson in not allowing environmental nut-jobs anywhere near proper planning, real world industry with consequences. But for the investor, this is heaven sent. Investing in existing sand and gravel reserves is money in the bank. That message comes with qualifications though, naturally, as the company that does the work has to be well managed.
What candidates exist to get involved with? The list is; LafargeHolcim (which owns the UK's Aggregate Industries), HeidelbergCement (which owns Hanson), CRH (Tarmac), CEMEX and Breedon. Of these, Breedon is the UK specialist and heavily into rock products, see them here...https://www.google.com/finance?q=LON:BREE
Breedon are small and quite acquisitive, you can see their share price keeps climbing and their price to earnings is quite high at 31., maybe too high. I'll leave it for you to decide if you're comfortable with that.
Then you can also look for private companies to invest in, with focus on sand and gravel. Most of these are tightly held, I'm not saying any of the following are for sale or any share of them, but they're good businesses and this is the type of thing to look for:
http://www.rotherhamsandandgravel.co.uk/about.aspx
http://www.sandandgravel.uk.com
http://www.bromfieldsand-gravel.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=1
Sand and gravel UK.
January 25, 2017
Peter Thiel
Welcome to New Zealand, Peter Thiel. I hope you like the clear air in Wanaka.
In case you hadn't noticed already, New Zealand has something called the great Kiwi clobbering machine. Being a recent Kiwi, just finding your feet so to speak, you may not know how this works exactly.
This is how it works; some minor politicians and assorted instant experts on everything will say what they like about you, most of which will be wrong, all of which will be based on information taken out of context or will be just completely made up shit. None of this will matter as they just get to make things up as they go along and this has been the way of things since time began.
What you are expected to do in response is genuflect and suck everyone's dick. I'm sure you won't want to do this and this is where it gets interesting - personally I like interesting stuff so I hope you don't do as you're told - you are best to hit back and hit back hard. Think like Rugby, if you don't tackle then you'll get beaten by lots. So tackle and it's always best if you tackle hard.
How you approach this is entirely over to you. I've got no idea exactly what you should do as I'm not in your shoes. But heh, you're a tech guru who backed Facebook and Paypal, neither of which do I fully understand as I live anchored in the real world of nuts and bolts, but I'm sure given this tech savvy nature of yours that you can get even. Be imaginative.
Anyway nice to see a fellow Kiwi doing well, give old Donald Trump my warm regards. How about a nice trade deal between the US and Kiwiland, one that gives NZ unlimited access to the USA for its agricultural output. Call me an optimist.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/88756668/politicians-demand-answers-on-peter-thiels-new-zealand-citizenship
In case you hadn't noticed already, New Zealand has something called the great Kiwi clobbering machine. Being a recent Kiwi, just finding your feet so to speak, you may not know how this works exactly.
This is how it works; some minor politicians and assorted instant experts on everything will say what they like about you, most of which will be wrong, all of which will be based on information taken out of context or will be just completely made up shit. None of this will matter as they just get to make things up as they go along and this has been the way of things since time began.
What you are expected to do in response is genuflect and suck everyone's dick. I'm sure you won't want to do this and this is where it gets interesting - personally I like interesting stuff so I hope you don't do as you're told - you are best to hit back and hit back hard. Think like Rugby, if you don't tackle then you'll get beaten by lots. So tackle and it's always best if you tackle hard.
How you approach this is entirely over to you. I've got no idea exactly what you should do as I'm not in your shoes. But heh, you're a tech guru who backed Facebook and Paypal, neither of which do I fully understand as I live anchored in the real world of nuts and bolts, but I'm sure given this tech savvy nature of yours that you can get even. Be imaginative.
Anyway nice to see a fellow Kiwi doing well, give old Donald Trump my warm regards. How about a nice trade deal between the US and Kiwiland, one that gives NZ unlimited access to the USA for its agricultural output. Call me an optimist.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/88756668/politicians-demand-answers-on-peter-thiels-new-zealand-citizenship
January 24, 2017
Pope Gets History Wrong
Oh dear, place this in the 'not again, give me a break' department, the current Pope has repeated the myth that Adolf Hitler came to power by being popularly elected by the German people.
Here's the Pope...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/pope-francis-warns-against-rise-populism-europe/
"And all of Germany votes for Hitler. Hitler didn't steal power, he was elected by the people, and then he destroyed his own people. This is the danger.”
The only problem with this view is it is wrong. Hitler seized power and his Nazi party never held a majority. His party never had more than 38% of the popular vote, and that support was falling when Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor. From that position, the Nazis took over through the passage of the Enabling Act, with SA intimidating and encircling the building.
Once granted powers under the Enabling Act, Hitler took control, eventually becoming a complete dictator. He was never popularly elected, that is a myth, oft repeated and now heard in the highest circles.
Here's the Pope...http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/22/pope-francis-warns-against-rise-populism-europe/
"And all of Germany votes for Hitler. Hitler didn't steal power, he was elected by the people, and then he destroyed his own people. This is the danger.”
The only problem with this view is it is wrong. Hitler seized power and his Nazi party never held a majority. His party never had more than 38% of the popular vote, and that support was falling when Hindenburg appointed him Chancellor. From that position, the Nazis took over through the passage of the Enabling Act, with SA intimidating and encircling the building.
Once granted powers under the Enabling Act, Hitler took control, eventually becoming a complete dictator. He was never popularly elected, that is a myth, oft repeated and now heard in the highest circles.
January 23, 2017
Those Pesky Inauguration Numbers
Face it, the inauguration numbers for Donald J Trump were down. What else would you expect, when it was forecast to rain, everyone knew what he was going to say, and he's not that good at saying it. There really was no good reason to be there, it's what happens in the polling booth that matters.
So why would Trump's team be so on the offensive over the perfectly valid reports that numbers were down on past inaugurations. The best Trump could hope for would be no reports on attendance, and how likely is that? I mean, really.
It seems Trump is setting out at this early stage, to tame the media. Cow them, keep them in line. It's a chilling prospect, and from the leader of the free world no less.
Some advice Mr President. Take a leaf from the likes of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland who did in fact effectively tame the media. Joh was a really good demagogue who ruled Queensland like he owned it. Reference his daily press conferences where he 'fed the chooks.' Any self-respecting demagogue must take a leaf from the Bjelke-Petersen play book.
I don't see this ending well. If the press have any spine they must go on the attack. After all, the best defence is an effective counter-attack. If they do not go on the attack, well, when it really matters and this or that war is being touted, the press may be acquiescent and go along with it. So the media have to fight. Keep asking questions until you get answers.
So why would Trump's team be so on the offensive over the perfectly valid reports that numbers were down on past inaugurations. The best Trump could hope for would be no reports on attendance, and how likely is that? I mean, really.
It seems Trump is setting out at this early stage, to tame the media. Cow them, keep them in line. It's a chilling prospect, and from the leader of the free world no less.
Some advice Mr President. Take a leaf from the likes of Joh Bjelke-Petersen, the Premier of Queensland who did in fact effectively tame the media. Joh was a really good demagogue who ruled Queensland like he owned it. Reference his daily press conferences where he 'fed the chooks.' Any self-respecting demagogue must take a leaf from the Bjelke-Petersen play book.
I don't see this ending well. If the press have any spine they must go on the attack. After all, the best defence is an effective counter-attack. If they do not go on the attack, well, when it really matters and this or that war is being touted, the press may be acquiescent and go along with it. So the media have to fight. Keep asking questions until you get answers.
January 20, 2017
Tail Wagging the Dog Law
The problem with MMP (Mixed Member Proportional), the voting system currently used by New Zealand, is parties with a smaller proportion of the vote have their power magnified. That's because the larger parties need them in coalition in order to form a government. I call this the tail wagging the dog.
My solution: scrap the current five percent threshold but all parties receiving less than 11% of the vote achieve observer status only. They can participate in select committees, debates, individually be appointed as Minister, but cannot vote in the House of Representatives.
This would have the effect of allowing the majority to rule. By majority I mean the party with the most votes, in particular most votes amongst all those parties receiving the bulk of electoral support.
The exception would be if any member of parliament had been directly elected to an electorate seat. But then only those members so elected could vote. If their party received less than 11%, then list members could not vote. This would give Maori representatives more say, as they tend to win Maori seats but do not get widespread support across the country as a whole.
The rationale behind my thinking is that MMP has failed to deliver the solution to the problem it was intended to address. That was that New Zealand was always led by a minority government. In a first past the post type system, the winner with a one vote majority takes the election even though the combined votes of all the opponents may total more than the total of votes for the winner.
Instead what happened is New Zealand is still led by minority governments, that is, governments that receive less than 50% of the vote. This occurs because there are wasted votes, that is votes cast for parties that do not get over the five percent threshold; those votes are effectively thrown away (the votes are redistributed so that all seats are taken up, but the point I'm making is the voter's choice is not exercised in the way the individual voter intended).
So a party with 45% of the vote, along with a motley crew of small-timers, the total vote for which is still less than 50%, governs. And here's the rub, those small parties get a much greater say than is appropriate for their small stature. For instance they routinely receive ministerial portfolios. They are bribed in other words.
And here's where NZ is heading: imagine in the future, a situation with Labour sitting on 25% of the vote, National 20%; but four far right and assorted environmental fringe parties, each with 10%, forming a coalition to govern with 40% collectively (the balance being discarded as cast for parties that don't make the cut). The ultimate tail wag. Unless the die-hard enemies, Labour and National, formed a grand coalition (hard to imagine that one), then NZ would be governed by an unstable brew.
What New Zealand did in introducing MMP was to put the country at risk of this type of instability or injustice; where the two largest voter blocs representing the simple majority could be ignored.
My solution allows for inclusiveness but with limits, and acknowledges that the parties receiving the largest voter support must be the ones to make the decisions. What do you think? You are welcome to discuss this over at the forum
http://dailyopinion.boardhost.com/index.php
My solution: scrap the current five percent threshold but all parties receiving less than 11% of the vote achieve observer status only. They can participate in select committees, debates, individually be appointed as Minister, but cannot vote in the House of Representatives.
This would have the effect of allowing the majority to rule. By majority I mean the party with the most votes, in particular most votes amongst all those parties receiving the bulk of electoral support.
The exception would be if any member of parliament had been directly elected to an electorate seat. But then only those members so elected could vote. If their party received less than 11%, then list members could not vote. This would give Maori representatives more say, as they tend to win Maori seats but do not get widespread support across the country as a whole.
The rationale behind my thinking is that MMP has failed to deliver the solution to the problem it was intended to address. That was that New Zealand was always led by a minority government. In a first past the post type system, the winner with a one vote majority takes the election even though the combined votes of all the opponents may total more than the total of votes for the winner.
Instead what happened is New Zealand is still led by minority governments, that is, governments that receive less than 50% of the vote. This occurs because there are wasted votes, that is votes cast for parties that do not get over the five percent threshold; those votes are effectively thrown away (the votes are redistributed so that all seats are taken up, but the point I'm making is the voter's choice is not exercised in the way the individual voter intended).
So a party with 45% of the vote, along with a motley crew of small-timers, the total vote for which is still less than 50%, governs. And here's the rub, those small parties get a much greater say than is appropriate for their small stature. For instance they routinely receive ministerial portfolios. They are bribed in other words.
And here's where NZ is heading: imagine in the future, a situation with Labour sitting on 25% of the vote, National 20%; but four far right and assorted environmental fringe parties, each with 10%, forming a coalition to govern with 40% collectively (the balance being discarded as cast for parties that don't make the cut). The ultimate tail wag. Unless the die-hard enemies, Labour and National, formed a grand coalition (hard to imagine that one), then NZ would be governed by an unstable brew.
What New Zealand did in introducing MMP was to put the country at risk of this type of instability or injustice; where the two largest voter blocs representing the simple majority could be ignored.
My solution allows for inclusiveness but with limits, and acknowledges that the parties receiving the largest voter support must be the ones to make the decisions. What do you think? You are welcome to discuss this over at the forum
http://dailyopinion.boardhost.com/index.php
January 14, 2017
Three or more Essential Reads for Investors
If you read nothing else in relation to investing then these are my picks, in order of importance, read them in numerical order:-
1. The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham.
Get the edition with a forward by Warren Buffet and annotated by Jason Zweig. It is a timeless classic full of practical advice. You may have heard of it and discounted simply because it isn't trendy, or some such, well don't, the book is as good as people say. Follow the advice and you'll rarely go wrong.
2. Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits by Philip A Fisher.
The 'father' of growth investing, Fisher follows the 'scuttlebutt' approach. Find a good business and learn about it, check it out in the flesh, how is it run, is this a good business is it? Of course you don't believe rumour and all that crap, but there are things to take notice of and Fisher tells you how. Ben Graham references Fisher and points out how talented he is, and so the readers of both should take note; follow Graham for soundness and when your skill improves or you're very talented, then you may graduate to Fisher.The truth lies somewhere in the middle, be a Ben Graham type with room for some of Fisher in there somewhere.
Special note here for Peter Lynch's Beating the Street; it is a very valuable book too and could be read in conjunction with 'Common Stocks', it shows how keeping it simple can be a real winner. I only add it as a mention as you don't have to read it if you've got 'Common Stocks' on hand.
3. Freakanomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner
This will make you think about everything. Basically, if you provide the incentives, you will get it, even if you didn't intend to.
Special note: for the real estate fanatics an often overlooked book that is the first and last word on investing in real estate: Jones on Property by Bob Jones. The short message is; there is glamour in industrial. This book covers everything any real estate investor needs to know. It was published in 1977 in New Zealand and covers that market and Sydney Australia. The author is a successful investor, now Sir Robert Jones.
Head over to the forum to discuss the best investment reads.
1. The Intelligent Investor by Benjamin Graham.
Get the edition with a forward by Warren Buffet and annotated by Jason Zweig. It is a timeless classic full of practical advice. You may have heard of it and discounted simply because it isn't trendy, or some such, well don't, the book is as good as people say. Follow the advice and you'll rarely go wrong.
2. Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits by Philip A Fisher.
The 'father' of growth investing, Fisher follows the 'scuttlebutt' approach. Find a good business and learn about it, check it out in the flesh, how is it run, is this a good business is it? Of course you don't believe rumour and all that crap, but there are things to take notice of and Fisher tells you how. Ben Graham references Fisher and points out how talented he is, and so the readers of both should take note; follow Graham for soundness and when your skill improves or you're very talented, then you may graduate to Fisher.The truth lies somewhere in the middle, be a Ben Graham type with room for some of Fisher in there somewhere.
Special note here for Peter Lynch's Beating the Street; it is a very valuable book too and could be read in conjunction with 'Common Stocks', it shows how keeping it simple can be a real winner. I only add it as a mention as you don't have to read it if you've got 'Common Stocks' on hand.
3. Freakanomics by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner
This will make you think about everything. Basically, if you provide the incentives, you will get it, even if you didn't intend to.
Special note: for the real estate fanatics an often overlooked book that is the first and last word on investing in real estate: Jones on Property by Bob Jones. The short message is; there is glamour in industrial. This book covers everything any real estate investor needs to know. It was published in 1977 in New Zealand and covers that market and Sydney Australia. The author is a successful investor, now Sir Robert Jones.
Head over to the forum to discuss the best investment reads.
January 13, 2017
New Zealand Shopping for Aircraft
This week (8-14 Jan 2017) Stuff website reported on Japanese news that NZ is shopping for new aircraft: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/88301398/defence-force-denies-it-has-started-negotiations-with-japan-over-aircraft-order
NZ deny this of course, but who would you believe? Oh that's right, the Japanese are to be believed. It looks like NZ favours the Kawasaki P-1 and C-2. Fair enough, they share parts, but I still maintain drones like the MQ-9 Reaper make more sense than a P-1 or P-8. But heh, the fly boys have to have something to get airborne with, that'd be driving their thinking. The C-2 on the other hand is pretty good, read about it here.
Please discuss these developments over at the forum:
http://dailyopinion.boardhost.com/index.php
NZ deny this of course, but who would you believe? Oh that's right, the Japanese are to be believed. It looks like NZ favours the Kawasaki P-1 and C-2. Fair enough, they share parts, but I still maintain drones like the MQ-9 Reaper make more sense than a P-1 or P-8. But heh, the fly boys have to have something to get airborne with, that'd be driving their thinking. The C-2 on the other hand is pretty good, read about it here.
Please discuss these developments over at the forum:
http://dailyopinion.boardhost.com/index.php
January 12, 2017
Donald Trump Dossier
The current allegations against President-elect Donald Trump can be found online. It is a 35 page collection of memos.
Read it here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html
Bear in mind as you read, this is all just speculation and unverifiable. I've read it and I'm left wondering what all the fuss is about. But make up your own mind. The document has been highlighted by someone else, careful reading then as these highlights are not always appropriate. If reading then I suggest you look at the whole thing yourself and ignore the highlights.
Discussion on the document is welcome over at the forum. Do you think the Russians have anything on Trump that could be significant enough to shift the balance of power?
Read it here: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3259984-Trump-Intelligence-Allegations.html
Bear in mind as you read, this is all just speculation and unverifiable. I've read it and I'm left wondering what all the fuss is about. But make up your own mind. The document has been highlighted by someone else, careful reading then as these highlights are not always appropriate. If reading then I suggest you look at the whole thing yourself and ignore the highlights.
Discussion on the document is welcome over at the forum. Do you think the Russians have anything on Trump that could be significant enough to shift the balance of power?
January 11, 2017
My 3 Rules for Stock Market Investment
Boiled down I have three broad rules related to stock market investment.
1. Boring is best
If the industry is out of date, no-one wants to know about it any more, isn't sexy, isn't highly technological, people laugh if you mention it or better still, have never heard of it and have no idea what it does exactly, then I'm interested in it.
2. Don't pay too much
That great company may be the bees knees, have great management, reasonable debt levels and has been making solid profits for a hundred years; but if it's over-priced it's still a no go.
3. It must be solid
The company must be respected, well managed, have a dominant position within its market, have brands that resonate, and been around quite a while.
My advice: take your own advice and use these three rules, then you'll likely do better than any investment adviser. Want a snapshot of how good returns can be? Check this out >>Do Not Click Here<< Nah, go on you can click it, what it shows is that by applying my three rules you can achieve better than a 40% return in less than a year.
To discuss please visit the forum. Your ideas are valued.
1. Boring is best
If the industry is out of date, no-one wants to know about it any more, isn't sexy, isn't highly technological, people laugh if you mention it or better still, have never heard of it and have no idea what it does exactly, then I'm interested in it.
2. Don't pay too much
That great company may be the bees knees, have great management, reasonable debt levels and has been making solid profits for a hundred years; but if it's over-priced it's still a no go.
3. It must be solid
The company must be respected, well managed, have a dominant position within its market, have brands that resonate, and been around quite a while.
My advice: take your own advice and use these three rules, then you'll likely do better than any investment adviser. Want a snapshot of how good returns can be? Check this out >>Do Not Click Here<< Nah, go on you can click it, what it shows is that by applying my three rules you can achieve better than a 40% return in less than a year.
To discuss please visit the forum. Your ideas are valued.
January 10, 2017
The Daily Opinion
As indicated last year, I've started a forum. It's called The Daily Opinion. This is where readers can go to share their own views and get in touch with one another.
http://dailyopinion.boardhost.com/index.php
Let the debate begin.
A permanent link is embedded at the top of the blog.
http://dailyopinion.boardhost.com/index.php
Let the debate begin.
A permanent link is embedded at the top of the blog.
January 09, 2017
Is NBA Rigged?
Just putting it out there. If not explicitly agreed then there could at least be a tacit understanding between teams to let the stars of the game shine. What I'm talking about is the plethora of double doubles and triple doubles being produced this season. Have these teams never heard of sitting on hot guys to prevent them from getting in their favoured slot? It is called defence. There is just too much room being given to the best shooters.
January 07, 2017
Blueprint for the New Zealand Armed Forces
It's 2017 and the New Zealand armed services keep shrinking. Will they cease to exist in my lifetime? Possibly, it's a sad state of affairs.
The reason things are in such a bad way goes to leadership. It's down to poor leadership from the people who run the country. There is no-one who can say, hand on heart, that they did their best.
The way I look at defence is like this: New Zealand has built something worth protecting, it's rich in natural resources and is a fully developed country (for the most part), all completed in less than two hundred years. The country is valuable, so look after it.
It's scary to think that one missile cruiser parked off the New Zealand coast would own the place. New Zealand has nothing to deter such a threat. Heck, ISIL or whatever they're called could load up three or four cruise ships and invade. They'd likely succeed. That's even scarier.
If you want farce and a sign pointing to just how feeble NZ is, consider when their frigate tried pulling over an illegal fishing boat in the southern ocean. It refused to comply and the frigate had to run away. I presume the fishing boat had more fire power than the frigate. Unbelievable.
If we look at comparable forces, NZ lags behind. Norway, for instance, has a similar population and standard of living as NZ and they take their military seriously. Norway is a useful benchmark; they have a long coastline, are located in a polar region, and have a large area of ocean to defend with abundant natural resources.
The following is a suggested structure for New Zealand, doing away with unnecessary parts of the force but ramping up those areas that are in dire need of enhancement.
Step 1: do away with Navy, Army and Air Force as separate services and merge everything into one force along the lines of the US Marine Corps. NZ pays lip service to the idea, so actually do it. Get rid of all those different uniforms and ranks, keep it simple.
Currently, NZ rotates the top job through the three branches. Stop that nonsense, have one top person in charge and let them keep that job until replaced by someone better or they retire. Think continuity and a clear direction.
Step 2: Reconfigure bases now everything is merged together.
Close down
Devonport
Whenuapai
Linton
Trentham
Woodbourne
Burnham
Retain
Ohakea
Waiouru - use it for exercises only, de-escalate as a base
Lake Tekapo
Other facilities not mentioned, or relocate and modernise
Build
A large base on the Kaipara harbour around where the United States set up during the Second World War (if not viable; then Opononi or Manukau, in any case west coast Northland or Auckland, not east coast). Think along the lines of Camp Pendleton. The Kaipara Harbour is shallow and plagued by tricky sandbars so difficult for an enemy to penetrate (dredge the channels). Devonport naval base is located on the Waitemata Harbour, a deep water port on the east coast and easily accessed for commercial shipping. Any student of history will know the east coast was mined during the Second World War and a ship was sunk (RMS Niagara). Why would NZ have its warships in that harbour or along the east coast?
The Kaipara base would also replace Whenuapai and the North Island army bases apart from Waiouru which would be used for exercises, rather like Salisbury plain.
The Marlborough Sounds should also be utilised more effectively (see below). You'll notice I'm putting things along the west coast of NZ, out to the Tasman Sea. There's a reason for this, any aggressor at least has to enter the Tasman to be effective. Why make things easy for the enemy?
Then build a base up around Niue, or Tonga, well into the Pacific.
Like this:
Many of the town depots and facilities are now unsuitable. Take the Christchurch city base HMNZS Pegasus. Look at the US and how they operate reserves, often they base these facilities in light industrial areas with a small office, yard and warehouse. They look like a rental or hire pool. NZ could do much the same and save money overall.
Step 3: Build a proper Navy
New Zealand consists of many islands in the South Pacific. It's territory is vast and claims one of the largest areas of ocean in the world. Most just think of the North and South Islands. But New Zealand extends north to the Tokelau, Cook and Niue Islands, east out to the Chatham Islands, then south down to Antarctica. A big area in other words, which NZ defends with two frigates, a RORO vessel and two offshore patrol vessels. That's pretty much it, and they struggle with that. If you want to laugh you can, but I'm not trying to be funny.
Norway by comparison has seventy, that's 7-0- sea going warships of various configurations, but from a NZ perspective note their five heavy frigates, ice breaker and six submarines. They take mine warfare seriously too.
But wait, Norway is richer. That's right, NZ's GDP is 36% that of Norway, which means NZ should have about 25 warships. Think about it, that sounds about right.
Therefore:
Scrap or Sell
The two Anzac class frigates (now ageing and never equipped with Harpoon - see below)
The RORO
Oiler (old)
Build
2 amphibious warfare ships, utilising helicopters and landing craft, able to conduct opposed landings within the Pacific and able to operate in large swells.
4 frigates
4 submarines
4 corvettes (escorts)
2 oilers
1 dive, mine warfare
1 ice breaker, disaster relief, scientific
Retain
2 offshore patrol
4 inshore patrol
1 dive, mine warfare
Total = 25
Deployed these would form two mini groups, thus each mini group configures:
1 amphibious
2 frigates
2 submarines
1 oiler
2 escort corvettes
As a group the amphibious ship is the heart and in the middle. These ships would be around 20,000 tonnes.
The frigates protect and they must be close to being destroyers, like Norway. The subs prowl, observe and protect while the escort corvettes form the outer patrol.
Some may remember a NZ Minister of Defence in the 1990's by the name of Doug Kidd, suggesting submarines. He must have had a rare moment of clarity. Subs project power far out of proportion to their size and manning levels. Subs mean New Zealand can be unseen, observe without being observed, slip special forces ashore, and be a threat to any enemy. For some odd reason Doug Kidd was shouted down, subs seem to trigger alarm amongst the loose limbed liberals, but in reality they're brilliant and should be taken seriously, Japan's Soryu class submarine is an excellent example.
Base these submarines in the Marlborough Sounds. From there they can slip out into the Tasman or through Cook Strait and into the South Pacific.
The balance, being dive and mine warfare operate where required.
Form a coast guard division within the all-in-one service; they then operate the offshore patrol vessels, inshore patrol, and the ice breaker/scientific vessel. They would also do fisheries protection.
Step 4: Get some force into the air
This is pretty simple, go high and be able to hit. Currently NZ has no, literally no high flying and fast air strike.
The closing down of NZ's Skyhawk air strike capability was the biggest cock-up ever perpetrated on NZ's defences. It never ceases to amaze me how often I hear people talk about this, like it was a sensible decision given the planes were old. They weren't supersonic. Oh no.
Well get a grip NZ. All air combat is conducted at subsonic speeds and to secure your own airspace all you need is a capable aircraft like the Skyhawk. It posed enough of a deterrent to make anyone contemplating something, to think again. Now, there is nothing keeping NZ's airspace safe.
Back in 2005 a nutter got the idea to threaten to fly his plane into the Skytower in Auckland. No means existed to prevent him then and none exists now. The guy got airborne but chickened out, righto, and NZ seems to accept that hoping someone will chicken out is an effective defence strategy.
Scrap
P-3 Orions
C-130 Hercules
Boeing 757's
Add
Drones - for search, patrol and combat. Also invest in drone swarm attack. This is where 10 or so drones simultaneously attack a ship, overwhelming its defences in doing so. The cost of these sort of disposable drones is less than the cost of sea skimming missiles that are often less effective.
Modern airlift - 12 units of modern C-130 Hercules or similar. Consider airlift at least in part which can fly to Antarctica and back without a point of no return (the C-130 is limited by range); this means procuring at least two C-17 Globemasters if they can be found.
Additional helicopters - 16 combat types for the amphibious vessels (8 on each), plus a further 8 larger helicopters such as the Chinook (enough helicopters exist in service right now to make up the balance).
Modern passenger aircraft less than 10 years old, the current 757's break down all the time.
The thinking here is NZ needs to have some strike capability, the drones can do that, they're also more effective in the search role, being able to see through cloud and to operate at night, spending much longer over any area being looked at. Then add more air lift and combat helicopters to cover the new vessels.
Step 5: Land forces to be amphibious
The land forces should be up to brigade strength and able to operate alone. That is, fully self-contained, not having to ask the Australians or anyone else for help. More to the point, NZ should be able to keep a brigade in the field for months at a time. That means they need twice the number of personnel they have now. Then when those numbers are up, any equipment they use must be suitable for amphibious operations. Currently - not really. They can't wade ashore very easily at all.
Step 6: Use missiles too
If it's a missile get interested in it. Missiles are brilliant. New Zealand hasn't embraced Harpoon. Well, wise up NZ, and join the 21st century. Together with the use of drones, an effective air force could be quite easily obtained.
The reason things are in such a bad way goes to leadership. It's down to poor leadership from the people who run the country. There is no-one who can say, hand on heart, that they did their best.
The way I look at defence is like this: New Zealand has built something worth protecting, it's rich in natural resources and is a fully developed country (for the most part), all completed in less than two hundred years. The country is valuable, so look after it.
It's scary to think that one missile cruiser parked off the New Zealand coast would own the place. New Zealand has nothing to deter such a threat. Heck, ISIL or whatever they're called could load up three or four cruise ships and invade. They'd likely succeed. That's even scarier.
If you want farce and a sign pointing to just how feeble NZ is, consider when their frigate tried pulling over an illegal fishing boat in the southern ocean. It refused to comply and the frigate had to run away. I presume the fishing boat had more fire power than the frigate. Unbelievable.
If we look at comparable forces, NZ lags behind. Norway, for instance, has a similar population and standard of living as NZ and they take their military seriously. Norway is a useful benchmark; they have a long coastline, are located in a polar region, and have a large area of ocean to defend with abundant natural resources.
The following is a suggested structure for New Zealand, doing away with unnecessary parts of the force but ramping up those areas that are in dire need of enhancement.
Step 1: do away with Navy, Army and Air Force as separate services and merge everything into one force along the lines of the US Marine Corps. NZ pays lip service to the idea, so actually do it. Get rid of all those different uniforms and ranks, keep it simple.
Currently, NZ rotates the top job through the three branches. Stop that nonsense, have one top person in charge and let them keep that job until replaced by someone better or they retire. Think continuity and a clear direction.
Step 2: Reconfigure bases now everything is merged together.
Close down
Devonport
Whenuapai
Linton
Trentham
Woodbourne
Burnham
Retain
Ohakea
Waiouru - use it for exercises only, de-escalate as a base
Lake Tekapo
Other facilities not mentioned, or relocate and modernise
Build
A large base on the Kaipara harbour around where the United States set up during the Second World War (if not viable; then Opononi or Manukau, in any case west coast Northland or Auckland, not east coast). Think along the lines of Camp Pendleton. The Kaipara Harbour is shallow and plagued by tricky sandbars so difficult for an enemy to penetrate (dredge the channels). Devonport naval base is located on the Waitemata Harbour, a deep water port on the east coast and easily accessed for commercial shipping. Any student of history will know the east coast was mined during the Second World War and a ship was sunk (RMS Niagara). Why would NZ have its warships in that harbour or along the east coast?
The Kaipara base would also replace Whenuapai and the North Island army bases apart from Waiouru which would be used for exercises, rather like Salisbury plain.
The Marlborough Sounds should also be utilised more effectively (see below). You'll notice I'm putting things along the west coast of NZ, out to the Tasman Sea. There's a reason for this, any aggressor at least has to enter the Tasman to be effective. Why make things easy for the enemy?
Then build a base up around Niue, or Tonga, well into the Pacific.
Like this:
Devonport ➨
Whenuapai ➨
Linton ➨
Trentham ➨
Woodbourne ➨
Burnham ➨
All these merge into ➽
All these merge into ➽
Pacific Islands base
Kaipara main base all-in-one
Waiouru exercise area
Ohakea air base and land forces
Marlborough Sounds subs and mine warfare
Lake Tekapo exercise area
Town depots/yards, reserves muster
Many of the town depots and facilities are now unsuitable. Take the Christchurch city base HMNZS Pegasus. Look at the US and how they operate reserves, often they base these facilities in light industrial areas with a small office, yard and warehouse. They look like a rental or hire pool. NZ could do much the same and save money overall.
Step 3: Build a proper Navy
New Zealand consists of many islands in the South Pacific. It's territory is vast and claims one of the largest areas of ocean in the world. Most just think of the North and South Islands. But New Zealand extends north to the Tokelau, Cook and Niue Islands, east out to the Chatham Islands, then south down to Antarctica. A big area in other words, which NZ defends with two frigates, a RORO vessel and two offshore patrol vessels. That's pretty much it, and they struggle with that. If you want to laugh you can, but I'm not trying to be funny.
Norway by comparison has seventy, that's 7-0- sea going warships of various configurations, but from a NZ perspective note their five heavy frigates, ice breaker and six submarines. They take mine warfare seriously too.
But wait, Norway is richer. That's right, NZ's GDP is 36% that of Norway, which means NZ should have about 25 warships. Think about it, that sounds about right.
Therefore:
Scrap or Sell
The two Anzac class frigates (now ageing and never equipped with Harpoon - see below)
The RORO
Oiler (old)
Build
2 amphibious warfare ships, utilising helicopters and landing craft, able to conduct opposed landings within the Pacific and able to operate in large swells.
4 frigates
4 submarines
4 corvettes (escorts)
2 oilers
1 dive, mine warfare
1 ice breaker, disaster relief, scientific
Retain
2 offshore patrol
4 inshore patrol
1 dive, mine warfare
Total = 25
Deployed these would form two mini groups, thus each mini group configures:
1 amphibious
2 frigates
2 submarines
1 oiler
2 escort corvettes
As a group the amphibious ship is the heart and in the middle. These ships would be around 20,000 tonnes.
The frigates protect and they must be close to being destroyers, like Norway. The subs prowl, observe and protect while the escort corvettes form the outer patrol.
Some may remember a NZ Minister of Defence in the 1990's by the name of Doug Kidd, suggesting submarines. He must have had a rare moment of clarity. Subs project power far out of proportion to their size and manning levels. Subs mean New Zealand can be unseen, observe without being observed, slip special forces ashore, and be a threat to any enemy. For some odd reason Doug Kidd was shouted down, subs seem to trigger alarm amongst the loose limbed liberals, but in reality they're brilliant and should be taken seriously, Japan's Soryu class submarine is an excellent example.
Base these submarines in the Marlborough Sounds. From there they can slip out into the Tasman or through Cook Strait and into the South Pacific.
The balance, being dive and mine warfare operate where required.
Form a coast guard division within the all-in-one service; they then operate the offshore patrol vessels, inshore patrol, and the ice breaker/scientific vessel. They would also do fisheries protection.
Step 4: Get some force into the air
This is pretty simple, go high and be able to hit. Currently NZ has no, literally no high flying and fast air strike.
The closing down of NZ's Skyhawk air strike capability was the biggest cock-up ever perpetrated on NZ's defences. It never ceases to amaze me how often I hear people talk about this, like it was a sensible decision given the planes were old. They weren't supersonic. Oh no.
Well get a grip NZ. All air combat is conducted at subsonic speeds and to secure your own airspace all you need is a capable aircraft like the Skyhawk. It posed enough of a deterrent to make anyone contemplating something, to think again. Now, there is nothing keeping NZ's airspace safe.
Back in 2005 a nutter got the idea to threaten to fly his plane into the Skytower in Auckland. No means existed to prevent him then and none exists now. The guy got airborne but chickened out, righto, and NZ seems to accept that hoping someone will chicken out is an effective defence strategy.
Scrap
P-3 Orions
C-130 Hercules
Boeing 757's
Add
Drones - for search, patrol and combat. Also invest in drone swarm attack. This is where 10 or so drones simultaneously attack a ship, overwhelming its defences in doing so. The cost of these sort of disposable drones is less than the cost of sea skimming missiles that are often less effective.
Modern airlift - 12 units of modern C-130 Hercules or similar. Consider airlift at least in part which can fly to Antarctica and back without a point of no return (the C-130 is limited by range); this means procuring at least two C-17 Globemasters if they can be found.
Additional helicopters - 16 combat types for the amphibious vessels (8 on each), plus a further 8 larger helicopters such as the Chinook (enough helicopters exist in service right now to make up the balance).
Modern passenger aircraft less than 10 years old, the current 757's break down all the time.
The thinking here is NZ needs to have some strike capability, the drones can do that, they're also more effective in the search role, being able to see through cloud and to operate at night, spending much longer over any area being looked at. Then add more air lift and combat helicopters to cover the new vessels.
Step 5: Land forces to be amphibious
The land forces should be up to brigade strength and able to operate alone. That is, fully self-contained, not having to ask the Australians or anyone else for help. More to the point, NZ should be able to keep a brigade in the field for months at a time. That means they need twice the number of personnel they have now. Then when those numbers are up, any equipment they use must be suitable for amphibious operations. Currently - not really. They can't wade ashore very easily at all.
Step 6: Use missiles too
If it's a missile get interested in it. Missiles are brilliant. New Zealand hasn't embraced Harpoon. Well, wise up NZ, and join the 21st century. Together with the use of drones, an effective air force could be quite easily obtained.
******
There you have it. What I've suggested isn't cheap. Security never is. The only time you don't regret spending the money is right after a failed burglary when they caught the bad guys. Defence of NZ would be no different, just dig deep and take a long breath. That is of course, unless NZ prefers being a lapdog to someone else. My guess is New Zealanders don't like the idea of being someone's lapdog, but I could be wrong. I prefer to think Kiwis were just lead by stupid people. Kiwis themselves are not stupid. At least I don't think so.
The way I see this force operating is like this; with the large base in Northland, it becomes cheaper to operate and helps develop that depressed province. And with a base farther up into the Pacific islands, NZ can react to anything going on up there, whether disaster relief or helping against insurgency or civil unrest.
The two mini naval groups operate in rotation. One in port and one at sea at any one time. And my hierarchy is Sea > Air > Land in that order. New Zealand is surrounded by ocean and sea power comes first, followed closely by air power.
With the decline in NZ's military, young people have drifted away and they're just not interested in joining the forces any longer. Provide the right structure, do things that are meaningful, and they'll get energised again and join up. Train them and think about post military life. The US has the GI Bill. NZ needs to look at that and see what they can do similarly. But note, the young are not stupid, they see ads on the TV with people jumping out of planes and they know that right now, it's all bullshit.
( Where I say build, NZ does the job or a large part of it, where I say add these are acquired or NZ provides a minor part of the build; does everything need to be brand new? Not necessarily if good secondhand is available).
Edit to add: This week (8-14 Jan 2017) Stuff reported Japanese reports that NZ is shopping for new aircraft: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/88301398/defence-force-denies-it-has-started-negotiations-with-japan-over-aircraft-order
NZ deny of course, but who would you believe? Oh that's right, the Japanese are to be believed. It looks like NZ favours the Kawasaki P-1 and C-2. Fair enough, they share parts, but I still maintain drones like the MQ-9 Reaper make more sense than a P-1 or P-8. But heh, the fly boys have to have something to get airborne with, that'd be driving their thinking. The C-2 on the other hand is pretty good, read about it here.
Further edit to add (13 July 2018): NZ is buying the P-8. Four units, they're proven functional and there is interoperability with Australia. So fair enough, go with that (you can detect the 'my god they're buying something' reaction). Drones are a little problematic at the moment so I'm told, but the US Navy is working on a Naval example, suitable for naval conditions. Pays to keep looking at that carefully I suggest. The C-2 transporter does not work on unimproved airstrips. True, but the obvious here is that NZ buys both the C-130 and C-2. The C-130 as the utility, the C-2 to replace the 757's, also for flights to Antarctica as it has no point of no return and works well in snow and ice, and it can fit the NH90 helicopters NZ uses. It's not an either/or situation.
( Where I say build, NZ does the job or a large part of it, where I say add these are acquired or NZ provides a minor part of the build; does everything need to be brand new? Not necessarily if good secondhand is available).
Edit to add: This week (8-14 Jan 2017) Stuff reported Japanese reports that NZ is shopping for new aircraft: http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/88301398/defence-force-denies-it-has-started-negotiations-with-japan-over-aircraft-order
NZ deny of course, but who would you believe? Oh that's right, the Japanese are to be believed. It looks like NZ favours the Kawasaki P-1 and C-2. Fair enough, they share parts, but I still maintain drones like the MQ-9 Reaper make more sense than a P-1 or P-8. But heh, the fly boys have to have something to get airborne with, that'd be driving their thinking. The C-2 on the other hand is pretty good, read about it here.
January 06, 2017
Australia Needs To Wake Up
The land of the racist xenophobes, otherwise known as Australia, home to that prize wanker Russell Crowe the New Zealander who pretends to be an Australian, is now calling for immigration restrictions on Kiwis.
Admittedly the call comes from the loony One Nation party so it can't be taken too seriously. This is the party founded by former fish and chip shop owner Pauline Hanson. But my guess is many Australians share the same opinions as One Nation. If there's a racist bandwagon to be on, then Australians queue up for more. They're completely equal opportunity racists.
What smarts is these One Nation people think New Zealand should be taught a lesson over its UN Security Council vote which effectively sanctioned Israel (the US wisely abstained). No-one should be surprised by the Australian reaction as one racist generally backs another and here we have yet another example. You just know that Australians really want to drown all those refugees on their flimsy boats fleeing persecution; not take them to Nauru (come on they should all be rehoused in the Australian suburbs, the food would improve and Australia would get some work done ).
>> Read Here <<
Maybe Australians should get out a map and check where they are on the globe. The last time I checked they were surrounded by enemies and people who hate them, with their one friend being little old New Zealand, sitting neatly at their back door. Get New Zealand offside and they're completely surrounded. True, given its small population and large landmass it is only time before Australia is overrun by more enterprising and interesting cultures, but it should at least realise this fact and do something to stem the tide. But no, they want to piss off their only friend and support a monstrous regime in Israel.
Admittedly the call comes from the loony One Nation party so it can't be taken too seriously. This is the party founded by former fish and chip shop owner Pauline Hanson. But my guess is many Australians share the same opinions as One Nation. If there's a racist bandwagon to be on, then Australians queue up for more. They're completely equal opportunity racists.
What smarts is these One Nation people think New Zealand should be taught a lesson over its UN Security Council vote which effectively sanctioned Israel (the US wisely abstained). No-one should be surprised by the Australian reaction as one racist generally backs another and here we have yet another example. You just know that Australians really want to drown all those refugees on their flimsy boats fleeing persecution; not take them to Nauru (come on they should all be rehoused in the Australian suburbs, the food would improve and Australia would get some work done ).
>> Read Here <<
Maybe Australians should get out a map and check where they are on the globe. The last time I checked they were surrounded by enemies and people who hate them, with their one friend being little old New Zealand, sitting neatly at their back door. Get New Zealand offside and they're completely surrounded. True, given its small population and large landmass it is only time before Australia is overrun by more enterprising and interesting cultures, but it should at least realise this fact and do something to stem the tide. But no, they want to piss off their only friend and support a monstrous regime in Israel.
Innovative Water Export Scheme
I've been saying it for a long time and now it looks like someone has got the idea over the line - almost.
The West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand is one of the wettest places on earth. The rain runs right off the mountains into the sea. It's pure fresh water untouched by industry. The water is suitable for export as ships can park right off the coast for loading.
>> The Scheme <<
A company has ambitious plans to pipe glacial water from rugged South Westland mountains directly onto tanker ships headed overseas.
Plans such as these help combat global climate change if the water is used right. If the water is exported to help green the deserts, then moisture from plant growth would help cloud formation and hence precipitation around the earth in areas where water is badly needed. The volume they're talking about taking is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the total rainfall on the West Coast.
The West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand is one of the wettest places on earth. The rain runs right off the mountains into the sea. It's pure fresh water untouched by industry. The water is suitable for export as ships can park right off the coast for loading.
>> The Scheme <<
A company has ambitious plans to pipe glacial water from rugged South Westland mountains directly onto tanker ships headed overseas.
Plans such as these help combat global climate change if the water is used right. If the water is exported to help green the deserts, then moisture from plant growth would help cloud formation and hence precipitation around the earth in areas where water is badly needed. The volume they're talking about taking is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the total rainfall on the West Coast.
January 01, 2017
George Soros: Open Society Needs Defending
Interesting views from George Soros on where we are headed:
https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/open-society-needs-defending-by-george-soros-2016-12\
After the Crash of 2008, the EU and the eurozone became increasingly dysfunctional. Prevailing conditions became far removed from those prescribed by the Maastricht Treaty, but treaty change became progressively more difficult, and eventually impossible, because it couldn’t be ratified. The eurozone became the victim of antiquated laws; much-needed reforms could be enacted only by finding loopholes in them. That is how institutions became increasingly complicated, and electorates became alienated.
The process is likely irreversible in my opinion. However, the challenges are probably a good thing. Europe and the rest of the first world have become burdened by bureaucracy and politicians who don't actually believe in anything. All they care about are their perks. The way I see it, democracy is likely to be strengthened by these changes (Brexit and the eventual collapse of the EU); at long last the voter is cracking the whip.
https://www.project-syndicate.org/onpoint/open-society-needs-defending-by-george-soros-2016-12\
After the Crash of 2008, the EU and the eurozone became increasingly dysfunctional. Prevailing conditions became far removed from those prescribed by the Maastricht Treaty, but treaty change became progressively more difficult, and eventually impossible, because it couldn’t be ratified. The eurozone became the victim of antiquated laws; much-needed reforms could be enacted only by finding loopholes in them. That is how institutions became increasingly complicated, and electorates became alienated.
The rise of anti-EU movements further impeded the functioning of institutions. And these forces of disintegration received a powerful boost in 2016, first from Brexit, then from the election of Trump in the US, and on December 4 from Italian voters’ rejection, by a wide margin, of constitutional reforms.
Democracy is now in crisis. Even the US, the world’s leading democracy, elected a con artist and would-be dictator as its president. Although Trump has toned down his rhetoric since he was elected, he has changed neither his behavior nor his advisers. His cabinet comprises incompetent extremists and retired generals.
(snip)
The same is likely to happen in the European election season in 2017 in the Netherlands, Germany, and Italy. In France, the two leading contenders are close to Putin and eager to appease him. If either wins, Putin’s dominance of Europe will become a fait accompli.
I hope that Europe’s leaders and citizens alike will realize that this endangers their way of life and the values on which the EU was founded. The trouble is that the method Putin has used to destabilize democracy cannot be used to restore respect for facts and a balanced view of reality.
The process is likely irreversible in my opinion. However, the challenges are probably a good thing. Europe and the rest of the first world have become burdened by bureaucracy and politicians who don't actually believe in anything. All they care about are their perks. The way I see it, democracy is likely to be strengthened by these changes (Brexit and the eventual collapse of the EU); at long last the voter is cracking the whip.