Denver Nuggets v Cleveland Cavaliers - Statistics

Today's NBA game between the Nuggets and the Cavaliers produced a set of figures even more stark than the earlier Warriors v Grizzlies match-up.

I followed the Nuggets v Cavaliers game from the 8:10 mark in the third quarter, until the end of the game. This was to compare apples with apples. This time I made a note of open looks, not just when shots were taken.

From the 8:10 mark in the third quarter, until game end; the Denver Nuggets took a shot from an offensive set that involved three or fewer passes, 100% of the time. 47% of those shots were completely open looks.

The Cleveland Cavaliers took such a shot 99% of the time, 45% of those being completely open looks.

This 'open look' figure would be higher if I included lay-ups, which I decided not to include, only set or jump shots in open play.

The Nuggets started out 13 points down and ended the game 16 points adrift. This has got to be a failed strategy then, that of bombing away without considering whether the shot is truly on or not. But then, were the Nuggets trying to win? Or were they maintaining an open style of play with a lot of shots, in order to entertain, with the result being secondary.

During the monitored period of play there were no suspect calls of the type I've mentioned; that is where the referee relieves the pressure for a favoured attacking team by calling an off-the-ball foul, but then the offense generally flowed for both sides.

The only dodgy call was in the third quarter when the Cavaliers Kyrie Irving was called out of bounds. He had stepped out but then put a foot back in, the other foot being in the air, when he regained control of the ball. Someone may like to correct me if I'm wrong, but generally in basketball, if you're out of bounds, you re-establish yourself inbound by having a piece of you touching the floor, which Irving had actually done. I figured this incorrect call was designed to hand the Nuggets possession and keep the game close coming up to half time. But then I could be getting paranoid.

I'm going to stick my neck out and call this matter proven. There appears a modus operandi whereby players are left open most often on the second or third pass of an offensive set, and when behind on the scoreboard the tactics employed rarely change, the spectacle must be maintained. The teams are not playing to win.

What tactics should the Nuggets have employed? The approach that seemed to get them the best results was to slow their offense down and feed their big man, Jokic. He would either draw shooting fouls or get a close two points. They did not do this often enough, preferring to try and look good instead. Then on defense they did not foul enough. They needed to send Cavaliers players to the free throw line more often. But then my approach lacks pizazz, hmm.

Golden State Warriors v Memphis Grizzlies - Statistics

I was watching the Warriors v Grizzlies game and it occurred to me that this game conformed with my claim that NBA games are rigged. I started tracking two of my claims, that players get easy looks and when the favoured team falters on an offensive play, they're handed the ball back, usually off an off-the-ball foul.

I started taking Stats from the 8:10 mark in the third quarter, the score was 74-60; the Warriors up by 14. I kept tracking the game until the end, 122-107 to the Warriors.

This is the way it looked:

Off all offense which resulted in a shot being made: Memphis took a shot in 3 or fewer passes 92% of the time, while Golden State took a shot 79% of the time.

What I am saying is that room is made for the shooter to get an open look, on average off the second or third pass after the ball crosses the half way line, or from when the ball is passed inbound from the sideline in the front court. The next step will be to refine this some more, separating out open looks from contested looks. But I think this is pretty conclusive and prima facie evidence of rigging.

I was also looking for suspicious calls when the favoured team faltered on an offensive play, and this happened twice. The first time was when an off-the-ball foul was called during the third quarter. Golden State had fumbled, their offense had no structure and the referee quickly blew his whistle and gave the ball back to Golden State.

The next time something happened; it was the fourth quarter and Kevin Durant was fouled forcing a shot from beyond the three point line and he went to the line to shoot three. This was a dumb foul as the Warriors offense had stalled and the shot clock was running down. Was there collusion? Hard to say in this case, I didn't get to hear if Durant called to the defender to move into him. But the earlier example, where the referee relieved the pressure for the Warriors was exactly what I'm saying happens frequently.

Memphis finished the game roughly where they stood with 8:10 to go in the third quarter. They took many shots, most with no chance of success, they simply did not want to win. Meanwhile, Golden State expected to win and the referees obliged.

If this game wasn't rigged, how should Memphis have approached the game? They should have made every possession count that's what, not flung shots will nilly. They were within reach if they stayed disciplined and picked away at the score. Players that experienced know to pick up all shooters, fight over all screens or if you have to switch then do so quickly, not leave wide open space for shooters to line up.

I'll follow one or two more games, but I know what the result is going to be, shooting takes precedence over defense; the spectacle being more important than the result. The teams set out to entertain, not to win. And seeing as there must be a winner, then the favoured team usually wins, the referees see to that.

Trump's Executive Orders

Just being the devil's advocate here, but I've thought of an obvious solution to Donald Trump's problem with the court effectively suspending his executive order banning people from seven specific countries in Africa and the Middle East,

My solution would be; why does he not just issue another executive order. This time, include a couple of countries in the new order that are Christian or Buddhist majority countries. Say, Myanmar (Burma) for its human rights breaches and recent ethnic cleansing, and Kenya for the problems it's having and the type of terror there. By doing this, the challenge that his order is unconstitutional subsides, clearly the order would then be targeting terror and other forms of violence, not religion

Then if that order was challenged, start issuing orders every week, and then every day, changing the wording each time, adding and subtracting countries until opposition runs out of energy or money, or both.

Nasty eh.

Edge TV, Get Better or Shut Down

Pity the New Zealand television viewer relying on free to air broadcasts. What they get served up is genuinely dreadful and Edge TV, the television arm of a radio station, is the worst on offer amongst a bad bunch.

Edge, I have a twelve year old who says they can do better than you, and you know what, that twelve year old isn't wrong. I remind this child that it is a bunch of eight year old children running the station, that's why it is so bad. I'm probably being a bit harsh on the abilities of those just eight years old.

Here's an idea, how about some variety, not those boring songs you insist on regurgitating. My twelve year old suggests Elvis Presley. Edge, did you not know the youngsters are into older stuff these days.

Win Great Prizes

The first contest is underway. You can win a paperback copy of my second novel by answering the two questions correctly on the prizes link here:

http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/p/win-prizes.html

The deadline for entries is Feb 10th 2017. Get both answers right and you win. One book for each person with a correct entry, no duplicate entries thank you.

The book cover looks like this...

Was Super Bowl 51 Rigged?

I do not know about American Football. To me it looks like a heavily simplified version of Rugby League. So anyway, I was watching some of the Super Bowl 51, the game drags on for far too long for my liking, and then the players just push one another, there might be some game played but if you blink you'd miss it.

Then I did watch the final quarter and the new England Patriots made an amazing comeback. They miraculously levelled the score 28-28. Then in overtime, they won the toss and got the first possession, ending the game from there by scoring the first touch down.

If the game was rigged, that coin toss would be rigged, no? Was there an independent third party inspecting the coin as it landed and calling heads or tails? There was only the ref and players there.

The part fans are claiming proves the game was rigged was when the Falcons were up by eight and in possession, someone on YouTube describes it like this....

It was obvious. The Falcons had the ball with a few minutes left, up by 8, and within field goal range. It would have been a chip shot from where they were. Instead of running the ball until fourth down, then kicking a field goal to go up by 11, they opted to pass, the QB ran backwards and got sacked for a huge loss. They were still in field goal range. It would have been a 53 yard field goal from there. They could have run the ball on 3rd down and hoped for maybe a 48 yard attempt on fourth. Instead, they opted to pass and they got a holding penalty, forcing them out of field goal range and forcing them to eventually punt. This is all the proof I need. The Falcons had the game in the bag and the play calling made it too obvious. It's like the person calling the plays wanted to lose the game. This happens all the time in the NFL. I don't know how nobody notices this.

American football fans, defend your sport or condemn it. The Falcons performed an incredible collapse. They even gave up the extra two points the Patriots needed. It could be just about the biggest collapse in professional sports final few minutes. Was it fixed?

I don't know, to me it looked like the All Blacks losing to France in the quarter-final of the 2007 Rugby World Cup. Instead of positioning for a winning drop kick, they went for the try and came up short. Not rigging, just stupidity in that case.

Buying a book through Amazon

I gave this a go and I won't be going through the exercise again unless the title is completely unavailable locally, either new or secondhand, and I'd have to really want it as well.

I bought a book from SuperBookSellers-- Turns out they're untrustworthy. What happened is I bought a book but realised I didn't need it and cancelled within the hour of placing an order. I followed up a few hours after that. NO response from SuperBookSellers--

Then I got confirmation the order was being processed. Days later they replied to my two cancellation requests by saying the order had been processed already so they could do nothing. The arrival time for this book shows as April 6, and it was shipped February 3. The very same book is sitting in bookshops all over town.

I don't believe a word of it. SuperBookSellers-- just don't want to cancel anything and are forcing through the order. They don't even have the damn book, they must be procuring it, hence the long lead time, meanwhile real retailers have the book in stock.

Will anything actually show up? That's the next question. It would be pointless returning the goods as you can see what they're like, they can't be trusted. So I'll sell the book on Trade Me in New Zealand or something instead, for whatever I can get for it. That is, if it actually shows up.

Warning: SuperBookSellers-- are not to be recommended, they're sharp, don't say you weren't warned.

[Edit to add: the book showed up. I still won't be dealing with them.]

How I think the NBA is rigged

I've been following the NBA for decades, right back to when I first learnt to play basketball in fact. In the early days, from where I lived, it wasn't easy to get information. It was all about Rugby and Cricket. But over the years that changed and now there are a lot of games on the television and the internet is a godsend.

The games are brilliant entertainment. The skill is exceptional, no doubt about it. But here's the rub, I think the games are manipulated for certain outcomes and the below is my take on how that is achieved.

Firstly, to address this, we need to ask ourselves what the NBA is and what it is not. It is an entertainment business, it is not there to organise fair competition between participants. That said, there is a type of player favoured, no secret this, they must have good shooting skills and be athletic. That generally means taller players, with elevation. But first they must be able to shoot. In this equation, defensive skills are secondary.

What you don't find are teams full of 5'8" defensive specialists. Hmm? Is that a marketable commodity?

Here are the four ways I feel the games are orchestrated. There must be either an express arrangement or at the very least a tacit understanding.

1. Shooters get good looks

That's right, I think the top entertainers are given room to shoot. Time and again players hang off known lethal shooters. Space appears made on the second or third pass in-bounded in the front court, or the second or third pass once the ball comes over the half way line. This is not all the time, but often enough that I've had to question it. The ball handler brings the ball up, then passes off > pressure > receiver passes  > second receiver then gets an easy look and he shoots.

The reason I feel they do it like this is not to look too lame. If there is an easy shot every time first pass, well, questions would be asked.

2. Do not pick up in transition

If there is a turnover, the team that is now attacking seems to get an open shot. This happens a lot. Defenders do not pick up players as they come over half way, especially when their opponent is on a fast break. Players should know to shut down fast breaks, but instead defenders routinely allow them. What happens is defenders retreat into the restricted area, seemingly trying to prevent a drive to the hoop. This rarely works as either a shot is open from the outside or the attackers drive and draw a foul.

I think they do not pick up players in transition in order to promote an open style of play, a free-wheeling and shooting style. High scoring games are achieved this way.

What I'm describing is counter intuitive; if the defense put pressure on the perimeter shooters, they'd shut down the chance of a three point shot. Yes, this leaves the basket open and a cutter could score two points, but in this equation you've saved one point. So it makes sense to deny three pointers, not leave players open, and in so doing open the team up to fouls when players do drive or cut to the hoop. It makes statistical sense to instead pick up all players as they come over half way, especially if they're on the break, and to deny them easy looks from beyond the arc.

It even makes statistical sense to foul players on the break in open play, to prevent them getting set. But this rarely happens. What does happen is players retreat to the keyhole and wait, leaving the outside shot open. This happens often enough to be noticeable.

3. Referees collude

There is a body of evidence to show how referees dictate the outcome of games. The most valuable research has been in professional Rugby League. Referees there decide games according to where and when they blow the whistle. The team not favoured is always penalised when hard on defense or hard on attack and this happens most often earlier in the game. This has the effect of either applying more pressure or relieving the pressure on their favoured opponent, and dictates how the game will develop - this is Rugby League (the penalty count is evened up later once the game is effectively over, with a lot of paddy-whack penalties that amount to nothing for the unfavoured team).

In the NBA I believe they do something similar. Referees call off-the-ball fouls on the defender that is less favoured. They do this if the favoured team has not made headway on their first offensive attempt. Thus, the favoured team often gets a second chance.

At the other end of the court, the unfavoured team gets no such luck, they're just as likely to be denied fouls or they'll be called for charging.

4. Not slowing the game down

NBA games must always be up tempo and high scoring encounters. When was the last time two teams scored less than 70 points each? More than ten years ago? (I looked this up, I think it was 2002).

Surely, as a game tactic, it pays to slow the game down to frustrate the opposition and tire them out. But you know what I see too often; a team that wins the ball off a turnover, takes an irresponsible shot early, instead of holding the ball up and making the other team work on defense some more. Bear it in mind next time you watch an NBA game, how often do you see a team having won the ball quickly off a turnover, take a quick long range and low percentage shot and often before their own players can get under the basket for offensive rebounds.

Think about the cumulative effect of irresponsible shot selection. If the team on attack quickly loses the ball and is now suddenly on defense, the team that has won possession should want to slow the game down, to drag the opposition back down the court, if a quick layup is not on, or if there isn't a two on one happening (at minimum a nice high percentage shot from the top of the key). Even if they fail to score, slowing the game down once the easy basket is not available, has the effect of making the opposition defend one more time for the duration of the shot clock, and have them up and down the court one more time each way.

But if an irresponsible shot is attempted, it has to be made good, or the effect is to give the opposition a rest, while their big men wait down the court for their guards to bring the ball up. They are spared having to make the trip back into their own half.

Failure to slow the game when it is tactically appropriate is obvious in the NBA, that's how they achieve high scoring games, with pizzazz. The actual outcome, winner and loser, is secondary to the spectacle, I believe. But seeing as there must be a winner, the team preferred is that which represents the best scoring potential, not the best team defensively.

Does the NBA favour teams from the big media markets? I see no evidence of that. If this was true and the NBA was chasing audience above all else, then the Knickerbockers and the Lakers would be on top, but they aren't. No, each team sits in its own market and the NBA has strong business reasons to see all teams prosper, having their moment in the sun. The way I see this league, they favour the team that provides the best spectacle, and they engineer a certain type of open game over alternatives which are often more defensive.

There you have it, there may be something I'm missing, tell me how I'm wrong.

Divide Australia Up

I've been laughing about Donald Trump having strong words with Australia's Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull (or Trumble, either will do, no worries). Trump is so naive at times, doesn't he realise that Australia is like a spoilt child. They want to have their cake and eat it.

To be fair, there is another side to the story. Australia buys a lot of military equipment from the US. Big ticket items like F/A 18's, Abrams M1 main battle tanks and Harpoon missiles to name a few. In doing their deal with Obama, whereby the US takes refugees held on Pacific Islands and refused entry to Australia, they were effectively calling in a debt.

Well Trump doesn't see it like that and doesn't seem to care. On that score, while there is a lot to dislike about the man, this time he has got it right.

If we take this seriously and look at Australia, there is no reason for it to exist. It is an anachronism. They've conducted genocide against the indigenous people, raped the environment and want the world to thank them for it. Well enough, let's tell them they don't get to keep all those resources and land they're sitting on when useful hard working and thrifty people need it.

My solution is this; let India have Western Australia, plenty of room there for India's huge population to grow. Indonesia can take the middle of Australia. From the Western Australia eastern border through to the Great Dividing Range. They need all of this as a lot of it is flood plain so of no real use. They'd use mostly the fertile area to the north and very south.

Then lastly, New Zealand takes all of Australia east of the Great Dividing Range and Tasmania. That way the cities like Brisbane and Sydney stay within an English legal framework, but the indigenous people get their rights respected. New Zealand is very good at all this indigenous stuff, reconciliation, you name it, they've been doing it for a century or more.

It's a win/win all round. Australia would cease to exist, as it should.

Free Virtual Router - Watch Out

I decided to turn one of my computers into a virtual router. What this means is your computer becomes a hotspot and you can transmit the internet to anyone that connects. There are two ways you can set this up, the first way is to perform command prompts as administrator, setting up a local area network. This is very effective and you can connect up to 100 devices wirelessly. The problem is that when you turn your computer off, then turn it back on and want this hotspot again, you have to do those command prompts all over again.

One way around that is to install so-called free software which lets you perform the above task and have the hotspot activate as you boot up. Fine and dandy, but I have tried six such programs, with mixed results and here's the goss':

1. OSToto

I downloaded the file from their recommended link and it would not set up or run. Nothing. I uninstalled and tried again. Same result, won't finish installation.

I should mention that I'm on an Hp 15 running Windows 10. There should be no problems.

2. Connectify

I gave this a go after getting rid of OSToto. It works, but the free version has limitations. The main limitation from where I'm sitting is it turns itself off after 30 minutes even with a client connected - that's very inconvenient. Annoying eh.  The hotspot just stops right in the middle of the client doing something. And if someone turns their connected client computer off and goes away for an hour, even if the device transmitting the hotspot is still running they'll have lost their connection and the 'mother' computer needs to click 'create hotspot' again.

Then less annoying are pop up ads that try to get you to buy their Max version which enables you to do other stuff, most likely you'll never need that stuff though.

Basically, this program cannot be taken seriously and will have to go too, at some point.

But it does all work. Oh, I set Connectify to start up on boot-up, but it doesn't always start automatically, that has to be policed as well.

3. MyPublicWifi

Do not download this, it is almost a Virus, or Malware, it is really bad. What this rubbish does is install, then you cannot change the SSID or transmitted name, it is locked at MyPublicWifi, and you cannot change the key or password, it is always 12345678. Holy crap, you're sharing with the world. Then when you try to uninstall it won't let you do that. Getting it out of your system is a nightmare. It took me an hour. Yeah, this is total crap, beware.

Now when you searched for 'virtual router' in Google did those techie clever dick sites tell you any of this? Hmm? No they didn't did they. So I'm using Connectify, it isn't the best but it works.  I'm looking for something reliable that stays up all the time, transmitting lovely stuff, securely, privately and is stable. Good luck with that one.

Now I do also have a WiFi connection from the router, I decided to run both, I can't be down you see, if the WiFi from router stuffs up then I can connect via ethernet and run from the virtual hotspot. Get the idea? Not that easy in fact, the devil is always in the detail.

Then onward, ever the optimist...

4. PCTuneUp Wifi Hotspot Creator

This was rubbish, it did not want to load, kept getting an error message, and it downloaded some ad malware to boot. Avoid this one.

5. WinHotspot

Would not start, was in a perpetual state of 'stopped working.'

6. Virtual Router Manager

Finally got somewhere, this actually works. It stays connected. Problem is though, it does not start on boot-up, you have to do that. But once started it works fine. Initially it did not want to start, gave the 'stopped working' message, but after a couple of tries it started and worked. It's very simple, just does the job it's meant to. We'll see if it lasts, I'm not holding my breath.

So of the six tried out, two worked; Connectify can be set to start on boot-up and this works most of the time. But you're limited to 30 minute sessions and you get ads delivered to you. Virtual Router Manager is simpler, works okay but not does not start on boot-up, stays connected it appears, and does the job with no ads or other nasties infecting your computer. Then you have the command prompts approach, which is better than most, I feel.

By all means head over to the Discussion Forum to discuss this.

Chris Trotter on Endless Cycles

I thought the following article by left-wing political commentator, Chris Trotter, to be somewhat thought provoking, you can read it here:

http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.co.nz/2017/01/endless-cycles.html

Trump's Big Fail

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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