The incoming Labour-NZ First government has just announced a one billion dollar regional development initiative. This comes on top of Labour's first big promise, 100,000 new homes. With a Labour government a construction boom always follows. It's as sure as any certainty you can get in business.
So everyone will have to put up with the Greens stomping on mining. We'll all just have to wait to deal with them later, hopefully in three years time at the next election when it becomes obvious even to the few who voted for them that they're just communists re-branded. And New Zealand will have to put up with all the political correctness, like low flow shower heads and long life light bulbs. But that will be a small price to pay really, when you consider how much money and jobs are going to be on offer with all the construction that will be occurring.
And don't feel sorry for National. Don't miss them for a minute. They didn't handle the economy that well, all that happened was they inherited the work done by the very capable Michael Cullen. Then they did stupid things like stopping contributions to the Cullen Fund. They hated poor people and preferred to see them living out of old cars instead of providing them affordable accommodation. The Christchurch rebuild stalled, Auckland got its own way on everything, the army shrivelled to almost nothing. The list goes on and on.
Simon "Bill" English - resign and go and get your first real job.
October 24, 2017
October 19, 2017
Labour - NZ First Coalition Government
The numbers are in and New Zealand is going to have a new government made up of Labour and NZ First in a formal coalition arrangement with the Greens supporting on confidence and supply. National will be the opposition yet be the largest single bloc of votes with 56 seats in the House of Representatives.
How did this happen? Three things to consider, and please note most pundits have got this completely wrong because, quite simply, they don't know what they're talking about.
The first thing to remember is that both Labour and NZ First campaigned on effecting change. National were seeking a fourth term in office and played an undermining of all others strategy without a support brand of their own to help get them over the line. This was doomed to failure from the start. Simon "Bill" English is a grade A loser as I've said all along. What National needed was National Lite, or Labour Right to help them out, not the largely discredited ACT party.
The second part of the equation lies within NZ First. Contrary to many widely held opinions, NZ First is made up of approximately 60% old-school Labour. At NZ First meetings they can be oft heard using terms like 'what about the workers' or some such. These people joined NZ First as they hate the modern Labour party and its membership of teachers, nurses and social workers. When listening to the modern Labour party all the old-school can hear is flub-flub-flub. So they go to NZ First to join others of like mind then after the meeting head to the Pub to play darts and drink beer. Only about 20% of NZ First are old-Nats, and they are there because the new National party is an undemocratic institution that tells its membership what to think all the time. Policy descends from the top with new-Nats. Then lastly 20% of NZ First are new to politics. They are often Asian, Indians mostly, drawn to NZ First policies of regional development and looking after small businesses.
The NZ First membership is not old either, forget that thinking as National has a much older average age of membership by comparison. Winston Peters would be mindful of his party make-up when deciding who to go with.
Then lastly we have what Labour and National are like to deal with. We have to consider past dealings. National are dishonest in their dealings, they give a lot away up front but then look to undermine and stab their partner in the back. However Labour, while hard to get concessions from, are more likely to honour any arrangement. Compare 1996 with 2005 to see my point from Mr Peters perspective.
It's a no-brainer really and I'm glad I got this right. It's going to be funny seeing Paula Bennett on the AM show with Duncan Garner, no more Princess-waiting-to-be-Queen behaviour from her. That is, if she even shows up again.
How did this happen? Three things to consider, and please note most pundits have got this completely wrong because, quite simply, they don't know what they're talking about.
The first thing to remember is that both Labour and NZ First campaigned on effecting change. National were seeking a fourth term in office and played an undermining of all others strategy without a support brand of their own to help get them over the line. This was doomed to failure from the start. Simon "Bill" English is a grade A loser as I've said all along. What National needed was National Lite, or Labour Right to help them out, not the largely discredited ACT party.
The second part of the equation lies within NZ First. Contrary to many widely held opinions, NZ First is made up of approximately 60% old-school Labour. At NZ First meetings they can be oft heard using terms like 'what about the workers' or some such. These people joined NZ First as they hate the modern Labour party and its membership of teachers, nurses and social workers. When listening to the modern Labour party all the old-school can hear is flub-flub-flub. So they go to NZ First to join others of like mind then after the meeting head to the Pub to play darts and drink beer. Only about 20% of NZ First are old-Nats, and they are there because the new National party is an undemocratic institution that tells its membership what to think all the time. Policy descends from the top with new-Nats. Then lastly 20% of NZ First are new to politics. They are often Asian, Indians mostly, drawn to NZ First policies of regional development and looking after small businesses.
The NZ First membership is not old either, forget that thinking as National has a much older average age of membership by comparison. Winston Peters would be mindful of his party make-up when deciding who to go with.
Then lastly we have what Labour and National are like to deal with. We have to consider past dealings. National are dishonest in their dealings, they give a lot away up front but then look to undermine and stab their partner in the back. However Labour, while hard to get concessions from, are more likely to honour any arrangement. Compare 1996 with 2005 to see my point from Mr Peters perspective.
It's a no-brainer really and I'm glad I got this right. It's going to be funny seeing Paula Bennett on the AM show with Duncan Garner, no more Princess-waiting-to-be-Queen behaviour from her. That is, if she even shows up again.
October 14, 2017
DIY Investing
Back in June I picked PACCAR Inc., here: http://kenhorlor.blogspot.com/2017/06/paccar-inc.html
Had my readers taken heed and invested, their investment would be up 16%. Check out my portfolio: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/portfolio.aspx?fid=521
What I say is this: take your own counsel and buy shares directly through a broker. Do not buy into funds, or funds of funds, and eschew financial advice from so-called professionals. All that happens when following investment advisers and funds is they'll take away most of the gains in fees. Do It Yourself, be conservative and look for value.
Had my readers taken heed and invested, their investment would be up 16%. Check out my portfolio: http://www.siliconinvestor.com/portfolio.aspx?fid=521
What I say is this: take your own counsel and buy shares directly through a broker. Do not buy into funds, or funds of funds, and eschew financial advice from so-called professionals. All that happens when following investment advisers and funds is they'll take away most of the gains in fees. Do It Yourself, be conservative and look for value.
October 11, 2017
NZ General Election 2017: The Numbers
This is how things stack up in the House of Representatives in New Zealand following the final count of the General Election 2017.
National: 56 seats, Labour 46, NZ First 9, Greens 8, ACT 1.
Possible coalitions therefore, in order of likelihood (need 61 seats to form a government). Note that ACT has become irrelevant:
National 56 + NZ First 9 = 65
Labour + Greens + NZ First = 63
Labour + NZ First 55 + Greens on Confidence and Supply = 63
National 56 + NZ First on Confidence and Supply = 65
National + Labour = 102
National + Greens = 64
If we take the top three options as being far more likely than the bottom three, then we can see that National are left stranded. Labour are in the box seat with more options for how they form a government. It is worth mentioning that only Labour increased its share of the vote this time round. Everyone else slipped and this must play on the minds of the leaders during negotiations.
National: 56 seats, Labour 46, NZ First 9, Greens 8, ACT 1.
Possible coalitions therefore, in order of likelihood (need 61 seats to form a government). Note that ACT has become irrelevant:
National 56 + NZ First 9 = 65
Labour + Greens + NZ First = 63
Labour + NZ First 55 + Greens on Confidence and Supply = 63
National 56 + NZ First on Confidence and Supply = 65
National + Labour = 102
National + Greens = 64
If we take the top three options as being far more likely than the bottom three, then we can see that National are left stranded. Labour are in the box seat with more options for how they form a government. It is worth mentioning that only Labour increased its share of the vote this time round. Everyone else slipped and this must play on the minds of the leaders during negotiations.
October 10, 2017
Duncan Garner
Duncan Garner's recent rant in a Sunday paper in New Zealand was definitely racist. More telling is that he defended his words on the AM show the next day.
He's all façade. He's also lightweight as he goes on an on and on. Massively. (Yes I'm copying his poor style).
I have found a very good slap down here: https://discrepancie.wordpress.com/2017/10/07/im-not-racist-but-an-open-letter-to-duncan-garner/
I see parallels between Garner's snake imagery and that used by Fritz Hippler in the Nazi propaganda film The Eternal Jew (1940). Hippler depicted rats running in the sewers, a clear reference to the notion of the wandering Jew. Garner doesn't want wandering mobs of the wrong type of person in his queue at Kmart.
He's all façade. He's also lightweight as he goes on an on and on. Massively. (Yes I'm copying his poor style).
I have found a very good slap down here: https://discrepancie.wordpress.com/2017/10/07/im-not-racist-but-an-open-letter-to-duncan-garner/
I see parallels between Garner's snake imagery and that used by Fritz Hippler in the Nazi propaganda film The Eternal Jew (1940). Hippler depicted rats running in the sewers, a clear reference to the notion of the wandering Jew. Garner doesn't want wandering mobs of the wrong type of person in his queue at Kmart.
September 29, 2017
Colin Kaepernick: To Take a Knee or Not?
I've been thinking about the issue of NFL players taking a knee during the playing of the US national anthem. The trend was apparently started by Colin Kaepernick of the San Francisco 49ers. Kaepernick is now unemployed and likely to remain so, possibly due to his protests, but contributing to his lack of work must be his playing record. But I digress as the latter point is not the issue I see.
No, what gets me is the position those who do not take a knee get left in. It's a protest that is divisive amongst the team. There is no I in team. Yes, first amendment right to free speech and all that, but wait, this is a professional sport run for profit and NFL rules require players to stand during the anthem. Can these players get away with it? This is the slippery slope argument.
Is this politicising sport? Yes it is, but you could argue simply playing the anthem is political. Why not do away with the anthem altogether and just play a rousing team song? Lame I know, but does the anthem have to be played at every game?
If we accept that doing away with playing of the anthem is not workable, and accept that rules are rules, then the only conclusion must be all players must stand. If they don't, they could have their pay docked and employment terminated for repeated incidents.
When I started thinking about this, you know, I thought I'd come to the conclusion that actions such as taking a knee are fine. But there was no way I could see to justify such protest as it is not in an appropriate forum. Why don't the players leave the stadium and conduct their protest outside? As well, consider all those who have sacrificed their lives for that same anthem and flag, what of them? Standing during the anthem acknowledges all previous sacrifice, it is not an affirmation of injustice now or in the future.
My advice, Donald Trump is right if at times inelegant. Stand during the playing of your national anthem, no matter where you are in the world.
No, what gets me is the position those who do not take a knee get left in. It's a protest that is divisive amongst the team. There is no I in team. Yes, first amendment right to free speech and all that, but wait, this is a professional sport run for profit and NFL rules require players to stand during the anthem. Can these players get away with it? This is the slippery slope argument.
Is this politicising sport? Yes it is, but you could argue simply playing the anthem is political. Why not do away with the anthem altogether and just play a rousing team song? Lame I know, but does the anthem have to be played at every game?
If we accept that doing away with playing of the anthem is not workable, and accept that rules are rules, then the only conclusion must be all players must stand. If they don't, they could have their pay docked and employment terminated for repeated incidents.
When I started thinking about this, you know, I thought I'd come to the conclusion that actions such as taking a knee are fine. But there was no way I could see to justify such protest as it is not in an appropriate forum. Why don't the players leave the stadium and conduct their protest outside? As well, consider all those who have sacrificed their lives for that same anthem and flag, what of them? Standing during the anthem acknowledges all previous sacrifice, it is not an affirmation of injustice now or in the future.
My advice, Donald Trump is right if at times inelegant. Stand during the playing of your national anthem, no matter where you are in the world.
September 26, 2017
OKC Clutching at Straws
What are the Oklahoma City Thunder thinking? They've just traded to acquire Carmelo Anthony from the New York Knickerbockers. Will this be the worst trade of the year, worse even than the Sacramento Kings giving up Demarcus Cousins. Maybe.
If we look at the Thunder, they've lost a lot of talent over the years and got back little in return. First they lost James Harden to the Houston Rockets. What a gain for the Rockets that was. Then with a depleted roster Kevin Durant does a runner to Golden State and finally picks up his title. Now the Thunder have only Russell Westbrook as a true class athlete, along with Paul George and Carmelo Anthony who are not anywhere near the Hardens and Durants of this world.
Enes Kanter must pinch himself when waking up in New York. How could such an average big man now be in the world's largest media market? He's certainly landed on his feet. And feel a little sorry for Steven Adams, stranded amongst ball hogs in Oklahoma City, where people compare their tractors and it's a long way to anywhere else. But not too sorry as he's a businessman and has never pulled on the black singlet for his country as an adult, so no doubt Adams will be checking his bank balance and not worrying too much about winning (and just so you know my thoughts on the subject, it's fine that Steven Adams is NZ's top athlete but he's not a great until he plays for his country. Until that happens he's just making up the numbers).
If we look at the Thunder, they've lost a lot of talent over the years and got back little in return. First they lost James Harden to the Houston Rockets. What a gain for the Rockets that was. Then with a depleted roster Kevin Durant does a runner to Golden State and finally picks up his title. Now the Thunder have only Russell Westbrook as a true class athlete, along with Paul George and Carmelo Anthony who are not anywhere near the Hardens and Durants of this world.
Enes Kanter must pinch himself when waking up in New York. How could such an average big man now be in the world's largest media market? He's certainly landed on his feet. And feel a little sorry for Steven Adams, stranded amongst ball hogs in Oklahoma City, where people compare their tractors and it's a long way to anywhere else. But not too sorry as he's a businessman and has never pulled on the black singlet for his country as an adult, so no doubt Adams will be checking his bank balance and not worrying too much about winning (and just so you know my thoughts on the subject, it's fine that Steven Adams is NZ's top athlete but he's not a great until he plays for his country. Until that happens he's just making up the numbers).
September 25, 2017
Lesson for NZ from German Federal Election 2017
New Zealand and Germany have the same type of electoral system - mixed member proportional. Both went to the polls over the weekend and both threw up interesting results. For New Zealand it was that the centre/left has spoken and shifted the balance of power. Only Labour grew their vote while all others withered or stood still.
In Germany, the far right has gained ground, actually winning seats this time round. Significantly, Angela Merkel will be Chancellor off a vote of less than 35% for her party. Get the idea Labour? That's right, Jacinda Ardern can be Prime Minister and there is precedent. All Labour need to do is do the deal with its left-of-centre travellers.
In Germany, the far right has gained ground, actually winning seats this time round. Significantly, Angela Merkel will be Chancellor off a vote of less than 35% for her party. Get the idea Labour? That's right, Jacinda Ardern can be Prime Minister and there is precedent. All Labour need to do is do the deal with its left-of-centre travellers.
September 24, 2017
New Zealand General Election 2017
The results are in and I was both right and wrong. The public opinion polls were largely correct and the ruling National party got the single biggest share of the vote. But this is where it gets interesting as National are left like an orphan child, they have only one natural coalition partner, the lone ACT party person.
The first rule of politics - learn how to count. On the current result the centre-left has the overall majority. That is the combined total of Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First are the majority, not National and the one ACT party person.
Labour were successful in crushing the Maori party. They also gained ground in Wellington and Christchurch but not significant ground in Auckland. Turnout was down on three years ago and this dampened the result for Labour. Labour need a big turnout to swing a result their way.
This all sets up a few scenarios:
The first is that the 'moral authority' to form a government sits with Labour and its fellow left-of-centre travellers. They need to sit down and hammer out a deal. The structure of any deal could take a number of forms, one could be a Labour/NZ First minority government supported on confidence and supply by the Greens. The Greens could be given the Speaker role to compensate.
Alternatively NZ First or the Greens could prop up a fourth term National government. That would likely prove a very unpopular move, especially when you consider people voted for change. Either of these small parties should think very carefully before committing to helping National.
Far less likely but strategically worth mentioning is a grand coalition between National and Labour. Such a large bloc would have the effect of crushing the smaller parties by crowding the airwaves. But while making strategic sense it won't happen given the enmity between the two.
The next few days will be interesting. NZ First's leader Winston Peters is effectively kingmaker. Will he prop up a tired National or go for change and vigour? My pick is he knows National will only stab him in the back, he'll look ahead and do a deal with Labour.
[Edit to add: Turnout was actually up at 79.8% of all registered voters but the young are under-represented, only about 50% of those 18-24 who were eligible to vote bothered to vote; the young were also more likely to not even register]
The first rule of politics - learn how to count. On the current result the centre-left has the overall majority. That is the combined total of Labour, the Greens, and New Zealand First are the majority, not National and the one ACT party person.
Labour were successful in crushing the Maori party. They also gained ground in Wellington and Christchurch but not significant ground in Auckland. Turnout was down on three years ago and this dampened the result for Labour. Labour need a big turnout to swing a result their way.
This all sets up a few scenarios:
The first is that the 'moral authority' to form a government sits with Labour and its fellow left-of-centre travellers. They need to sit down and hammer out a deal. The structure of any deal could take a number of forms, one could be a Labour/NZ First minority government supported on confidence and supply by the Greens. The Greens could be given the Speaker role to compensate.
Alternatively NZ First or the Greens could prop up a fourth term National government. That would likely prove a very unpopular move, especially when you consider people voted for change. Either of these small parties should think very carefully before committing to helping National.
Far less likely but strategically worth mentioning is a grand coalition between National and Labour. Such a large bloc would have the effect of crushing the smaller parties by crowding the airwaves. But while making strategic sense it won't happen given the enmity between the two.
The next few days will be interesting. NZ First's leader Winston Peters is effectively kingmaker. Will he prop up a tired National or go for change and vigour? My pick is he knows National will only stab him in the back, he'll look ahead and do a deal with Labour.
[Edit to add: Turnout was actually up at 79.8% of all registered voters but the young are under-represented, only about 50% of those 18-24 who were eligible to vote bothered to vote; the young were also more likely to not even register]
September 22, 2017
New Zealand General Election 2017
Adding to my previous post, the overall result in the General Election may come down to whether South Auckland votes, or not. A lot is being made of the youth vote and their failure to register. But that has always been the case, nothing to see there. No, what will be decisive will be how South Auckland decide. I remember 2005 and the South Auckland vote coming in late for Labour, it got Helen Clark over the line. Up to then it was looking like the Don Brash led National party were going to be forming a government.
Since then John Key rose to lead National and he won the election in 2008. He managed to successfully straddle the middle ground. But he's no longer around and National now come across as entitled, ignorant, arrogant and Mommy-knows-best. My thinking is South Auckland will return to Labour in sufficient numbers to swing it for Labour. Labour may even get the largest share of the vote.
If I'm right, then that means the public opinion polls are very wrong.
Since then John Key rose to lead National and he won the election in 2008. He managed to successfully straddle the middle ground. But he's no longer around and National now come across as entitled, ignorant, arrogant and Mommy-knows-best. My thinking is South Auckland will return to Labour in sufficient numbers to swing it for Labour. Labour may even get the largest share of the vote.
If I'm right, then that means the public opinion polls are very wrong.
September 15, 2017
Election: Prediction
I'm going to stick my neck out and predict a Labour landslide in this years general election in New Zealand. I went to vote early yesterday and the booths were busy. When people can't wait to vote and good weather leads up to the polling day it usually means Labour win. And there is a buzz, people are talking politics and this hasn't been the case for 20 or so years. National win when there is no debate and everyone is bored, the blue rinse set who are National's core support put their rents up and then sneak down to the polling booth in their Lexus or Audi and don't talk to anyone. Okay, so I'm being prejudiced, but there is truth in what I'm saying. Labour would have to stone cold drop the ball to lose from here.
September 13, 2017
Polls: National or Labour in Front?
There are conflicting poll results leading up to this years general election in New Zealand. TV1 has Labour in front while TV3 say National has extended its lead in front. They can't both be right. To find what the problem is I'd suggest looking at the sample sizes and methodology behind each poll. My guess is that TV1 is biased toward the large metropolitan areas while TV3 is biased toward the regions. Considering there are far more people living in cities, I'd pay more attention to the TV1 poll results.
Something else to think about, NZ First usually does better on election day. A myriad of reasons for this, including when asked people won't admit to supporting NZ First, or they're older people and always leave the answer-phone on and so can't be polled.
My money is still on a Labour/NZ First coalition. Labour on 40% plus NZ First's 9%, = 49% and with lost or wasted votes a majority in parliament. This MMP is a stupid system foisted on us by the Greens way back in the day, it's brilliant that same system is going to dump on them. Ha ha you bunch of naysayers.
Something else to think about, NZ First usually does better on election day. A myriad of reasons for this, including when asked people won't admit to supporting NZ First, or they're older people and always leave the answer-phone on and so can't be polled.
My money is still on a Labour/NZ First coalition. Labour on 40% plus NZ First's 9%, = 49% and with lost or wasted votes a majority in parliament. This MMP is a stupid system foisted on us by the Greens way back in the day, it's brilliant that same system is going to dump on them. Ha ha you bunch of naysayers.
September 05, 2017
Turn Sunlight into Liquid Fuel
This is good news, finally a technology that really turns things on its head. Please read the following link:
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/06/bionic-leaf-turns-sunlight-into-liquid-fuel/
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2016/06/bionic-leaf-turns-sunlight-into-liquid-fuel/
August 24, 2017
The Rise of Labour and the NZ General Election 2017
Never underestimate NZ Prime Minister Simon "Bill" English's ability to clutch defeat from the jaws of victory. I have no idea how competent the Labour leader Jacinda Ardern is, but voters can see she's at least human. By comparison Bill English you know is just lying every time he speaks. Now I realise both are lying most of the time, but English comes across as particularly disingenuous. It looks like Labour are romping to victory. A week, as they say, is a long time in politics.
August 18, 2017
The Greens Demise
It's about time the Greens got their comeuppance. These professional naysayers and avoiders of all responsibility have plunged in recent polls. On current trends they'll be out of the Nee Zealand Parliament all together. It turns out their support base was mostly Labour voters and now Labour has a viable leader, traditional Labour support is flocking back, abandoning the Greens in so doing.
August 15, 2017
Basketball Obsession and The Crushing Son
The Kindle versions of my two novels are available right now for free. For a limited time only as they say. Please download your free copy and read on your computer using Amazon's free Kindle reader software or buy a Kindle device and really cut loose.
If you like the stories then please review the books on Amazon. Despite being widely read, actually getting reviews seems more difficult than it looks, that is real reviews, I don't pay people to review my work.
You can also buy a paperback copy. I have a good conversion rate, meaning people who read the stories in Kindle format then often buy the book. I make more money this way, the royalties on the actual physical book are better than those from the electronic version.
The two books can be downloaded for free here:
August 14, 2017
Time Travel
I may have mentioned this before but here I go again, time travel and not the type for science fiction fans.
Is it possible to travel in time? Probably not physically but I think you can see the past and future and I'll tell you how. Let's deal with looking back in time first. We all travel in time when we look at the stars at night. When we do that we see the light as it was when that light left the star. That's not what you might see nearby the same star. Even light from the sun to earth takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds to reach us. That light illuminates our world and we live in 'real time' but the light is actually old and we sunbathe while enjoying the past.
Taking this idea a step further, imagine a world farther away and light from our sun takes 2,000 years to reach them. They see our world as it was under the Romans, not in the 21st Century.
See a map of the Orion arm of the Milky Way to get an idea of where the Roman world can be viewed from: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/2000lys.html
The technical problem is being able to see earth from the vantage point of 2,000 light years away right here on earth. Solve that then learn how to fine tune it, like seeing earth from a spy satellite. See how Julius Caesar really died and potentially what he actually said which almost certainly was not 'Et tu Brute', as Brutus was not even there.
To see ahead in time the answer is chemical. We need to speed ourselves up (but not to the point we disintegrate or die) to see ahead in time. Call it prediction with chemical clarity. Can drug users see into the future? I don't think so as they're probably taking the wrong pharmaceutical drugs.
How could it be safe? It'd be hard to make safe or to even get permission to experiment, but I think seeing ahead in time is a chemical problem not a physical one. How far ahead? My thinking is 12 to 24 hours ahead, not much more than that. Has this ever happened naturally? The reported experience of soldiers fighting in battle suggests so. I've read accounts where they say they see the future, and I believe this could be chemical, produced by the stress of their surroundings.
Is it possible to travel in time? Probably not physically but I think you can see the past and future and I'll tell you how. Let's deal with looking back in time first. We all travel in time when we look at the stars at night. When we do that we see the light as it was when that light left the star. That's not what you might see nearby the same star. Even light from the sun to earth takes 8 minutes and 20 seconds to reach us. That light illuminates our world and we live in 'real time' but the light is actually old and we sunbathe while enjoying the past.
Taking this idea a step further, imagine a world farther away and light from our sun takes 2,000 years to reach them. They see our world as it was under the Romans, not in the 21st Century.
See a map of the Orion arm of the Milky Way to get an idea of where the Roman world can be viewed from: http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/2000lys.html
The technical problem is being able to see earth from the vantage point of 2,000 light years away right here on earth. Solve that then learn how to fine tune it, like seeing earth from a spy satellite. See how Julius Caesar really died and potentially what he actually said which almost certainly was not 'Et tu Brute', as Brutus was not even there.
To see ahead in time the answer is chemical. We need to speed ourselves up (but not to the point we disintegrate or die) to see ahead in time. Call it prediction with chemical clarity. Can drug users see into the future? I don't think so as they're probably taking the wrong pharmaceutical drugs.
How could it be safe? It'd be hard to make safe or to even get permission to experiment, but I think seeing ahead in time is a chemical problem not a physical one. How far ahead? My thinking is 12 to 24 hours ahead, not much more than that. Has this ever happened naturally? The reported experience of soldiers fighting in battle suggests so. I've read accounts where they say they see the future, and I believe this could be chemical, produced by the stress of their surroundings.
August 10, 2017
War Looming in the Far East
I have already posted about the massive military build up occurring in Japan right now. You'll remember the US warship that ran into a cargo ship in Tokyo Bay. That likely happened because the US are starting to fall over one another. Also extremely busy are the Kanagawa area US Naval Air Facilities.
Now with President Trump issuing stark warnings to North Korea, I'm predicting war will result. Somewhere along the line the US made the decision and pushed the 'go' button.
Now with President Trump issuing stark warnings to North Korea, I'm predicting war will result. Somewhere along the line the US made the decision and pushed the 'go' button.
This was my post in April 2017:
I've got friends living in Yokohama, Japan and they tell me the US Navy base at Yokosuka is the busiest they've ever seen it. Also extremely busy are the Kanagawa area US Naval Air Facilities. Planes are flying in 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Locals are complaining of the noise. Bear in mind all the various crises over the decades, but they say the bases have always just been ticking along despite that. Not now, now they're really ramping up. Based on this evidence I'd say the US is preparing for war and not just talking tough. Who will that war be with? North Korea is my suggestion and anyone else who takes their side.
I've got friends living in Yokohama, Japan and they tell me the US Navy base at Yokosuka is the busiest they've ever seen it. Also extremely busy are the Kanagawa area US Naval Air Facilities. Planes are flying in 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Locals are complaining of the noise. Bear in mind all the various crises over the decades, but they say the bases have always just been ticking along despite that. Not now, now they're really ramping up. Based on this evidence I'd say the US is preparing for war and not just talking tough. Who will that war be with? North Korea is my suggestion and anyone else who takes their side.
August 03, 2017
Picks from Downunder
Three companies to look for, they're financial and construction.
The first represents good value for money at the moment. Westpac is a major Australian bank, the largest in terms of branch network. They're down right now and therefore cheap. The Australian government would never let Westpac go bust. Never ever. So this is a safe bet. They're not a bad income earning investment either.
Snapshot of Westpac: https://www.google.com/finance?q=ASX:WBC
For the retired folks looking at yield. consider Kiwibank capital notes, at current prices yielding 6.9%. Kiwibank are essentially New Zealand government owned and would never be allowed to fail. Any government that did let them fail would not be the government come the next election.
The capital notes here: https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZDX/hybrids/KCFHA
And lastly we have Fletcher Building. They're NZ's largest construction company and experiencing some speed wobbles. Fletcher own both Laminex and Formica (you know those - right?) and the only cement factory in NZ, Golden Bay Cement at Whangarei. They're everywhere and do anything including build houses. They have a lot of political clout and so I'd consider them a safe bet too.
Fletcher Building: https://www.google.com/finance?q=NZE:FBU
The first represents good value for money at the moment. Westpac is a major Australian bank, the largest in terms of branch network. They're down right now and therefore cheap. The Australian government would never let Westpac go bust. Never ever. So this is a safe bet. They're not a bad income earning investment either.
Snapshot of Westpac: https://www.google.com/finance?q=ASX:WBC
For the retired folks looking at yield. consider Kiwibank capital notes, at current prices yielding 6.9%. Kiwibank are essentially New Zealand government owned and would never be allowed to fail. Any government that did let them fail would not be the government come the next election.
The capital notes here: https://www.nzx.com/markets/NZDX/hybrids/KCFHA
And lastly we have Fletcher Building. They're NZ's largest construction company and experiencing some speed wobbles. Fletcher own both Laminex and Formica (you know those - right?) and the only cement factory in NZ, Golden Bay Cement at Whangarei. They're everywhere and do anything including build houses. They have a lot of political clout and so I'd consider them a safe bet too.
Fletcher Building: https://www.google.com/finance?q=NZE:FBU
August 01, 2017
Labour Party Antics
Today could see a new leader for the New Zealand Labour Party just weeks out from a General Election. While that may seem amusing I wouldn't be so quick to write them off just yet. Consider all the surprising election results we've seen the last couple of years. Then we have Greens co-leader Metiria Turei admitting to benefit fraud and actually rising in the polls. Of course the thought has occurred to me that she did no such thing and is simply politicking.