A potential TPP gotcha

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › A potential TPP gotcha

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 22

4243 posts

Uber Geek

#1401620 7-Oct-2015 11:11

sir1963:
mattwnz:
gzt:
vexxxboy:
gzt: Now the deal is signed, the process of governments selling it to their own electorates is beginning. There is still a short period where they have monopoly of information advantage ; ).

why , there's only a vocal minority who actually care, most people couldn't care less.

The concern about PHARMAC was/is widespread. If there is no real impact it will not be a problem. It is likely our government will take a similar approach to Canada and increase subsidies for the affected area.

Canada's dairy subsidy increase is a sure election winner for next week but they will have problems sustaining it in the long term.

Another 100m on our pharmac budget (i think that was a govt estimate) it won't break the bank and it is probably sustainable but it does start changing the structure of our pharmaceutical market. I'm pretty sure they have not agreed to drug company supervision of the buying process that would be pretty bad.

It was reported by TVNZ that after 15 years, this could be around 2 billion benefit for NZers. Not too sure if that is in todays money, or 2030's money, but 100million cost to taxpayers on just pharmacs additional costs, is around 5% over a year. That doesn't sound too bad on the face of it. But estimated projections are often wrong. Look at the governments estimates for the Christchurch earthquake costs for a prime example of that.

Positive benefits are grossly over represented (Power shares anyone ?)
Negative impacts are grossly underestimated.

However the touted "benefits" don't add up to much, another drought in Canterbury would have a bigger impact on GDP, as do exchange rate fluctuations.

the NZ GDP last year was US$188 Billion dollars ($NZ287 Billion)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/gdp

so "about 2 Billion" is about 1%, i.e. near the level of a rounding error.

This is why politicians talk numbers so often. 2 Billion to the general population sounds like a LOT of money, but in terms of GDP, not so much.

To put it into perspective, last quarter Apple made US18 Billion profit, so the benefits to NZ are about 10 days of Apples profits.

so you would prefer nothing because thats a lot better than 2 billion

Common sense is not as common as you think.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1401638 7-Oct-2015 11:20

vexxxboy:
sir1963:
mattwnz:
gzt:
vexxxboy:
gzt: Now the deal is signed, the process of governments selling it to their own electorates is beginning. There is still a short period where they have monopoly of information advantage ; ).

why , there's only a vocal minority who actually care, most people couldn't care less.

The concern about PHARMAC was/is widespread. If there is no real impact it will not be a problem. It is likely our government will take a similar approach to Canada and increase subsidies for the affected area.

Canada's dairy subsidy increase is a sure election winner for next week but they will have problems sustaining it in the long term.

Another 100m on our pharmac budget (i think that was a govt estimate) it won't break the bank and it is probably sustainable but it does start changing the structure of our pharmaceutical market. I'm pretty sure they have not agreed to drug company supervision of the buying process that would be pretty bad.

It was reported by TVNZ that after 15 years, this could be around 2 billion benefit for NZers. Not too sure if that is in todays money, or 2030's money, but 100million cost to taxpayers on just pharmacs additional costs, is around 5% over a year. That doesn't sound too bad on the face of it. But estimated projections are often wrong. Look at the governments estimates for the Christchurch earthquake costs for a prime example of that.

Positive benefits are grossly over represented (Power shares anyone ?)
Negative impacts are grossly underestimated.

However the touted "benefits" don't add up to much, another drought in Canterbury would have a bigger impact on GDP, as do exchange rate fluctuations.

the NZ GDP last year was US$188 Billion dollars ($NZ287 Billion)
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/gdp

so "about 2 Billion" is about 1%, i.e. near the level of a rounding error.

This is why politicians talk numbers so often. 2 Billion to the general population sounds like a LOT of money, but in terms of GDP, not so much.

To put it into perspective, last quarter Apple made US18 Billion profit, so the benefits to NZ are about 10 days of Apples profits.

so you would prefer nothing because thats a lot better than 2 billion

The 2 Billion in real terms is nothing. Its optimistic for a start, and as I say the weather will have far greater impact.

Its about a 10% increase in what we spend on Health in NZ (NZ$15 Billion)

loss of our sovereignty to overseas corporations should be worth a LOT more than a rounding error.

This is worth watching
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhCAyIllnXY

Linuxluver

5828 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1401639 7-Oct-2015 11:20

Behodar: That sort of thing is exactly why we need the actual text. It's apparently coming "soon".

We get the TPP text in a month, during which time the government and it's cronies have been spinning the unknown into being awesome.

Damage done......

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

ajobbins

5052 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1401655 7-Oct-2015 11:37

Linuxluver:
Behodar: That sort of thing is exactly why we need the actual text. It's apparently coming "soon".

We get the TPP text in a month, during which time the government and it's cronies have been spinning the unknown into being awesome.

Damage done......

Yep. And even thought we get to see it eventually, even if it's horrible there is nothing we can do about it. Technically parliament could not accept it, but National have a majority anyway, and even if they didn't no parliament wouldn't endorse it as the international loss of face would be huge.

Our only real hope is it doesn't get past the US congress.

Twitter: ajobbins

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1401657 7-Oct-2015 11:40

Linuxluver:
Behodar: That sort of thing is exactly why we need the actual text. It's apparently coming "soon".

We get the TPP text in a month, during which time the government and it's cronies have been spinning the unknown into being awesome.

Damage done......

The upside will in real terms be 1/2 of what they spin
The downside will be at least twice as bad as they make out.

The impact will not be felt my our MPs and their gold plated retirement fund. Plus they know next time around the party
faithful will reward them with a cosy high paying "job" as ambassador somewhere nice.

old3eyes

9119 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1401684 7-Oct-2015 12:40

sir1963:
Linuxluver:
Behodar: That sort of thing is exactly why we need the actual text. It's apparently coming "soon".

We get the TPP text in a month, during which time the government and it's cronies have been spinning the unknown into being awesome.

Damage done......

The upside will in real terms be 1/2 of what they spin
The downside will be at least twice as bad as they make out.

The impact will not be felt my our MPs and their gold plated retirement fund. Plus they know next time around the party
faithful will reward them with a cosy high paying "job" as ambassador somewhere nice.

And it no doubt will be "Sir Tim" in the new year..

Regards,

Old3eyes

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1401742 7-Oct-2015 13:42

I'm all against selling our country /body etc
However if the rest of the world is going somewhere it's hard not to follow and be the odd kid out at school.
I am not sure whether a Labour govt would have achieved a different result. Helen Clark might have been able to be a bit more persuasive but I'm not sure to what degree, we are but a drop in a tea cup to the rest of them.

A good govt however should legislate ways And draw up policies to protect its sovereignty.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

sir1963

3260 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1401743 7-Oct-2015 13:49

joker97: I'm all against selling our country /body etc
However if the rest of the world is going somewhere it's hard not to follow and be the odd kid out at school.
I am not sure whether a Labour govt would have achieved a different result. Helen Clark might have been able to be a bit more persuasive but I'm not sure to what degree, we are but a drop in a tea cup to the rest of them.

A good govt however should legislate ways And draw up policies to protect its sovereignty.

We managed quite well with going Nuke free.
That cost us quite a bit in trade with the US/UK, but it was the right thing to do, and you notice how no later government has tried to change it.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1401745 7-Oct-2015 13:55

vexxxboy:

so you would prefer nothing because thats a lot better than 2 billion

It is like all estimates, it is just an estimate,and estimates can be grossly incorrect, or may use the words 'up to'. When the dairy payout dropped recently, it was reported that that would wipe billions from the countries annual income. So it isn't a huge amount when it comes to the countries earnings as a whole.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1401747 7-Oct-2015 13:58

joker97: I'm all against selling our country /body etc
However if the rest of the world is going somewhere it's hard not to follow and be the odd kid out at school.
I am not sure whether a Labour govt would have achieved a different result. Helen Clark might have been able to be a bit more persuasive but I'm not sure to what degree, we are but a drop in a tea cup to the rest of them.

A good govt however should legislate ways And draw up policies to protect its sovereignty.

I don't think who the government is, would have made any difference, as Labour apparently was also all for this going through. There hasn't been much criticism from them, which there should have been if they were against it. I am surprised Clark said anything, as I thought she was supposed to be impartial due to her position, and not discuss this sort of thing.

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1401753 7-Oct-2015 14:12

mattwnz:
vexxxboy:

so you would prefer nothing because thats a lot better than 2 billion

It is like all estimates, it is just an estimate,and estimates can be grossly incorrect, or may use the words 'up to'. When the dairy payout dropped recently, it was reported that that would wipe billions from the countries annual income. So it isn't a huge amount when it comes to the countries earnings as a whole.

So, do we need some sort of threshold sum, below which no saving measure or other initiative is worth pursuing? Anything less than 1% of GDP could be termed as "insignificant" and just not pursued. This would make life for govt depts., IRD etc a whole lot easier, and I'm sure the taxpayers won't be worried about a piffling few hundred million here and there.

DizzyD

523 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#1401754 7-Oct-2015 14:12

sir1963:
joker97: I'm all against selling our country /body etc
However if the rest of the world is going somewhere it's hard not to follow and be the odd kid out at school.
I am not sure whether a Labour govt would have achieved a different result. Helen Clark might have been able to be a bit more persuasive but I'm not sure to what degree, we are but a drop in a tea cup to the rest of them.

A good govt however should legislate ways And draw up policies to protect its sovereignty.

We managed quite well with going Nuke free.
That cost us quite a bit in trade with the US/UK, but it was the right thing to do, and you notice how no later government has tried to change it.

I recon we would have actually been far better off if we had a nuclear power station setup somewhere in the middle of the North island.

When compared to the rest of the developed world, our electricity costs are extremely high.
Given our electricity prices in NZ, the average person in the street is really the looser.

gzt

17104 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1401773 7-Oct-2015 14:35

Exactly right. Our close proximity to the Kermadec trench is a strategic advantage when it comes to dumping nuclear waste at very low cost to the environment.

grant_k

3539 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1401815 7-Oct-2015 15:16

DizzyD:
sir1963:
joker97: I'm all against selling our country /body etc
However if the rest of the world is going somewhere it's hard not to follow and be the odd kid out at school.
I am not sure whether a Labour govt would have achieved a different result. Helen Clark might have been able to be a bit more persuasive but I'm not sure to what degree, we are but a drop in a tea cup to the rest of them.

A good govt however should legislate ways And draw up policies to protect its sovereignty.

We managed quite well with going Nuke free.
That cost us quite a bit in trade with the US/UK, but it was the right thing to do, and you notice how no later government has tried to change it.

I recon we would have actually been far better off if we had a nuclear power station setup somewhere in the middle of the North island.

When compared to the rest of the developed world, our electricity costs are extremely high.
Given our electricity prices in NZ, the average person in the street is really the looser.

No way! We don't need to be poisoning our planet with any more of that toxic crap. Not just toxic in our lifetime, but toxic for generations to come. It would be the height of irresponsibility to use nuclear power when we are blessed with some of the best renewable power sources on the planet.

Geektastic

17942 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1401839 7-Oct-2015 15:42

frankv:
JimmyH:
Every round of trade liberalisation and tariff in the last 30 years has prompted hand-waving shouts of "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" from those who are ideologically opposed to freer trade.

Usually a curious mix of left wingers who hark back to a misty vision of a centrally-planned fortress NZ utopia that never was, accompanied by the far more rational, but very self-interested, prophets of doom from selected business interests on the right who are see their cozy little protected hammerlock on consumers being broken. And in the end, some vested interests lose out and the country as a whole comes out better off.

I remember the 70s and early 80s, with ridiculous government intervention in the economy and massive import barriers:

very limited choice in the shops - any shirt you wanted, as long as it was a polyester Wyndham
clothing, footwear and cars being virtually unaffordable for the for the average family courtesy quotas and ludicrous tariffs
currency rationing by the Reserve Bank if you wanted to go overseas on holiday
no easy avenue to bypass rip-off retailers for a whole range of products (books, music, clothes.....)
massive miss-allocation of capital to industries in which we had no comparative advantage
soaring inflation
It wasn't that great. Beats me why anyone thinks we were better off.

Labelling TPPA opponents as "opposed to freer trade" and "left wingers who hark back to a misty vision of a centrally-planned fortress NZ utopia" and "selected business interests on the right who are see their cozy little protected hammerlock on consumers" is inaccurate.

I'm all in favour of freer trade. My objection to the TPPA is that it appears to transfer power from our Govt, over which we have some (limited) control through periodic free elections, to multinational corporates whose sole motivation is their own profits. Ultimately this will lead to a worse lifestyle for most people.

I too remember the 70s and 80s (and to some extent the 60s) and agree with all those points. However, I'd say that "currency rationing" became impossible given the appearance of credit cards, and that bypassing rip-off retailers was due to the rise of Internet shopping. Removal of these things wasn't due to any wiser economic policy, just a pragmatic outcome of uncontrollable changes. I do also remember in the 70s and 80s:

Adequate & universal tertiary student allowances
A Prime Minister with a bach at Hatfields Beach rather than a holiday home in Hawaii
Effective EDs where you didn't have to wait 12 hours for treatment
Health insurance being unnecessary
High employment, with it being normal for students to get well-paid holiday work
No beggars on Queen St
Safe communities where it was normal for children to walk to & from school unaccompanied

Not sure why the location of a PM's holiday home is a relevant factor...

1 | ... | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | ... | 22