Bargaining through life to save a buck

I wonder how you manage your financial affairs?

How are your investments going and what approach do you have in your own personal financial situation?





Let me share with you some of the things that I do to make or save a buck. Most of them are elementary and you probably do them anyway but hey its my blog and Ill rant if I want to.

My employment gives me a very good income but that is no excuse to waste your valuable shekels because your make more money than others, a penny saved is a penny earned and all that.

I know people who earn way more than I but they seem to think that it is their mission in life to waste their money, simply because they can afford to. Either they have been wealthy all their lives or if self made, have forgotten how hard it was to get where they now are. Comfortable.

While I'm not stingy with what i earn I certainly haven't forgotten my humble beginnings.

That translates into menial stuff like not always buying the expensive brands at the supermarket, using all the peanut butter from the bottom of that Jar Mr and turning the lights off when one leaves a room. Boring I know but its money that you don't have to find elsewhere.

If you are in the market for a new car consider either buying a 1 year old version, where the depreciation has taken off a third of the cost and you still have a warranty and the vehicle has been run in or consider putting off the purchase altogether.

It is best buying an almost new vehicle but when you do you need to hold onto it for around 7 years to get the most economic value from it. After that it is better to ditch it because repairs could cost a mint, unless of course you bought a Ford , in which case you should replace the vehicle annually.

Of course when making major purchases like household goods, cars, boats and houses it doesn't hurt to bargain with the seller, with electronic goods especially, competition is cutthroat and the sticker price isn't the final one, they expect you to haggle, so do it, you might be surprised.

Of course it you are holding lovely folding stuff in your hand, you have an added advantage. Cash is king in most bargaining situations and discounts for green come on top of other bargaining tools.

When it comes to your bank, bargaining works as well. Try and negotiate term investment rates, mortgage rates and their other, often devious charges. It works for me , they can only say no.

Of course when investing in the stockmarket prudent investing there starts with your own research, the more you can do that the more likely you will insulate yourself from the sharks that swim in this pool.

Remember, your money is usually hard to earn in the first place and clearly prudent saving, through wise choices and bargaining your way through your financial life, will put you in good stead for a healthy financial future.

It will also allow you to spurge every once and a while, a natural antidote to my otherwise miserly approach to the art of living financially constrained!

C Share Investor 2007

March for Democracy , 10.00am, Sat Nov 17, 2007

March Planned in Support of Human Rights Commision

Sunday, 11 November 2007, 1:10 pm
Press Release: John Boscawen
PRESS RELEASE

Protest March Planned in Support of the Human Rights Commission

Saturday 17 November, Queen Street, Auckland. 10.30am.

9 November 2007

I am pleased to announce that I have today lodged an application with the Auckland City Council to lead a protest march down Queen Street, Auckland.

The council have confirmed it is my democratic right to do so, and the march will leave from Aotea Square at 10.30am and proceeding to Britomart Place.

I and others will be protesting about the combined effect of the Electoral Finance Bill and the recently introduced Appropriation (Continuation of Interim Meaning of Funding for Parliamentary Purposes) Bill.

The combined effect of these two bills is to massively increase the amount of taxpayer money available to existing members of parliament and political parties to fund their re-election campaigns, while severely restricting the ability of private citizens to oppose them. This is an affront to democracy in New Zealand.

The Human Rights Commission has described the Electoral Finance Bill as “inherently flawed” and has called on the government to withdraw the bill and redraft it from scratch based on the over 600 public submissions.

To date, the government has failed to act on that recommendation.

The Commission has also called on the government to allow a further round of public submissions on whatever bill comes from the select committee process. To date, the government has given no indication it will do this.

We will be marching in support of the Human Rights Commission.

Those wishing to participate should assemble in Aotea Square from 10.00am with the march to leave at 10.30am.

The march will be widely advertised in the media next week.

I will attempt to be there. My first ever political protest!!

Ends

New Zealand Herald gets nasty over Electoral Finance Bill

I have never seen the likes of this before in my life. The New Zealand Herald has used its entire front page today to rail against Helen Clark and the Sisterhood over their attempt to buy next years election by using their Electoral Finance Bill to make previous illegal spending of taxpayer money, to promote themselves, legal and to stop debate during an election year.

The Herald, usually left leaning, has come out strongly against the bill and should be congratulated for their strong stand.

This bill, if passed through in November, will put New Zealand in the position that many dictator states now find themselves in. A Government that will stop at almost nothing to get re-elected and a population that wont be able to have their democratic right to voice opposition and if they do so they could be imprisoned.

New Zealanders as a whole don't seem to be angry about this bill and what it means. They should be. Is it that we just don't care that our democracy will be no longer or are we just too stupid to see what is happening?

Lenin, Marx, Mao and Hitler would have be proud of this bill.

C Darren Rickard 2007




The Herald Editorial

Editorial: Democracy Under Attack

5:00AM Monday November 12, 2007

When is the Government going to get this message: democracy is not a device to keep the Labour Party in power.

Practically every other participant in New Zealand politics - not only parties but other interested organisations and especially guardians of political rights - has voiced concern at the implications of the Electoral Finance Bill introduced to Parliament more than three months ago.

The Human Rights Commission has described the restrictions on election activity as a "dramatic assault" on fundamental rights which "undermines the legitimacy of political processes".

The Law Society says the bill would "make participation in our parliamentary democracy an arduous and perhaps even legally dangerous undertaking for ordinary New Zealanders".

They say this because it would be illegal in election year for any organisation other than a registered political party to spend more than $60,000 (perhaps a couple of full-page advertisements) to publicise a cause that might be deemed political.

The restriction is opposed by some of Labour's closest allies, such as the Post Primary Teachers' Association, which fears for its ability to campaign for educational policies.

In the face of near-universal condemnation, the bill should have been withdrawn. Instead it will be tweaked to dilute some of its worst features. But the attempt to restrict non-party participation in election discussion will remain.

Labour seems determined to use the time it has left to skew electoral laws in its favour.

Not only does it mean to make election debate the preserve of political parties, it has introduced this month a second electoral outrage - a bill to extend the law legalising the use of public money for political purposes that were ruled improper by the Auditor General after the last election.

The Clark Government's refusal to bow to public opinion on this subject beggars belief. It was staggering enough last year that Helen Clark and her lieutenants could not understand why nobody else regarded their electoral pledge card as innocent information.

Now, having grudgingly repaid the public purse, they are hell-bent on giving themselves the right to raid it again.

If these bills become law, politics will be largely confined to registered parties, and they will have to be able to use parliamentary funds for election campaigns.

Both measures are designed to favour the party that has devised them. Labour fears independent campaigns by the likes of the Exclusive Brethren much more than National fears the efforts of the PPTA or the Council of Trade Unions. And Labour believes it needs public money to balance covert contributions to the National Party.

Parties have different advantages. If National has more well-heeled donors, Labour probably has the more committed and articulate foot soldiers.

National's supposed advantages were of less urgent concern to Labour when it was polling well. Now in desperation it wants to screw the scrum. It has succumbed to the old conceit of the Left that the interests of the people are identical with its own.

The interests of any healthy democracy lie in unrestricted debate, not laws that favour incumbents with public finance and suppression of free speech.

If these bills pass, they will be Labour's epitaph.

C NZ Herald 2007

Kyoto critic comes to town

The Sun is the Main reason for "climate change".

You are not going to hear much from the sniveling lefty media about this man except to critique and denigrate him for not jumping on the Global Warming bandwagon. Watch for snivellers with closed minds like Rod Oram from the New Zealand Business Herald whose sole obsession these days seems to be how to stop his carbon footprint from getting stuck in his mouth and using it to kick the more sensible among us that know that this whole GW nonsense is just that. I agree largely with Lawson except he is a bit lightweight on GW's proponents where as I wouldn't give them an inch.

They are NUTS!

Go here to View The Great Global Warming Swindle


C Darren Rickard 2007


Kyoto Critic Comes to Town

By JENNI McMANUS - Sunday Star Times | Sunday, 11 November 2007

Contentious climate change issues have been bumped to the top of the business agenda with the release of a consultant's negative report into the economic impact of the government's proposed emissions trading scheme.

Hard on the heels of the Castalia report and its view that the government is seriously underestimating the costs of Kyoto compliance, another strong Kyoto critic flies in to town this week.

Nigel Lawson, former chancellor of the exchequer in the Thatcher government between 1983 and 1989 and father of celebrity chef Nigella, is visiting New Zealand as a guest of the Business Roundtable. On Thursday in Auckland he will give the annual Sir Ron Trotter lecture, this year on the topic of economics and climate change.

Expect strong debate from an ex-politician not known for taking prisoners. Since leaving politics, Lawson has researched and lectured widely on climate change, his most recent contribution being work on a documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle.

His message: the conventional response to global warming the bid to get global agreement among industrialised nations on reducing carbon dioxide emissions to a fixed, but arbitrary, level by 2012 is "absurd".

Even its strongest advocates concede the existing Kyoto agreement will do virtually nothing to reduce future rates of global warming, Lawson says. The US, the largest source of carbon dioxide emissions, has refused to ratify the treaty, largely because developing countries such as China, India and Brazil are effectively outside the process and determined to remain so.

What's being done with Kyoto simply isn't working, Lawson says. "There's a lot of talk and some things are in place in Europe, but while subsidies have been given to emitters (to help them adapt), they've done nothing to cut emissions. Politicians say greenhouse gases are the greatest threat facing the planet, but every year emissions get higher. I cannot see any other case where the difference between the rhetoric and the reality is greater."

Lawson argues adaptation to climate change is better than attempting to mitigate or reverse it.

Adaptation is cheaper, will more efficiently fix already existing problems (such as coastal flooding in low-lying areas) and will generally happen naturally, without government intervention, he says. Farmers, for instance, will show commonsense and change their crops, improve irrigation and cultivate areas once too cold to be economic if the climate gets warmer. Rich countries of the temperate world have an obligation to help the poor countries of the tropical world do whatever adaptation is needed, he says.

There is also the "just-in-time" solution of geo-engineering where pioneer work is being done at Stanford University to devise actions that could be taken quickly to cool the planet if necessary.

Lawson wants to see the debate shrunk to what he sees as its central focus: what has been the rise in global mean temperature in the past 100 years, why we believe this has happened and what the consequences are likely to be.

"The only honest answer is that we do not know," he says. "But it is very difficult to refine the issues because people feel so emotional. It is hard to get rational discussion going, but it is very important that we do.

"It's clear politicians think they're seen in a good light if they tell people they're saving the planet. It's wonderful grandstanding. But we simply don't know why climate change occurs and politicians can get very impatient with scientists who don't say anything definite, even when the science isn't certain." The difficulty is climatology is a relatively new and complex science "and neither scientists nor politicians serve either the truth or the people by pretending to know more than they do".

For example, many people probably aren't aware that at times during recent history the world has been warmer than at present. And while atmospheric concentrations of CO2 increased by 30% during the 20th century, global warming has occurred only in fits and starts. In fact, says Lawson, it ceased in 1998 and is not expected to resume until 2009.

Despite his views, he says he could live "up to a point" with cuts in CO2 emission levels. Even a carbon tax would be acceptable, providing the revenue was used to cut other forms of tax. But that's a different matter from putting the entire economy at risk with complex emissions trading schemes a point taken up by economist Alex Sundakov in the Castilia report. No scheme will be politically sustainable if the relative costs and benefits are not well understood and accepted by the electorate at large, Sundakov says.

Any major cuts in NZ emissions are expected to be very costly, despite government claims to the contrary, because of our high economic reliance on emissions-rich activities. Official estimates in the US and Canada put the cost between $5000 and $10,000 per household.

Nor does Lawson agree that we must do whatever it takes to avert the possibility of large-scale climate catastrophe. A number of other catastrophes are also possible, including another ice age, the prospect of nuclear war and the growth of terrorism "in an age where scientific and technological developments have brought the means of devastation within the reach of even modestly funded terrorist groups".

"Above all," he says, "in a world of inevitably finite resources, not only can we not possibly spend large sums of money on guarding against each and every possible eventuality in the future, but the more we do spend on this, the less there is available to deal with poverty and disease in the present."

C Sunday Star Times 2007