Charity begins at the money source

Winston Peters, in much happier times.

Related nzherald links:

• Hush-hush gifts from NZ First
• NZ First to declare Charities
  

You just know it is election year when members of Winston "Baubles" Peters party, NZ First start poking their tongues out at immigrants.

Once again it was Asian immigrants who bore the brunt of the poodle party's wrath and ironically it was a 10 pound pom who was the chief protagonist.

Appealing to NZ Firsts near dead voter constituency of over 80 year olds who thinks Winston is "cute" in that Italian suit and $200 dollar haircut, immigration looks set to become the party's main platform on which to launch itself for the election.

Fantastic, xenophobia, attacks on journalists and giving to worthy causes will be Winston's three key points this year-hold your hand like a horizontal scout salute when you make those points OK.

Unfortunately for us, Winston's largess in giving to charity means we miss out on the $158,000 he purloined from the taxpayer wallet to get himself elected in 2005. Hell, even the biggest bandits of them all, The Labour Party, paid back the more than $800,000 they stole to buy the same election.

In fact I think I may employ Winston's "charitable deductions" when it comes to paying the alarm mans bill on Friday.

No Sir, I don't believe I will pay your bill, I would like to nominate we pay the food bill this week with it instead. The alarm man is bigger than me, and I suspect I might get a well deserved thick ear, even at the mere suggestion.

The arrogance of the man is only surpassed by his obvious vanity and lack of ability to do his job.

Like alot of parliamentarians, he simply is a useless wanker.

Related Political animal reading

Peter's Baubles giving him big trouble
Winston Peter's Big Baubles

c Political Animal 2008

Wheres the Love? [Extended Political Animal Edition]

Government cost to business hasn't been ameliorated by today's quadrangle of
State interference that kicked off, appropriately, on April 1.


Just we wee addendum to the original article. In parliament today, listeners would have heard Michael Cullen et al waxing lyrically about how much the Labour Government had "given" to New Zealanders over the years and the latest raft on handouts, mentioned below were added to the long list.

Labour gave us free student loans, more holidays, 20 free hours childcare,higher wages,more holidays,corporate tax cuts, yadda, yadda.

The point is clear to me and underlined by a great speech by Act's Heather Roy who just happened to mention that Labour gave us none of those things. It was our money to begin with and how about giving some of it back so we can make our own decisions about what we want to do with our moola!


Originally published @ Share Investor Blog 1 April 2008

I cant help myself talking about it, politics is intrinsically linked to investing and business and in New Zealand our economy is hugely influenced by what the government of the day does to it more than most global economies.

The introduction and trumpeting today by our Labour government of 4 things that "they are proud of" that will "help business" has less to do with helping business but more to do with election year and keeping control over the economy and its participants.

The much ballyhooed 3% cut in corporate tax rates, taxpayer handouts to business for research and development, employer contributions to Kiwisaver and the lift of the minimum wage to 12 bucks all run against each other in their purpose and execution.

The over hyped tax cut and R & D subsidy for our corporates hides the fact that Kiwisaver, the associated paper work and the lift in wages easily dwarfs the meager 3% cut already.

Include all the other government imposed costs to business over the last 9 years, like higher ACC, energy and carbon taxes and nonsense like employer funded maternity leave(what is wrong with the family paying, a novel idea I know, but just an idea) and an extra weeks leave for workers and even the blind, deaf, dribbling and Labour voters(OK maybe that is a stretch) can see how far behind business is.

The tax cut would have to be at least down to a 25% rate to get business back to where it was in 1999, in terms of costs and return of capital.

That way, business could afford to fund R & D from cashflow instead of another army of extra State funded bureaucrat's handing out taxpayer money to those they see should get our money-I mean these people picking business winners? I doubt many of them can remember their PIN numbers let alone pick good businesses.

What is missing from today's election focused "take more it and give some back" approach to business is a bold statement to business, especially small business, the back bone of this country, that the country values your contribution and we are going to reward your entrepreneurship.

State attached funding via R & D subsidies and other quasi government welfare schemes, extra business expense and paperwork isn't a good way to show that we love business.

I fear the present administration doesn't like the independence and confidence that self employment or owning your own business brings and are doing everything they can to inextricably link business owners quest for economic freedom by weighting business and therefore the economy down with cost and bureaucracy.

A 3% company tax cut isn't going to cut it for those hard working individuals who own companies and in fact bypasses those who are sole traders entirely.

Its time to show business we love them.

Not the opposite.


Related Political Animal Reading

Labour's State Control Out of control




c Share Investor & Political Animal 2008

Dont dare use the "D" word

The announcement on March 31 (US time) that secretary Paulson is going to regulate the United State's financial markets with changes to it not seen since the Great Depression leaves me with a thought that has been running rat wheels in my mind ever since the current "Credit Crunch" kicked off.

Midway through last year, the Fed began sticking its filthy little hands in dikes all across the financial backbone of the USA by propping up institutions who had lent too much money to those who now cannot pay and to keep the wheels of commerce greased by trying to increase liquidity in the credit market-so we can do business with each other.

Now I am skeptical at the best of times as to State involvement in anything, let alone interfering in capital markets and don't have the foggiest whether the announcement by Paulson is going to change anything in the future at all.



Latest on global financial fallout

German watchdog eyes $600 bln global bank losses: report Reuters
Overhaul of Wall Street regulation doesn't address current crisis Int' Herald Tribune
International Financial Panel Urges Bank Disclosures on Risk Exposure Wall Street Journal
G7 to press big banks to reveal extent of credit crunch losses Times Online
US prepares to give Fed sweeping oversight powers Taipei Times
Ghosts of the Great Depression Business Spectator
US Fed to be grilled over massive support to financial system MercoPress
World Bank cuts East Asia growth forecast Channel News Asia
East Asia Economies Pressed by Inflation The Associated Press

The 1933 changes didn't stop the bear market in the 1970s, it didn't stop the sharemarket crash of 1987 or the tech bubble bursting in 2000 or the current credit crisis because of dodgy lending and investment practices related to that lending.

The interventions by the Fed and its global equivalents, to shore up credit liquidity is the main rat on the wheel in my mind.

What have these interventions stopped?

One can only speculate but one can do that with a largish amount of surety.

During the Great Depression, when faith in financial markets at the time was at an all time low there simply wasn't any intervention by the State apparatus to ameliorate what happened on that infamous day in 1929 when Wall Street threw a woopsey and capitalism jumped out of tall buildings in the financial districts around New York and around the world.

Have interventions in financial markets by State backed funds globally stopped some sort of 2008 crash from happening?

Probably, but not to the extent of 1929, but it is clear that it would have been a crash of some serious nature had there not been intervention.

Another question I have running through my head is, how long will the squillions of taxpayer dollars pumped into the economy stave off the inevitability of a bigger blowout?

That is harder to answer. In order to know better one would have to know the losses involved in the Sub prime loans and associated sub prime bonds, and we are no closer to knowing that than knowing if Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic Party leader or if Barry Obama still loves his preacher.

The vexed question of the massive derivatives market also looms in the minds of investors:

Large amounts of risk, particularly credit risk, have become concentrated in the hands of relatively few derivatives dealers, who in addition trade extensively with one another. The troubles of one could quickly infect the others. On top of that, these dealers are owed huge amounts by nondealer counterparties. Some of these counterparties, as I’ve mentioned, are linked in ways that could cause them to contemporaneously run into a problem because of a single event (such as the implosion of the telecom industry or the precipitous decline in the value of merchant power projects). Linkage, when it suddenly surfaces, can trigger serious systemic problems.

"Derivatives are financial weapons of mass destruction. The dangers are now latent--but they could be lethal".

[Warren Buffett 2003]


Warren Buffett aside, I don't think anyone fancies the Fed's chances of shoring up the derivatives market should the dominoes start to topple.



Warren Buffett has always
feared the massive derivatives
market.

What is clear is this scenario has at least the rest of the year to fully play out and further State intervention should be carefully applied only if is really going to work and not because the Fed needs to be seen to be doing something.

Hold onto those gold bars and keep the cash under the mattress, you just might need them.


Essential related reading from Share Investor

The Global Economy looks bad now? But wait there's more
Global credit squeeze: There is no free lunch
Current Credit crunch a blessing in disguise
Lenders must come clean over losses to restore faith in credit markets
Watch for dead cats bouncing
Global Market Meltdown: I can smell the fear from here
Warren Buffett's The Intelligent Investor
Global Market's dropping and your portfolio
Global Market Meltdown: What is Warren Buffett doing?
A sensible approach to global market volatility

Visit Everything Warren Buffett-for everything Warren Buffett

C Share Investor 2008

Wheres the Love?

Government cost to business hasn't been ameliorated by today's quadrangle of
State interference that kicked off, appropriately, on April 1.


I cant help myself talking about it, politics is intrinsically linked to investing and business and in New Zealand our economy is hugely influenced by what the government of the day does to it more than most global economies.

The introduction and trumpeting today by our Labour government of 4 things that "they are proud of" that will "help business" has less to do with helping business but more to do with election year and keeping control over the economy and its participants.

The much ballyhooed 3% cut in corporate tax rates, taxpayer handouts to business for research and development, employer contributions to Kiwisaver and the lift of the minimum wage to 12 bucks all run against each other in their purpose and execution.

The over hyped tax cut and R & D subsidy for our corporates hides the fact that Kiwisaver, the associated paper work and the lift in wages easily dwarfs the meager 3% cut already.

Include all the other government imposed costs to business over the last 9 years, like higher ACC, energy and carbon taxes and nonsense like employer funded maternity leave(what is wrong with the family paying, a novel idea I know, but just an idea) and an extra weeks leave for workers and even the blind, deaf, dribbling and Labour voters(OK maybe that is a stretch) can see how far behind business is.

The tax cut would have to be at least down to a 25% rate to get business back to where it was in 1999, in terms of costs and return of capital.

That way, business could afford to fund R & D from cashflow instead of another army of extra State funded bureaucrat's handing out taxpayer money to those they see should get our money-I mean these people picking business winners? I doubt many of them can remember their PIN numbers let alone pick good businesses.

What is missing from today's election focused "take more it and give some back" approach to business is a bold statement to business, especially small business, the back bone of this country, that the country values your contribution and we are going to reward your entrepreneurship.

State attached funding via R & D subsidies and other quasi government welfare schemes, extra business expense and paperwork isn't a good way to show that we love business.

I fear the present administration doesn't like the independence and confidence that self employment or owning your own business brings and are doing everything they can to inextricably link business owners quest for economic freedom by weighting business and therefore the economy down with cost and bureaucracy.

A 3% company tax cut isn't going to cut it for those hard working individuals who own companies and in fact bypasses those who are sole traders entirely.

Its time to show business we love them.

Not the opposite.


Related Political Animal reading

Labour's State Control Out of control

c Share Investor 2008