thedailyblog--2020-03-10--Why an economic correction isn’t the end of the World

It feels almost inevitable – a worldwide viral epidemic or pandemic , the onset of a ‘ probable ’ recession , jitters in the market , panic buying .
The Novel Corona virus or something similar seems predictable when you have wet markets with unregulated selling and consumption of wildlife , people living at extremely high density and globalisation .
And there have been warnings about the market since the last ‘ too big to fail ’ Global Financial Crisis led to interventions that continued to support unsustainable capitalism .
High debt levels , overproduction , overconsumption , over-tourism , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet and the economy , were going to cause a bust sometime soon – and many economists actually predicted it for last year , so in some ways ‘ economic ( and environmental ) correction ’ is overdue .
We live in both expected , and unprecedented times as efforts to contain and prevent a global pandemic give rise to a supply side export logistics shock leading , with other factors , to an emergent potential global economic shock .
Panic is the enemy of stability as we ’ ve seen with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and the markets .
The potential effects from a pandemic are scary .
It doesn ’ t take much to realise how quickly hospitals and health systems would become overwhelmed if the disease spread significantly and had a higher infection and mortality rate .
A cautious response that attempts to contain the virus is prudent – and may be a practice run for worse in the future .
Unfortunately , the already vulnerable are more likely to suffer first and worst from the disease , especially in countries with marginal or no public @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the precariat , recently employed and low paid workers are most at risk .
I ’ m not shedding tears though that the export of live seafood to China has been impacted by freight restrictions .
I ’ m not sad that China ’ s CO2 emissions have been reduced by a quarter from the Covid 19 shutdown .
There are other positives .
Air pollution has dropped , people are reducing air travel , they are shopping less .
It ’ s hoped that fuel prices will drop at the pump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cost of borrowing should drop ( not that New Zealanders need more debt ) .
In New Zealand , banks might make less profit – though at $ 1.8-2billion per annum they can afford to .
I am concerned at the potential loss of jobs for working people , and the hardship of recession , disease and confinement .
And naturally business advocates are suggesting the planned minimum wage rise be delayed .
Though at this time it ’ s more important not just to support business continuity as owners would have , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ minimum wage too .
Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr says New Zealand is well placed to withstand economic contraction resulting from the Novel Corona Virus .
“ Inflation is near its mid-point .
Employment is at if not slightly above its maximum sustainable rate , and our monetary policy is already very stimulatory.
” With our low public debt levels , we have room to move to support businesses retain workers for the duration of a short recession .
But the effects of the expansionary capitalist growth model as manifest in climate change @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gap between the rich and the poor widens , all show that the planet is most likely to suffer without capitalist correction .
Indeed , the Novel Corona Virus and potential recession may provide an opportunity to reconsider the social and economic settings that have led to political and environmental instability around the world .
A good start has been China ’ s review of the wildlife trade .
But the moment also allows an opportunity to review the speculative , accumulative gambling house that is the stock-market where the rise and fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ availability of food for nations or the environmental quality of all .
The current model has food stockpiled in warehouses to keep prices high while people starve .
Billionaires accumulate more billions while people starve .
Tourists among the world ’ s elite on cruise ships patrol the world in luxury and jet to tropical holidays while people live on the street , or starve .
CEO ’ s pay has grown 1000 % over the last 40 years and they now make 478x the average worker .
Liquor and fishing barons get @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The amount of food we throw away globally is ‘ tragically high ’ , and in New Zealand $ 1.8billion worth is discarded every year .
Excess production and wasteful consumption is driving climate change and species , habitat and cultural diversity loss .
The global economy can afford to slow .
In fact , our future might depend on it .
Design trend advisor Li Edelkoort says the virus might be an event of ‘ amazing grace ’ for the planet .
“ The virus will slow everything down ” .
“ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ making of consumer goods .
That is terrible and wonderful because we need to stop producing at such a pace .
We need to change our behaviour to save the environment ” .
She believes we can emerge from the health crisis as more conscientious humans .
“ We need to find new values—values of simple experience , of friendship.
” “ It might just turn the world around for the better.
” Steven Pearlstein , economics columnist for the Washington Post , and Professor of Public Affairs at George Mason University in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ huge and long-overdue correction in asset prices – especially stocks , bonds , real estate ’ is necessary and inevitable .
But he says , “ the aim is not to prevent this painful process from unfolding , but to ensure it unfolds in as orderly a fashion as possible ” .
An orderly unfolding of the entire economic order is my hope for this juncture , and a transition to a system that ’ s better for people and the planet .
Even a radical ‘ correction ’ to capitalism isn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With climate change and environmental destruction , the end of the world is more likely if we carry on with our usual trajectory of business as usual .

It feels almost inevitable – a worldwide viral epidemic or pandemic, the onset of a ‘probable’ recession, jitters in the market, panic buying. The Novel Corona virus or something similar seems predictable when you have wet markets with unregulated selling and consumption of wildlife, people living at extremely high density and globalisation. And there have been warnings about the market since the last ‘too big to fail’ Global Financial Crisis led to interventions that continued to support unsustainable capitalism. High debt levels, overproduction, overconsumption, over-tourism, unsustainable growth levels – both for the planet and the economy, were going to cause a bust sometime soon – and many economists actually predicted it for last year, so in some ways ‘economic (and environmental) correction’ is overdue.
We live in both expected, and unprecedented times as efforts to contain and prevent a global pandemic give rise to a supply side export logistics shock leading, with other factors, to an emergent potential global economic shock. Panic is the enemy of stability as we’ve seen with the rush on food, toilet paper, and the markets.
The potential effects from a pandemic are scary. It doesn’t take much to realise how quickly hospitals and health systems would become overwhelmed if the disease spread significantly and had a higher infection and mortality rate. A cautious response that attempts to contain the virus is prudent – and may be a practice run for worse in the future. Unfortunately, the already vulnerable are more likely to suffer first and worst from the disease, especially in countries with marginal or no public health care. And with a recession, the precariat, recently employed and low paid workers are most at risk.
I’m not shedding tears though that the export of live seafood to China has been impacted by freight restrictions. I’m not sad that China’s CO2 emissions have been reduced by a quarter from the Covid 19 shutdown. There are other positives. Air pollution has dropped, people are reducing air travel, they are shopping less. It’s hoped that fuel prices will drop at the pump along with in international sales. The cost of borrowing should drop (not that New Zealanders need more debt). In New Zealand, banks might make less profit – though at $1.8-2billion per annum they can afford to.
I am concerned at the potential loss of jobs for working people, and the hardship of recession, disease and confinement. And naturally business advocates are suggesting the planned minimum wage rise be delayed. Though at this time it’s more important not just to support business continuity as owners would have, but also workers and those on the minimum wage too.
Reserve Bank Governor Adrian Orr says New Zealand is well placed to withstand economic contraction resulting from the Novel Corona Virus. “Inflation is near its mid-point. Employment is at if not slightly above its maximum sustainable rate, and our monetary policy is already very stimulatory.” With our low public debt levels, we have room to move to support businesses retain workers for the duration of a short recession. But the effects of the expansionary capitalist growth model as manifest in climate change, biodiversity loss and impoverishment as the gap between the rich and the poor widens, all show that the planet is most likely to suffer without capitalist correction.
Indeed, the Novel Corona Virus and potential recession may provide an opportunity to reconsider the social and economic settings that have led to political and environmental instability around the world. A good start has been China’s review of the wildlife trade. But the moment also allows an opportunity to review the speculative, accumulative gambling house that is the stock-market where the rise and fall of bets and hedges can determine the availability of food for nations or the environmental quality of all. The current model has food stockpiled in warehouses to keep prices high while people starve. Billionaires accumulate more billions while people starve. Tourists among the world’s elite on cruise ships patrol the world in luxury and jet to tropical holidays while people live on the street, or starve. CEO’s pay has grown 1000% over the last 40 years and they now make 478x the average worker. Liquor and fishing barons get the highest honours in the land. The amount of food we throw away globally is ‘tragically high’, and in New Zealand $1.8billion worth is discarded every year. Excess production and wasteful consumption is driving climate change and species, habitat and cultural diversity loss. The global economy can afford to slow. In fact, our future might depend on it.
Design trend advisor Li Edelkoort says the virus might be an event of ‘amazing grace’ for the planet. “The virus will slow everything down”. “We will see an arrest in the making of consumer goods. That is terrible and wonderful because we need to stop producing at such a pace. We need to change our behaviour to save the environment”. She believes we can emerge from the health crisis as more conscientious humans. “We need to find new values—values of simple experience, of friendship.” “It might just turn the world around for the better.”
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Steven Pearlstein, economics columnist for the Washington Post, and Professor of Public Affairs at George Mason University in the States, says that a ‘huge and long-overdue correction in asset prices – especially stocks, bonds, real estate’ is necessary and inevitable. But he says, “the aim is not to prevent this painful process from unfolding, but to ensure it unfolds in as orderly a fashion as possible”. An orderly unfolding of the entire economic order is my hope for this juncture, and a transition to a system that’s better for people and the planet.
Even a radical ‘correction’ to capitalism isn’t the end of the world. With climate change and environmental destruction, the end of the world is more likely if we carry on with our usual trajectory of business as usual.


thedailyblog--2020-03-12--MUST READ; Banking must be a public utility to solve the housing crisis

Housing availability and affordability are in a crisis in New Zealand .
31 percent of households spent 30 percent or more of their income on housing costs .
This number was only 11 % in the late 1980s .
For renters , 28 % spend 40 % or more of income on housing .
Average rents have increased from $ 400 to $ 580 a week since 2008 .
Over the last decade , average housing costs increased by 43 % .
This was similar to the growth of average incomes but the poorest housing incomes only increased by 29 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in floating mortgage rates from 10 % to 3 % at the same time as median house prices have doubled .
Mortgage debt is now at $ 266 billion ( May 2019 ) – up 38 % in the last five years .
Overall household debt has gone from the equivalent of 50 % of GDP in the late 19780s to over 160 % today .
Household debt to income ratios is also extremely high and dangerous at 165 % double the level of the mid-1990s .
Households with mortgages have on average @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But 40 % of recent borrowers have more than five times their income in debt .
The so-called housing market has very little to do with the laws around supply and demand .
It is almost entirely a question of the banking system ’ s ability to create and sell mortgages and make enormous profits doing so .
A period of declining interest rates has allowed the New Zealand banks to seduce people into believing that this will remain the situation forever and all we have to worry about is servicing the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A significant economic shock , like we are currently experiencing , will put incomes at risk and interest rates could easily start moving up as a consequence of the increased risk attached to the borrowing .
This is perhaps easier to see when looking at bank lending in another entirely unrelated sphere – New York Taxi licenses .
The city had a cap on licenses of around 13,500 .
The cap made the license a tradeable commodity that drivers , fleet owners and nowadays hedge funds can buy and sell .
A New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Conned ’ : How reckless Loans Devastated a Generation of Taxi Drivers explains how banks predatory lending helped drive license prices up to $ 1 million each by 2014 and then the prices collapsed and hundreds of drivers were ruined and bankrupted .
This heartbreaking story is a real risk of being rerun in this country because of excessive bank lending in pursuit of profit .
With land , there is always a limit to the amount available .
Land can be left idle , but It also can also be used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , factories or warehouses .
The banks job is to ensure that any increase in income or potential income over time gets capitalised in the price for that property that can then be demanded when sold .
The bank ’ s job is to encourage a buyer to get a loan or mortgage that can be used to purchase that income stream .
Mortgage debt has been encouraged for speculative purposes by even relatively modest income households because there few capital gain taxes and New Zealand hasn ’ t suffered a severe downturn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s living memory .
It seems a “ safe ” investment .
This also makes it politically difficult to impose capital gains taxes on homes .
That is why wealth taxes are probably a better way to go to get at the accumulated wealth that has escaped the need to pay tax .
The escalating house prices have however made owning a home increasingly unattainable for many .
Homeownership rates are now in a steady decline from 73.8 % of homes in 1991 to 62 % today .
The perfect storm of housing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decline in statehouse building in recent decades .
A peak of 70,000 state homes existed in the early 1990s despite the neglect of the National governments which were in power for most of the period from 1950 to 1984 .
State housing ceased to be a right and was turned into something only suitable and available for the desperately poor or needy .
The number registered on the official Housing Register qualifying under the very high threshold demanded for access has leaped from 6000 to 15000 in the last two years .
This @ @ @ @ @ @ @ needs being better reflected when the new government stopped simply refusing to allow people to register .
But the new government has only built 3300 public housing units with another 2500 planned to finish by the end of this year .
There is a total of 67,253 total subsidised tenancies , up from 63,300 in 2017 .
These are steps forward , but they are very tiny steps given the crisis level of the problem and urgent human need .
There are another 3500 desperate people in emergency hotel stays .
While the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of state houses , they have allowed most of the land in the traditional state housing suburbs to be privatised .
Each new development in a working-class suburb like Glenn Innes is handed over to private developers who can buy the land and put three homes on for each one being taken out .
Only one of the three remains a state house .
The others are to be sold privately ( one possibly at a so-called “ affordable ” price ) .
When these orginal state house suburbs were created those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were proud to say we live in a state house .
It meant a home of good quality with a flush toilet and a gas stove .
These were working-class suburbs with nearly everyone having a job and active union , sport and social activities .
You had tenancies for life and could apply to move from one city or suburb to another into another state house that became available .
The first Labour government built 30,000 between 1936 and 1949 as well as fighting in a world war for five years .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ people on the waiting list and the intention was just to keep building until everyone who wanted one could have one .
This is actually what was achieved in Sweden under their Social Democratic Party government .
Sweden ’ s Social Democrats , in government from 1932 to 1976 , did not favour “ social ” housing directed specifically towards those in need , but universal public housing , via tenant-owned co-operatives , municipal-owned building companies , and rigorous rent control , under a specialised housing department .
The Spinoff has a good @ @ @ @ @ @ @ considered a privilege in New Zealand .
In Sweden , it ’ s a human right .
It explains that 15 % of Swedes live in municipally owned social housing with tenant unions that collectively bargain with the state and private owners .
The housing crisis in New Zealand has also been compounded by the creation of a landlord subsidy in the form of the accommodation supplement .
By making it easier for low-income people to access a benefit that could only be received if you proved you had high rent then the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suck up the full value .
The increased guaranteed income stream is also then inevitable capitalised into higher house prices by the banking system .
This is no different than higher dairy prices getting capitalised into higher dairy farm prices .
This level of banking debt can become a problem with an economic shock .
This is what the International Monetary Fund told the government in 2017 .
As Thomas Coughlan reported in Newsroom May 9 , 2017 : In March , after one of its regular visits to New Zealand , an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the New Zealand economy was good , housing affordability and the stress this placed on the banking system was a problem .
If there was a significant global shock , they warned , the high levels of household debt held by New Zealanders ( an astronomical 168 percent of disposable income ) risked destabilising the economy should a global shock lead to conditions that made it difficult for New Zealanders to repay their mortgages .
The banking system is based on maximising the creation of debt to enable profits in the form @ @ @ @ @ @ @ top four banks in New Zealand have doubled in the last decade and between them make around $ 6 billion in profits a year .
The return on equity is one of the highest levels for any similar banking system in the world .
Banking profits alone dwarf the combined profits of almost every other publicly listed company in New Zealand .
The ANZ made more than Fonterra , Spark , Fletcher Building , The Warehouse , Air NZ and the major supermarkets combined in 2017 for example .
These banks ’ profits @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Zealand ’ s entire GDP compared to only 2 % in Australia – their home country for all four .
Their greed knows no limit and extends to cheating the taxman through elaborately designed tax avoidance schemes .
The entire banking system should be taken over as a public service .
The big four actually have their presence in New Zealand through taking over previously publicly or community-owned banks during the privatisation mania that swept the country in the 1980s and 1990s and wreaked so much economic havoc .
The BNZ used to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the old Post Office Savings Bank before it was privatised .
The ASB used to be owned by a Community Trust that paid returns to the community .
The creation of money , in all its forms , should be a publicly controlled process without capitalist greed periodically putting entire financial systems at risk and that we end up having to bail them out because of their greed and that they are “ too big to fail ” .
This is effectively what happened in Irealand , the UK and US after the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we do not repeat this time as we face the economic dangers ahead .
As part of a Green New Deal to deal with the crisis we should • None Nationalise the Big Four banks without compensation for their crimes against the taxpayer and working people of New Zealand .
• None Start a massive state house building programme of 10,000 a year until everyone who needs a home has .
• None All rents should be no more than 12 hours of a person ’ s income • None Empty homes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ None Tenants should be empowered to create a union to represent them .
This should begin to everyone in social housing .
• None All wealth over $ 5 million should be subject to an annual 1 % wealth tax .
This could increase to 2 % for wealth above $ 50 million and 3 % for wealth above $ 1 billion .
• None All income up to a living wage a year should be tax-free and new higher tax bands estalished on income over $ 150,000 a year with a 100 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ year .

Housing availability and affordability are in a crisis in New Zealand.
31 percent of households spent 30 percent or more of their income on housing costs. This number was only 11% in the late 1980s.
For renters, 28% spend 40% or more of income on housing. Average rents have increased from $400 to $580 a week since 2008.
Over the last decade, average housing costs increased by 43%. This was similar to the growth of average incomes but the poorest housing incomes only increased by 29%.
The has been a decline in floating mortgage rates from 10% to 3% at the same time as median house prices have doubled.
Mortgage debt is now at $266 billion (May 2019) – up 38% in the last five years. Overall household debt has gone from the equivalent of 50% of GDP in the late 19780s to over 160% today. Household debt to income ratios is also extremely high and dangerous at 165% double the level of the mid-1990s.
Households with mortgages have on average three times their disposable income in debt. But 40% of recent borrowers have more than five times their income in debt.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The so-called housing market has very little to do with the laws around supply and demand. It is almost entirely a question of the banking system’s ability to create and sell mortgages and make enormous profits doing so.
A period of declining interest rates has allowed the New Zealand banks to seduce people into believing that this will remain the situation forever and all we have to worry about is servicing the debt not the amount of debt.
A significant economic shock, like we are currently experiencing, will put incomes at risk and interest rates could easily start moving up as a consequence of the increased risk attached to the borrowing.
This is perhaps easier to see when looking at bank lending in another entirely unrelated sphere – New York Taxi licenses. The city had a cap on licenses of around 13,500. The cap made the license a tradeable commodity that drivers, fleet owners and nowadays hedge funds can buy and sell.
A New York Times article headed ‘They Were Conned’: How reckless Loans Devastated a Generation of Taxi Drivers explains how banks predatory lending helped drive license prices up to $1 million each by 2014 and then the prices collapsed and hundreds of drivers were ruined and bankrupted.
This heartbreaking story is a real risk of being rerun in this country because of excessive bank lending in pursuit of profit. With land, there is always a limit to the amount available. Land can be left idle, but It also can also be used to earn income – from housing, agriculture, factories or warehouses. The banks job is to ensure that any increase in income or potential income over time gets capitalised in the price for that property that can then be demanded when sold. The bank’s job is to encourage a buyer to get a loan or mortgage that can be used to purchase that income stream.
Mortgage debt has been encouraged for speculative purposes by even relatively modest income households because there few capital gain taxes and New Zealand hasn’t suffered a severe downturn in the property market within anyone’s living memory. It seems a “safe” investment. This also makes it politically difficult to impose capital gains taxes on homes.
That is why wealth taxes are probably a better way to go to get at the accumulated wealth that has escaped the need to pay tax.
The escalating house prices have however made owning a home increasingly unattainable for many. Homeownership rates are now in a steady decline from 73.8% of homes in 1991 to 62% today.
The perfect storm of housing availability and affordability was compounded by the decline in statehouse building in recent decades.
A peak of 70,000 state homes existed in the early 1990s despite the neglect of the National governments which were in power for most of the period from 1950 to 1984. State housing ceased to be a right and was turned into something only suitable and available for the desperately poor or needy.
The number registered on the official Housing Register qualifying under the very high threshold demanded for access has leaped from 6000 to 15000 in the last two years. This was in part the result of real needs being better reflected when the new government stopped simply refusing to allow people to register.
But the new government has only built 3300 public housing units with another 2500 planned to finish by the end of this year.
There is a total of 67,253 total subsidised tenancies, up from 63,300 in 2017.
These are steps forward, but they are very tiny steps given the crisis level of the problem and urgent human need.
There are another 3500 desperate people in emergency hotel stays.
While the government has only very modestly increased the number of state houses, they have allowed most of the land in the traditional state housing suburbs to be privatised. Each new development in a working-class suburb like Glenn Innes is handed over to private developers who can buy the land and put three homes on for each one being taken out. Only one of the three remains a state house. The others are to be sold privately (one possibly at a so-called “affordable” price).
When these orginal state house suburbs were created those of us who grew up in them were proud to say we live in a state house. It meant a home of good quality with a flush toilet and a gas stove. These were working-class suburbs with nearly everyone having a job and active union, sport and social activities. You had tenancies for life and could apply to move from one city or suburb to another into another state house that became available.
The first Labour government built 30,000 between 1936 and 1949 as well as fighting in a world war for five years. When they left office there were 40,000 people on the waiting list and the intention was just to keep building until everyone who wanted one could have one.
This is actually what was achieved in Sweden under their Social Democratic Party government.
Sweden’s Social Democrats, in government from 1932 to 1976, did not favour “social” housing directed specifically towards those in need, but universal public housing, via tenant-owned co-operatives, municipal-owned building companies, and rigorous rent control, under a specialised housing department.
The Spinoff has a good article that is headed Good housing is considered a privilege in New Zealand. In Sweden, it’s a human right. It explains that 15% of Swedes live in municipally owned social housing with tenant unions that collectively bargain with the state and private owners.
The housing crisis in New Zealand has also been compounded by the creation of a landlord subsidy in the form of the accommodation supplement. By making it easier for low-income people to access a benefit that could only be received if you proved you had high rent then the inevitable happened. Landlords increased rents to suck up the full value. The increased guaranteed income stream is also then inevitable capitalised into higher house prices by the banking system. This is no different than higher dairy prices getting capitalised into higher dairy farm prices.
This level of banking debt can become a problem with an economic shock. This is what the International Monetary Fund told the government in 2017. As Thomas Coughlan reported in Newsroom May 9, 2017:
In March, after one of its regular visits to New Zealand, an IMF mission concluded while the immediate outlook for the New Zealand economy was good, housing affordability and the stress this placed on the banking system was a problem. If there was a significant global shock, they warned, the high levels of household debt held by New Zealanders (an astronomical 168 percent of disposable income) risked destabilising the economy should a global shock lead to conditions that made it difficult for New Zealanders to repay their mortgages.
The banking system is based on maximising the creation of debt to enable profits in the form of interest. The profits of the top four banks in New Zealand have doubled in the last decade and between them make around $6 billion in profits a year. The return on equity is one of the highest levels for any similar banking system in the world. Banking profits alone dwarf the combined profits of almost every other publicly listed company in New Zealand. The ANZ made more than Fonterra, Spark, Fletcher Building, The Warehouse, Air NZ and the major supermarkets combined in 2017 for example. These banks’ profits are equivalent to 2.5% on New Zealand’s entire GDP compared to only 2% in Australia – their home country for all four.
Their greed knows no limit and extends to cheating the taxman through elaborately designed tax avoidance schemes.
The entire banking system should be taken over as a public service. The big four actually have their presence in New Zealand through taking over previously publicly or community-owned banks during the privatisation mania that swept the country in the 1980s and 1990s and wreaked so much economic havoc. The BNZ used to be state-owned. The ANZ took over the old Post Office Savings Bank before it was privatised. The ASB used to be owned by a Community Trust that paid returns to the community.
The creation of money, in all its forms, should be a publicly controlled process without capitalist greed periodically putting entire financial systems at risk and that we end up having to bail them out because of their greed and that they are “too big to fail”. This is effectively what happened in Irealand, the UK and US after the 2008 crisis and we should make sure we do not repeat this time as we face the economic dangers ahead.
As part of a Green New Deal to deal with the crisis we should
Nationalise the Big Four banks without compensation for their crimes against the taxpayer and working people of New Zealand.


thedailyblog--2020-03-12--Integrating Seamlessly With The Lowest Common Denominator

EVERYONE HAS HAD a good laugh at RNZ ’ s “ Music Strategy ” featuring “ The Ten New Zealanders ” .
The idiocy of modern marketing is always good for a chuckle or two , and these crude stereotypes have certainly provoked a lot more than that .
Less amusing , however , is the sheer vapidity of an in-house culture willing to lay such inanity before its governing body .
That the RNZ Board of Governors accepted such a presentation , rather than throwing back in the faces of its supposedly professional authors , is way beyond unfunny @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Reading the material , one is shocked by the authors ’ disdain for making any kind of case more sophisticated than .
“ This is what we want , can we have it please ?
” Take , for example , RNZ ’ s supposed “ goal ” of expanding the public broadcaster ’ s reach to encompass half the New Zealand population by 2022 .
This sort of “ planning ” is nothing short of Stalinist in its towering ambition .
It seems inconceivable that there was no one in RNZ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ “ Two Year Plan ” , didn ’ t object that the achievement of such a goal would require the setting aside of all professional broadcasting standards .
If such objections were made , however , then it is equally clear that the answer from above was “ So ?
” Professionalism is not highly valued in these presentations .
Rather , it is not-so-subtly suggested that such considerations might actually be part of the problem with RNZ .
Certainly , there is a fairly obvious prejudice against the high-culture featured on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be regarded as evidence of Pakeha elitism at work .
In the material presented to the board , this is framed as being , if not a “ bad thing ” , then most certainly as “ something to be avoided ” .
Permeating the whole “ Music Strategy ” is a level of anti-intellectualism that , once again , would not be out of place at a Soviet-era exhibition of “ socialist-realist ” art .
Just as the Communist party of the Soviet Union commissioned the production of endless paeans to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , RNZ ’ s “ strategists ” make plain their urgent desire to cram the public broadcaster ’ s schedule with the heroic cultural production of Aotearoa ’ s shamelessly neglected “ youth ” .
Indeed , it is clear from the material released by RNZ Management , after multiple Official Information Act requests , that what was being contemplated in the rolling-out of its “ Music Strategy ” was something between an old-fashioned Soviet purge and an old-fashioned Bolshevik coup .
The quiet and deeply knowledgeable professionals at RNZ Concert headquarters in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a bullet in the back of the head , while the Auckland studios of RNZ were to be taken over by the woke graduates of the nation ’ s “ communication studies ” courses – along with the cream of the student radio stations RNZ ’ s strategists are clearly intending to replace with “ RNZ Music ” .
In their own words , RNZ Music ( Version 2.0 ) is “ an entirely new brand for young NZ ( all 18–35 ) .
RNZ Music v 2.0 utilises traditional broadcast and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content .
Content that is curated by influencer talent that RNZ will source from within the diverse target audience .
This will foster a sense of strong national identity and will promote NZ culture to a young Aotearoa.
” If that isn ’ t a clear enough statement of intent , then try the following description of the “ talent ” the new entity is looking to recruit : • The new team will be Gen Z and Millennials .
• They will have social clout within the new audience • They live @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s lifestyle back upon itself RNZ ’ s strategists even offered up an example of “ Best Practice ” who can serve as a role model for their talent .
Ebro Darden , of Hot 97 ( New York ) Beats 1 Radio , points the way forward for a public broadcaster whose staff will no longer be “ just radio announcers ” ( like those awful cardigan-wearing old reactionaries at RNZ Concert ! )
but “ musicians , comedians and social media content creators.
” They will use their “ influence within @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and wide to RNZ ’ s new social audience ” .
Naturally , RNZ content will integrate “ seamlessly within their personal feeds.
” There ’ s plenty of examples of Ebro Darden ’ s “ best practice ” on YouTube .
If RNZ ’ s management is serious about adopting Hot 97 ( New York ) as a template , then they should lay in a good supply of flak-jackets – they will need them !
But , maybe that ’ s the idea .
RNZ management seems to glory in “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ audience .
Those expectations , based on the “ inform , educate , entertain ” formula laid down by the first Director General of the BBC , John Reith , in the 1920s , and adopted without demur by New Zealand ’ s public broadcasting services ever since , are clearly out of favour with RNZ ’ s new breed of cultural commissars .
Fuelling their contempt is an ageism so intense that , if women , LGBTQI+ , or people of colour were its targets , then the jobs of RNZ ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ appear to hate their most loyal listeners with a passion as odd and inexplicable as it is self-defeating .
How else to explain the unmistakeable decline in RNZ ’ s professionalism ?
As if the exercise of sound editorial judgement and a strict adherence to the taxpayers ’ expectations of fairness and balance are yet more manifestations of white colonialist privilege to be swept away .
The banality on display in “ The Ten New Zealanders ” section of RNZ ’ s “ Music Strategy ” is emblematic of the organisation ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s role .
RNZ ’ s job is not to swallow up the entire radio audience by pandering to the lowest common denominator and surrendering the professional broadcasting standards developed over decades to a crass format designed to “ integrate seamlessly ” with the personal feeds of 18-25 year-olds .
The purpose of a public broadcaster is to set the bar so high that its private sector competitors are dissuaded from letting it sink too low .
It is about letting people find that one place on the dial where commercial considerations are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the imaginations of people from all cultures and classes are given wings .
Like the public libraries they so perfectly complement , public broadcasters are refuges for the mind ; places in the heart ; tonics for the soul .

EVERYONE HAS HAD a good laugh at RNZ’s “Music Strategy” featuring “The Ten New Zealanders”. The idiocy of modern marketing is always good for a chuckle or two, and these crude stereotypes have certainly provoked a lot more than that. Less amusing, however, is the sheer vapidity of an in-house culture willing to lay such inanity before its governing body. That the RNZ Board of Governors accepted such a presentation, rather than throwing back in the faces of its supposedly professional authors, is way beyond unfunny – it’s just bloody sad.
Reading the material, one is shocked by the authors’ disdain for making any kind of case more sophisticated than. “This is what we want, can we have it please?”
Take, for example, RNZ’s supposed “goal” of expanding the public broadcaster’s reach to encompass half the New Zealand population by 2022. This sort of “planning” is nothing short of Stalinist in its towering ambition. It seems inconceivable that there was no one in RNZ who, when presented with their bosses’ “Two Year Plan”, didn’t object that the achievement of such a goal would require the setting aside of all professional broadcasting standards. If such objections were made, however, then it is equally clear that the answer from above was “So?”
Professionalism is not highly valued in these presentations. Rather, it is not-so-subtly suggested that such considerations might actually be part of the problem with RNZ. Certainly, there is a fairly obvious prejudice against the high-culture featured on RNZ Concert. Such programming seems to be regarded as evidence of Pakeha elitism at work. In the material presented to the board, this is framed as being, if not a “bad thing”, then most certainly as “something to be avoided”.
Permeating the whole “Music Strategy” is a level of anti-intellectualism that, once again, would not be out of place at a Soviet-era exhibition of “socialist-realist” art. Just as the Communist party of the Soviet Union commissioned the production of endless paeans to the heroic qualities of Soviet workers and peasants, RNZ’s “strategists” make plain their urgent desire to cram the public broadcaster’s schedule with the heroic cultural production of Aotearoa’s shamelessly neglected “youth”.
Indeed, it is clear from the material released by RNZ Management, after multiple Official Information Act requests, that what was being contemplated in the rolling-out of its “Music Strategy” was something between an old-fashioned Soviet purge and an old-fashioned Bolshevik coup. The quiet and deeply knowledgeable professionals at RNZ Concert headquarters in Wellington were to receive the career equivalent of a bullet in the back of the head, while the Auckland studios of RNZ were to be taken over by the woke graduates of the nation’s “communication studies” courses – along with the cream of the student radio stations RNZ’s strategists are clearly intending to replace with “RNZ Music”.
In their own words, RNZ Music (Version 2.0) is “an entirely new brand for young NZ (all 18–35). RNZ Music v 2.0 utilises traditional broadcast and new digital technologies to generate and share content. Content that is curated by influencer talent that RNZ will source from within the diverse target audience. This will foster a sense of strong national identity and will promote NZ culture to a young Aotearoa.”
If that isn’t a clear enough statement of intent, then try the following description of the “talent” the new entity is looking to recruit:
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
The new team will be Gen Z and Millennials.
They will have social clout within the new audience
They live the life and reflect the audience’s lifestyle back upon itself
RNZ’s strategists even offered up an example of “Best Practice” who can serve as a role model for their talent. Ebro Darden, of Hot 97 (New York) Beats 1 Radio, points the way forward for a public broadcaster whose staff will no longer be “just radio announcers” (like those awful cardigan-wearing old reactionaries at RNZ Concert!) but “musicians, comedians and social media content creators.” They will use their “influence within the community to spread the message far and wide to RNZ’s new social audience”. Naturally, RNZ content will integrate “seamlessly within their personal feeds.”
There’s plenty of examples of Ebro Darden’s “best practice” on YouTube. If RNZ’s management is serious about adopting Hot 97 (New York) as a template, then they should lay in a good supply of flak-jackets – they will need them!
But, maybe that’s the idea. RNZ management seems to glory in “disrupting” the expectations of its core audience. Those expectations, based on the “inform, educate, entertain” formula laid down by the first Director General of the BBC, John Reith, in the 1920s, and adopted without demur by New Zealand’s public broadcasting services ever since, are clearly out of favour with RNZ’s new breed of cultural commissars.
Fuelling their contempt is an ageism so intense that, if women, LGBTQI+, or people of colour were its targets, then the jobs of RNZ’s bosses would be forfeit. They appear to hate their most loyal listeners with a passion as odd and inexplicable as it is self-defeating. How else to explain the unmistakeable decline in RNZ’s professionalism? As if the exercise of sound editorial judgement and a strict adherence to the taxpayers’ expectations of fairness and balance are yet more manifestations of white colonialist privilege to be swept away.
The banality on display in “The Ten New Zealanders” section of RNZ’s “Music Strategy” is emblematic of the organisation’s fundamental misunderstanding of the public broadcaster’s role. RNZ’s job is not to swallow up the entire radio audience by pandering to the lowest common denominator and surrendering the professional broadcasting standards developed over decades to a crass format designed to “integrate seamlessly” with the personal feeds of 18-25 year-olds.
The purpose of a public broadcaster is to set the bar so high that its private sector competitors are dissuaded from letting it sink too low. It is about letting people find that one place on the dial where commercial considerations are absent; preconceptions are challenged; and the imaginations of people from all cultures and classes are given wings. Like the public libraries they so perfectly complement, public broadcasters are refuges for the mind; places in the heart; tonics for the soul.


thedailyblog--2020-03-11--Medicinal cannabis wins and polls point to cannabis referendum’s recipe for success

Improvements to New Zealand ’ s new medicinal cannabis scheme – together with recent polling – suggest how we can win the cannabis referendum , writes Chris Fowlie .
There has been much criticism of the medicinal cannabis scheme , and some of it justified .
Patients can ’ t grow their own .
So far , products have been more expensive than they could be .
The dealings of middle class businessmen has been distasteful to many people , and even worse if regular folk aren ’ t given a chance to participate .
And so on .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is actually a lot to like about the scheme .
When the medicinal cannabis regulations take effect on 1 April 2020 , any doctor will be able to prescribe THC and CBD products to any patient for any condition .
The products must meet a Quality Standard , be tested and true to label .
This will give doctors the confidence they need to make more prescriptions .
But there will be no more requirements for expensive and slow specialist sign offs , and no more politicians running interference .
This is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will make a real difference to thousands of patients .
Patients will have options and choices .
There can be cannabis vaping products , edibles , tinctures , balms , lotions , tablets , softgels , suppositories , trans-dermal patches , dried flowers and a whole lot more .
Local commercial production will be allowed for the first time , and licences are cheaper and simpler than first proposed .
The Ministry of Health has listened to the concerns of those who took part in several consultation rounds and meetings , and adopted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scheme much more viable for local producers to get affordable products to patients .
While public funding remains an issue to be resolved , product costs and development time will be greatly reduced by not requiring expensive multi-year clinical trials .
Crucially , local growers and small players also get a hand up : • The fees are much cheaper than first proposed ; • There is a new pre-vetting process to give initial applications a faster sign off ; • Local ( currently illicit ) genetics can be made legal through an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ A new Nursery Licence lets breeders become seed merchants to other growers ; • Those with cannabis convictions won ’ t be automatically excluded ; and These changes came from successful lobbying from myself and the New Zealand Medical Cannabis Council team , promoting thought-leadership ( including blogging here ) , offering constructive solutions to those given an often thankless task , and backing this up by effectively working political channels .
Overall this is great news , and we should be hearing it loud and clear , right ?
While we ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that allows maximum participation and potentially spreads the benefits to more people and communities who need it , people often think the industry is trying to wrap it up for themselves .
But those of us who banded together to form the NZ Medical Cannabis Council , including Rua Bioscience , Cannasouth and Zeacann , understand we will all grow together if more people can share the benefits .
Like with the wine industry , New Zealand can become a country known for producing the best cannabis products in the world .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ make products more affordable for local patients .
And if more people knew the good things about the medicinal cannabis scheme , I think there would be less strident criticism , which comes from a position of simply not knowing the facts .
There are several lessons here for the cannabis referendum .
The cannabis referendum is also suffering from a lack of information about the legal model .
Most people agree prohibition does not work , but most people have no idea what the Bill does .
Recent poll volatility also confirms @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their mind up .
Support for reform can vary between polls in the same week , depending on what happened and how the question was worded .
While a recent Colmar Brunton poll had the Yes vote trailing , a UMR poll in the same week had Yes leading .
The best thing about the UMR poll , commissioned by the Helen Clark Foundation and the NZ Drug Foundation , is that it showed New Zealanders support legal cannabis if they know the facts .
It turns out there is a huge number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ way , and giving them basic information about the referendum usually shifts them towards the Yes vote .
Middle voters want to know about the controls in the Bill .
How cannabis use will be limited to adults , in private homes or specially licensed venues .
They want to know there will be no advertising , no Big Business , and more support for health and education .
This simple messaging works .
What doesn ’ t work is making unrealistic claims , such as cannabis reform being a miracle cure for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say they ’ re on our side – but continually harp on about anything they don ’ t like about the Bill – to just shut up .
These friends are our own worst enemy , by demoralising and discouraging our supporters more effectively than the No campaigners .
We can make it better Our work to successfully make improvements to the medicinal cannabis scheme shows how we can also improve the referendum Bill , so that the Yes vote is more likely to win .
It turns out we are leading the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
It goes further and is much better than what Canada has done .
Developing this is not that easy , and kudos to all those who are working on it .
In my experience the policymakers are open to constructive solutions if they ’ re given to the right people at the right time .
The final version of the referendum Bill will be released before the official campaigning period starts in June .
There may be some changes to what was proposed in the draft Bill , but the most significant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ objectives .
Social equity for cannabis means righting the wrongs of past policies .
It means removing barriers to going legal , so that more people can participate and share any economic benefits – especially those who suffered most under harsh punitive law enforcement .
It means returning cannabis sales revenues to local communities rather than enriching corporates .
It means paying for extra classrooms or health services with cannabis sales revenues .
It means favouring social enterprises over pure profits .
It can mean active support for those at the bottom , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mentorship or lower licence fees , funded by sales revenues .
In a nutshell , social equity makes legalisation work for everyone , not just those who consume cannabis .
How the social equity objectives are defined will fundamentally determine the structure of the market , who participates and how widely the benefits are shared .
It will also dramatically affect public perception of the referendum model .
The Medicinal Cannabis Scheme has so far been largely associated with the business dealings of middle class men .
Most people feel excluded , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Among many supporters there is a lack of enthusiasm for the scheme .
The referendum needs to flip that mindset if we are to win , and I think the key will be what they do with social equity .
To win , cannabis law reform should benefit everyone When the referendum ’ s draft Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill was announced , the media concentrated on the proposal to allow adults aged over 20 to legally grow two plants each ( or four per household ) , and purchase up to 14 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ focus was on what adult cannabis consumers can do .
But a majority Yes vote would also allow : • Cheaper access to cannabis products for therapeutic use , because patients could just go to cannabis stores .
• Adults can purchase seeds or seedlings to grow at home .
• Prices would be cheaper than for pharmaceutical products .
• Cannabis sales taxes will go to health and education .
• Profits would be taken away from organised crime .
• Licences will be allocated to achieve social equity objectives .
We @ @ @ @ @ @ @ everywhere tell me they want a law for the people , not just profits .
They need to hear more about these spin off benefits .
I think the final bill could be made even better if policymakers also incorporate aspects of the Cannabis & Hemp Opportunity , Investment and Social Equity ( CHOISE ) model I have released to encourage public discussion .
Under the draft Bill , the cannabis licensing authority would decide how to allocate licenses .
CHOISE says they should use a points-based licensing system ( like Illinois ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ communities , and to help right the wrongs by ensuring those who suffered most under the current law ( such as Maori ) are first in line .
It ’ s great to see the referendum Bill proposes sales levies , rather than taxes , because levies can be directed to specific areas .
CHOISE proposes directing the cannabis sales levies into local community groups , building local support into the future .
It will be interesting to see if the referendum Bill adopts this approach .
Home delivery and mail order sites @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This would also let conservative local communities “ opt out ” if they don ’ t want cannabis retail stores in their area , while retaining consumer access especially for those who find travel difficult .
We should also do all we can to encourage local and craft growers over booze-owned foreign corporates .
Let those who have minor pot convictions enter the legal industry .
That ’ s really important if we want those on the illicit side to go legal .
Reforms overseas have gone further , setting aside funds to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and reduced fees .
As I have previously written , to end prohibition we need a well-funded public education campaign ahead of the cannabis referendum , and a more popular model based on social equity , social retail enterprises and social clubs .
We can get a majority Yes result in the cannabis referendum with better promotion of the basic information – but every vote will count .
Chris Fowlie is the CEO of Zeacann Limited , a licensed medicinal cannabis company ; co-founder of the New Zealand Medical Cannabis Council ; president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Marijuana Laws NZ Inc ; co-founder of The Hempstore Aotearoa ; resident expert for Marijuana Media on 95bFM ; cannabis blogger for The Daily Blog , and court-recognised independent expert witness for cannabis .
The opinions expressed here are his own .

Improvements to New Zealand’s new medicinal cannabis scheme – together with recent polling – suggest how we can win the cannabis referendum, writes Chris Fowlie.
There has been much criticism of the medicinal cannabis scheme, and some of it justified. Patients can’t grow their own. So far, products have been more expensive than they could be. The dealings of middle class businessmen has been distasteful to many people, and even worse if regular folk aren’t given a chance to participate. And so on.
That’s a shame, because there is actually a lot to like about the scheme.
When the medicinal cannabis regulations take effect on 1 April 2020, any doctor will be able to prescribe THC and CBD products to any patient for any condition.
The products must meet a Quality Standard, be tested and true to label. This will give doctors the confidence they need to make more prescriptions. But there will be no more requirements for expensive and slow specialist sign offs, and no more politicians running interference.
This is a huge improvement on the current situation and will make a real difference to thousands of patients. Patients will have options and choices. There can be cannabis vaping products, edibles, tinctures, balms, lotions, tablets, softgels, suppositories, trans-dermal patches, dried flowers and a whole lot more.
Local commercial production will be allowed for the first time, and licences are cheaper and simpler than first proposed.
The Ministry of Health has listened to the concerns of those who took part in several consultation rounds and meetings, and adopted many important changes that will make the scheme much more viable for local producers to get affordable products to patients.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
While public funding remains an issue to be resolved, product costs and development time will be greatly reduced by not requiring expensive multi-year clinical trials.
Crucially, local growers and small players also get a hand up:
The fees are much cheaper than first proposed;
There is a new pre-vetting process to give initial applications a faster sign off;
Local (currently illicit) genetics can be made legal through an easy and affordable declaration process;
A new Nursery Licence lets breeders become seed merchants to other growers;
Those with cannabis convictions won’t be automatically excluded; and
Overseas corporates won’t get unfair advantages.
These changes came from successful lobbying from myself and the New Zealand Medical Cannabis Council team, promoting thought-leadership (including blogging here), offering constructive solutions to those given an often thankless task, and backing this up by effectively working political channels.
Overall this is great news, and we should be hearing it loud and clear, right?
While we’ve been working for a regulatory framework that allows maximum participation and potentially spreads the benefits to more people and communities who need it, people often think the industry is trying to wrap it up for themselves.
But those of us who banded together to form the NZ Medical Cannabis Council, including Rua Bioscience, Cannasouth and Zeacann, understand we will all grow together if more people can share the benefits.
Like with the wine industry, New Zealand can become a country known for producing the best cannabis products in the world. If we can successfully export, we can make products more affordable for local patients.
And if more people knew the good things about the medicinal cannabis scheme, I think there would be less strident criticism, which comes from a position of simply not knowing the facts.
There are several lessons here for the cannabis referendum.
Information equals support
The cannabis referendum is also suffering from a lack of information about the legal model. Most people agree prohibition does not work, but most people have no idea what the Bill does.
Recent poll volatility also confirms how most people are yet to make their mind up. Support for reform can vary between polls in the same week, depending on what happened and how the question was worded. While a recent Colmar Brunton poll had the Yes vote trailing, a UMR poll in the same week had Yes leading.
The best thing about the UMR poll, commissioned by the Helen Clark Foundation and the NZ Drug Foundation, is that it showed New Zealanders support legal cannabis if they know the facts.
It turns out there is a huge number of middle voters who could go either way, and giving them basic information about the referendum usually shifts them towards the Yes vote.
Middle voters want to know about the controls in the Bill. How cannabis use will be limited to adults, in private homes or specially licensed venues. They want to know there will be no advertising, no Big Business, and more support for health and education. This simple messaging works.
What doesn’t work is making unrealistic claims, such as cannabis reform being a miracle cure for everything. We also need those who say they’re on our side – but continually harp on about anything they don’t like about the Bill – to just shut up. These friends are our own worst enemy, by demoralising and discouraging our supporters more effectively than the No campaigners.
We can make it better
Our work to successfully make improvements to the medicinal cannabis scheme shows how we can also improve the referendum Bill, so that the Yes vote is more likely to win.
It turns out we are leading the world in developing our legal cannabis framework. It goes further and is much better than what Canada has done. Developing this is not that easy, and kudos to all those who are working on it. In my experience the policymakers are open to constructive solutions if they’re given to the right people at the right time.
The final version of the referendum Bill will be released before the official campaigning period starts in June. There may be some changes to what was proposed in the draft Bill, but the most significant addition will be defining the social equity objectives.
Social equity for cannabis means righting the wrongs of past policies. It means removing barriers to going legal, so that more people can participate and share any economic benefits – especially those who suffered most under harsh punitive law enforcement. It means returning cannabis sales revenues to local communities rather than enriching corporates. It means paying for extra classrooms or health services with cannabis sales revenues. It means favouring social enterprises over pure profits. It can mean active support for those at the bottom, such as low interest loans, business mentorship or lower licence fees, funded by sales revenues. In a nutshell, social equity makes legalisation work for everyone, not just those who consume cannabis.
How the social equity objectives are defined will fundamentally determine the structure of the market, who participates and how widely the benefits are shared. It will also dramatically affect public perception of the referendum model.
The Medicinal Cannabis Scheme has so far been largely associated with the business dealings of middle class men. Most people feel excluded, and patients seem last to be considered. Among many supporters there is a lack of enthusiasm for the scheme. The referendum needs to flip that mindset if we are to win, and I think the key will be what they do with social equity.
To win, cannabis law reform should benefit everyone
When the referendum’s draft Cannabis Legalisation and Control Bill was announced, the media concentrated on the proposal to allow adults aged over 20 to legally grow two plants each (or four per household), and purchase up to 14 grams from specially licensed stores. The focus was on what adult cannabis consumers can do.
But a majority Yes vote would also allow:
Cheaper access to cannabis products for therapeutic use, because patients could just go to cannabis stores.
Adults can purchase seeds or seedlings to grow at home.
Prices would be cheaper than for pharmaceutical products.
Cannabis sales taxes will go to health and education.
Profits would be taken away from organised crime.
Huge vertically integrated businesses won’t be allowed.
Licences will be allocated to achieve social equity objectives.
We need a majority vote, and people everywhere tell me they want a law for the people, not just profits. They need to hear more about these spin off benefits. I think the final bill could be made even better if policymakers also incorporate aspects of the Cannabis & Hemp Opportunity, Investment and Social Equity (CHOISE) model I have released to encourage public discussion.
Under the draft Bill, the cannabis licensing authority would decide how to allocate licenses. CHOISE says they should use a points-based licensing system (like Illinois) to fairly allocate licenses to benefit local communities, and to help right the wrongs by ensuring those who suffered most under the current law (such as Maori) are first in line.
It’s great to see the referendum Bill proposes sales levies, rather than taxes, because levies can be directed to specific areas. CHOISE proposes directing the cannabis sales levies into local community groups, building local support into the future. It will be interesting to see if the referendum Bill adopts this approach.
Home delivery and mail order sites should be part of this scheme. This would also let conservative local communities “opt out” if they don’t want cannabis retail stores in their area, while retaining consumer access especially for those who find travel difficult.
We should also do all we can to encourage local and craft growers over booze-owned foreign corporates. Let those who have minor pot convictions enter the legal industry. That’s really important if we want those on the illicit side to go legal. Reforms overseas have gone further, setting aside funds to help low socioeconomic applicants with low-interest loans and reduced fees.
As I have previously written, to end prohibition we need a well-funded public education campaign ahead of the cannabis referendum, and a more popular model based on social equity, social retail enterprises and social clubs.
We can get a majority Yes result in the cannabis referendum with better promotion of the basic information – but every vote will count.
***
Chris Fowlie is the CEO of Zeacann Limited, a licensed medicinal cannabis company; co-founder of the New Zealand Medical Cannabis Council; president of the National Organisation for the Reform of Marijuana Laws NZ Inc; co-founder of The Hempstore Aotearoa; resident expert for Marijuana Media on 95bFM; cannabis blogger for The Daily Blog, and court-recognised independent expert witness for cannabis. The opinions expressed here are his own.


thedailyblog--2020-03-11--Forgetting To Remember New Zealand’s Racist Election.

WHAT ’ S WRONG with our journalists ?
Why do so many reporters and columnists memories appear to fail them ?
Only this morning , the veteranNZ Herald columnist , Brian Rudman , contributed yet another lapse to the Fourth Estate ’ s growing tally of memory malfunctions .
He ’ s one of theHerald ’ s best , of course , with years of intelligent and splendidly trenchant commentary behind him , but today ’ s memory fade is every bit as egregious as the historical deficiencies so apparent in the writing of much younger journalists .
The context @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Jones ’ s recent playing of the race card .
This was not , as the columnist quite correctly pointed out , the first time NZ First has reached for its racially-loaded rhetorical shotgun .
Rudman quotes from a 2003 pamphlet entitled “ Who ’ s Country Is It ?
” – a document fairly dripping with anti-immigrant animosity .
Fair call .
It was only when he attempted to draw a moral from his tale that Rudman went astray .
Here ’ s what he said : “ To New Zealanders ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ away from NZ First .
The following election , its party vote nearly halved to just over the 5 per cent threshold needed to stay in Parliament , and Peters lost his Tauranga electorate seat .
It ’ s a lesson Jones should be contemplating.
” To anyone who wasn ’ t here at the time – an immigrant perhaps ?
– Rudman ’ s observation offers a reassuringly happy ending to a rather unsavoury political story .
If you knew absolutely nothing about New Zealand ’ s 2005 General Election , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ comeuppance would be heartening .
Your confidence in New Zealanders ’ tolerance and generosity reaffirmed , you could look forward to Jones ’ s insulting statements about Indian immigrants being answered with punishing force at the ballot-box .
Except , of course , the 2005 General Election was very far from being a triumph of New Zealanders ’ tolerance and generosity .
In reality , it was an election which saw the National Party come roaring back into political contention on the strength of one of the most racially-charged elections in New Zealand @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for National ’ s incendiary billboard campaign – most especially the billboard which pitted “ Iwi ” against “ Kiwi ” .
Had National , led by the former Reserve Bank Governor , Dr Don Brash , won the election ( and he came within 100,000 votes , out of 2.3 million votes cast , of doing so ) then the Treaty of Waitangi would have been retired ; all reference to “ Treaty Principles ” in New Zealand legislation removed ; all “ affirmative action ” programmes for Maori discontinued ; and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ so tolerant , then .
Not entirely generous .
The Right ’ s race-driven comeback might have been even stronger if the NZ First Leader , Winston Peters , hadn ’ t been so roughly treated by the National Party in the late-1990s .
Jenny Shipley ’ s plot against her coalition partner , which involved luring half NZ First ’ s parliamentary caucus away from their leader , fatally poisoned the relationship between the two parties .
Had Shipley not betrayed Peters , then the electorate ’ s rightward swing in 2005 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even more emphatic .
As an enthusiastic globalist , Brash was unwilling to lead National too far down the anti-immigrant road .
As a consequence , there was plenty of space for NZ First to fill around the immigration issue .
Had Shipley not torpedoed her party ’ s chances of ever again forming a coalition with NZ First , Brash could have quietly encouraged the Right ’ s more rabid supporters to treat the election as a “ twofer ” .
Those who despised Maori more than immigrants could vote National .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ could vote NZ First .
Such a strategy would likely have boosted NZ First ’ s vote at Labour ’ s expense .
As it was , however , Brash ’ s overall strategic goal of uniting the whole of the Right under National ’ s banner not only actively discouraged right-wing voters from splitting their support , but also , by turning National into a much bigger and scarier political monster , persuaded Labour ’ s more conservative supporters , who might otherwise have indulged their own , deeply ingrained , anti-immigrant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ First , to stick with Helen Clark and her government for another three years .
The 2005 General Election was , therefore , a “ damned close-run thing ” .
Only 45,000 votes separated National ’ s vote-count from Labour ’ s , which suggests that if Peters ’ nearly 6 percent of the Party Vote had been added to National ’ s column , then 2005 would have been an even closer-run thing .
When offered the choice of an openly anti-Maori National Party and a strongly anti-immigrant NZ First , very @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for one or the other .
Nor should it be forgotten ( although Rudman somehow failed to recall the fact in his column ) this was the same electorate that lifted National ’ s support from 28 percent in the polls one month before his in/famous “ Nationhood ” speech to the Orewa Rotary Club ( 27 January 2004 ) to 45 percent two weeks after it .
A much better example of New Zealand voters turning away from NZ First ’ s “ casual racism ” came three years after 2005 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the National Party ’ s new leader , John Key .
Under Key ’ s sunny tutelage , National got quite a lot bigger and a whole lot less scarier .
He achieved this not only by reaching out to Labour ’ s more conservative voters , but also by making sure he wouldn ’ t have to deal with NZ First ’ s .
Key simply refused to play the race card in the same brutal way as Brash .
It was clever politics , because , by ditching the Iwi/Kiwi rhetoric @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Act ’ s hard-line neoliberalism .
The resulting National-Act-Maori Party-United Future coalition government placed a floor under National ’ s support that has remained preternaturally solid for 12 years – and counting .
Though lacking Key ’ s sunny disposition , Simon Bridges could , nevertheless , learn a thing or two from his predecessor ’ s bland opportunism .
One of the ways , Key convinced the electorate that he was the anti-Brash was by coming to Labour ’ s and the Greens ’ rescue over their highly contentious anti-smacking legislation .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the rabid Right , National ’ s leader was saying : “ You ’ ll get nothing from me.
” ( Who else were they going to vote for !
? )
To the rest of New Zealand , Key ’ s bravura display of bi-partisanship , guaranteeing the success of a long-overdue social reform , signalled that his were a safe and compassionate pair of hands .
A similar display of bi-partisanship in relation to the current Covid-19 medical emergency could offer similar reassurance to an electorate which has yet to learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Leader of the Opposition .
Which is , finally , the lesson from our history which Rudman , along with an alarming number of his colleagues , has somehow managed to forget .
That New Zealanders , as a people , are more than capable of rising – or sinking – to just about any political occasion .
Providing they have someone to show them how .

WHAT’S WRONG with our journalists? Why do so many reporters and columnists memories appear to fail them? Only this morning, the veteranNZ Herald columnist, Brian Rudman, contributed yet another lapse to the Fourth Estate’s growing tally of memory malfunctions. He’s one of theHerald’s best, of course, with years of intelligent and splendidly trenchant commentary behind him, but today’s memory fade is every bit as egregious as the historical deficiencies so apparent in the writing of much younger journalists.
The context for Rudman’s misrecollection was Shane Jones’s recent playing of the race card. This was not, as the columnist quite correctly pointed out, the first time NZ First has reached for its racially-loaded rhetorical shotgun. Rudman quotes from a 2003 pamphlet entitled “Who’s Country Is It?” – a document fairly dripping with anti-immigrant animosity. Fair call. It was only when he attempted to draw a moral from his tale that Rudman went astray.
Here’s what he said:
“To New Zealanders’ credit, this casual racism turned voters away from NZ First. The following election, its party vote nearly halved to just over the 5 per cent threshold needed to stay in Parliament, and Peters lost his Tauranga electorate seat. It’s a lesson Jones should be contemplating.”
To anyone who wasn’t here at the time – an immigrant perhaps? – Rudman’s observation offers a reassuringly happy ending to a rather unsavoury political story. If you knew absolutely nothing about New Zealand’s 2005 General Election, his account of NZ First’s electoral comeuppance would be heartening. Your confidence in New Zealanders’ tolerance and generosity reaffirmed, you could look forward to Jones’s insulting statements about Indian immigrants being answered with punishing force at the ballot-box.
Except, of course, the 2005 General Election was very far from being a triumph of New Zealanders’ tolerance and generosity. In reality, it was an election which saw the National Party come roaring back into political contention on the strength of one of the most racially-charged elections in New Zealand history. 2005 was the election best-remembered for National’s incendiary billboard campaign – most especially the billboard which pitted “Iwi” against “Kiwi”. Had National, led by the former Reserve Bank Governor, Dr Don Brash, won the election (and he came within 100,000 votes, out of 2.3 million votes cast, of doing so) then the Treaty of Waitangi would have been retired; all reference to “Treaty Principles” in New Zealand legislation removed; all “affirmative action” programmes for Maori discontinued; and the Maori Seats abolished.
Not quite so tolerant, then. Not entirely generous.
The Right’s race-driven comeback might have been even stronger if the NZ First Leader, Winston Peters, hadn’t been so roughly treated by the National Party in the late-1990s. Jenny Shipley’s plot against her coalition partner, which involved luring half NZ First’s parliamentary caucus away from their leader, fatally poisoned the relationship between the two parties. Had Shipley not betrayed Peters, then the electorate’s rightward swing in 2005 would, almost certainly, have been even more emphatic.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
As an enthusiastic globalist, Brash was unwilling to lead National too far down the anti-immigrant road. As a consequence, there was plenty of space for NZ First to fill around the immigration issue. Had Shipley not torpedoed her party’s chances of ever again forming a coalition with NZ First, Brash could have quietly encouraged the Right’s more rabid supporters to treat the election as a “twofer”. Those who despised Maori more than immigrants could vote National. Those who despised immigrants more than Maori could vote NZ First.
Such a strategy would likely have boosted NZ First’s vote at Labour’s expense. As it was, however, Brash’s overall strategic goal of uniting the whole of the Right under National’s banner not only actively discouraged right-wing voters from splitting their support, but also, by turning National into a much bigger and scarier political monster, persuaded Labour’s more conservative supporters, who might otherwise have indulged their own, deeply ingrained, anti-immigrant sentiments by voting for Winston and NZ First, to stick with Helen Clark and her government for another three years.
The 2005 General Election was, therefore, a “damned close-run thing”. Only 45,000 votes separated National’s vote-count from Labour’s, which suggests that if Peters’ nearly 6 percent of the Party Vote had been added to National’s column, then 2005 would have been an even closer-run thing. When offered the choice of an openly anti-Maori National Party and a strongly anti-immigrant NZ First, very close to half the NZ electorate voted for one or the other. Nor should it be forgotten (although Rudman somehow failed to recall the fact in his column) this was the same electorate that lifted National’s support from 28 percent in the polls one month before his in/famous “Nationhood” speech to the Orewa Rotary Club (27 January 2004) to 45 percent two weeks after it.
A much better example of New Zealand voters turning away from NZ First’s “casual racism” came three years after 2005, in the first general election contested by the National Party’s new leader, John Key. Under Key’s sunny tutelage, National got quite a lot bigger and a whole lot less scarier. He achieved this not only by reaching out to Labour’s more conservative voters, but also by making sure he wouldn’t have to deal with NZ First’s.
Key simply refused to play the race card in the same brutal way as Brash. It was clever politics, because, by ditching the Iwi/Kiwi rhetoric he expanded his coalition options well beyond Act’s hard-line neoliberalism. The resulting National-Act-Maori Party-United Future coalition government placed a floor under National’s support that has remained preternaturally solid for 12 years – and counting.
Though lacking Key’s sunny disposition, Simon Bridges could, nevertheless, learn a thing or two from his predecessor’s bland opportunism. One of the ways, Key convinced the electorate that he was the anti-Brash was by coming to Labour’s and the Greens’ rescue over their highly contentious anti-smacking legislation. To the bill’s opponents on the rabid Right, National’s leader was saying: “You’ll get nothing from me.” (Who else were they going to vote for!?) To the rest of New Zealand, Key’s bravura display of bi-partisanship, guaranteeing the success of a long-overdue social reform, signalled that his were a safe and compassionate pair of hands.
A similar display of bi-partisanship in relation to the current Covid-19 medical emergency could offer similar reassurance to an electorate which has yet to learn the knack of relaxing in the arms of the Leader of the Opposition.
Which is, finally, the lesson from our history which Rudman, along with an alarming number of his colleagues, has somehow managed to forget. That New Zealanders, as a people, are more than capable of rising – or sinking – to just about any political occasion.
Providing they have someone to show them how.


thedailyblog--2020-03-15--Dr Liz Gordon: Snapshots from an era of anxiety

Today ( Sunday ) is a year since that unspeakable atrocity perpetrated in Christchurch on a population bent only on worship .
The wounds are still very raw .
In some senses it is worse , because the shock has worn off and we are left with the knowledge that racist movement of white supremacy are among us all , in numbers .
Muslims report today that things are not better for them , despite the call of ‘ we are all one together – tatou , tatou ’ .
The opportunity for real change has perhaps passed us by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we have mobilised swiftly to contain , reduce and distance in response to a deadly virus , the same can not be said for the containment of that deadly and noxious belief system , in the superiority of some humans over others .
The response to the covid-19 ( the 19 refers to the year , not to 18 other such coronaviruses , although there are others ) requires the removal of certain civil liberties for the greater good .
While China is not a liberal democracy , New Zealand is .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ One can support and embrace the measures or chafe under them .
A consent to be ruled is important , and especially so when liberty or economic measures are at stake .
The test must be whether the interests of the state are also the interests of the people .
This is not dissimilar to the issues Christchurch went through after the earthquakes a decade ago when certain liberties were curtailed for a period .
The lessons from that event have been that there are always winners and losers .
And anxiety and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of fun in Wellington last week – the capital of handshakes – practicing social distancing .
From bumping forearms , to tapping elbow bones , through clamping one ’ s hand on heart to the adoption of the Māori ‘ Hey Bro ’ ( a simple lift of the eyebrows , so elegant ! )
.
I personally have always liked the Vulcan ‘ Live Long and Prosper ’ , but I doubt it will take off in the 2020s .
The fun is in the second of negotiation that must take place @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
you can ’ t smash an elbow into someone ’ s hand over heart ! )
.
I don ’ t think the handshake will ever be the same again .
I have had a number of conversations that start with “ isn ’ t covid-19 good for planet Earth ?
” The reduction in emissions due to reducing air traffic , city traffic and production will impact , however slightly , on global warming and make people healthier in the short term .
I wrote last week of a potential massive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has made it clear that those dying are mainly older persons and the sick – not the young and healthy .
Would such a death toll , then , wipe out the burden of baby boomer retirement costs and health care , leaving younger people to rebuild the world ?
And would they do a good job of it ?
As one of those boomers at a slight risk of death from the virus , I am of course not advocating such an approach , but , after the initial grief , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reset of the problems and conditions that burden our Earth .
There is also the thought that perhaps ‘ ole covid is somehow a nemesis delivered on the world ; the revenge of the Pangolins .
I would like to congratulate the government on its response , which is the right one for New Zealand .
A senior official told me that other day that there is a strong feeling of how high the stakes are , and the need for our leaders to make the ‘ right ’ decisions when there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the midst of this , the main citizenship goal is to live the best lives we can .
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister , with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society .
She usually blogs on justice , social welfare and education topics .

Today (Sunday) is a year since that unspeakable atrocity perpetrated in Christchurch on a population bent only on worship. The wounds are still very raw. In some senses it is worse, because the shock has worn off and we are left with the knowledge that racist movement of white supremacy are among us all, in numbers. Muslims report today that things are not better for them, despite the call of ‘we are all one together – tatou, tatou’. The opportunity for real change has perhaps passed us by.
It is notable that, while we have mobilised swiftly to contain, reduce and distance in response to a deadly virus, the same cannot be said for the containment of that deadly and noxious belief system, in the superiority of some humans over others.
The response to the covid-19 (the 19 refers to the year, not to 18 other such coronaviruses, although there are others) requires the removal of certain civil liberties for the greater good. While China is not a liberal democracy, New Zealand is. The question of the citizenry is important. One can support and embrace the measures or chafe under them. A consent to be ruled is important, and especially so when liberty or economic measures are at stake.
The test must be whether the interests of the state are also the interests of the people. This is not dissimilar to the issues Christchurch went through after the earthquakes a decade ago when certain liberties were curtailed for a period. The lessons from that event have been that there are always winners and losers. And anxiety and mental illness.
I had a lot of fun in Wellington last week – the capital of handshakes – practicing social distancing. From bumping forearms, to tapping elbow bones, through clamping one’s hand on heart to the adoption of the Māori ‘Hey Bro’ (a simple lift of the eyebrows, so elegant!). I personally have always liked the Vulcan ‘Live Long and Prosper’, but I doubt it will take off in the 2020s. The fun is in the second of negotiation that must take place prior to the formalised greeting (i.e. you can’t smash an elbow into someone’s hand over heart!). I don’t think the handshake will ever be the same again.
I have had a number of conversations that start with “isn’t covid-19 good for planet Earth?” The reduction in emissions due to reducing air traffic, city traffic and production will impact, however slightly, on global warming and make people healthier in the short term. I wrote last week of a potential massive worldwide death toll, and the data has made it clear that those dying are mainly older persons and the sick – not the young and healthy. Would such a death toll, then, wipe out the burden of baby boomer retirement costs and health care, leaving younger people to rebuild the world? And would they do a good job of it?
As one of those boomers at a slight risk of death from the virus, I am of course not advocating such an approach, but, after the initial grief, there is certainly the attraction of a small reset of the problems and conditions that burden our Earth. There is also the thought that perhaps ‘ole covid is somehow a nemesis delivered on the world; the revenge of the Pangolins.
I would like to congratulate the government on its response, which is the right one for New Zealand. A senior official told me that other day that there is a strong feeling of how high the stakes are, and the need for our leaders to make the ‘right’ decisions when there are so many unknowns. As always, in the midst of this, the main citizenship goal is to live the best lives we can.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Dr Liz Gordon is a researcher and a barrister, with interests in destroying neo-liberalism in all its forms and moving towards a socially just society. She usually blogs on justice, social welfare and education topics.