thedailyblog--2020-08-31--What Just Didn’t Happen?

What Just Didn’t Happen?

WHAT JUST HAPPENED ?
Over the course of the past 72 hours something changed .
Exactly what isn ’ t clear , not yet , but something has .
New Zealanders feel it in their bones , in their hearts , and they ’ re scared .
When it ’ s impossible to know what happened , the next best thing is to try and establish what happened .
Accordingly , I would like the Director-General of Health ’ s , Ashley Bloomfield ’ s , reassurance that the ridiculous – not to say dangerous – Covid-19 Alert , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and West Auckland to be tested for the virus , was NOT a deliberate attempt to destabilise the New Zealand Government ’ s management of the pandemic .
Because , what civil servant in their right mind would send out such a message without the formal , traceable , approval of those at the very summit of the civil service hierarchy ?
More to the point , what sort of senior public servant could fail to appreciate the sheer absurdity of the order and its potential for inducing something close to panic amongst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Occam ’ s Razor allows of only two reasonable explanations .
1 ) That the action was deliberate and its consequences foreseen .
2 ) That the calibre of the staff responsible for its release was so abysmal that the notice ’ s glaring deficiencies passed unnoticed .
Neither explanation offers us much comfort .
The first admits to sabotage .
The second to utter incompetence .
The question to be decided , therefore , is whether we are looking at a conspiracy or a cock-up ?
What motive would the individuals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sabotaging the Government ’ s orderly transition from Level 3 to Level 2.5 ?
The most obvious answer lies in the all-too-evident trepidation among scientists , civil servants , and members of the general public , that the move out of Level 3 might be premature – dangerous even .
Those holding this view have argued that the “ perimeter ” of the South Auckland Cluster had yet to be conclusively established .
The alarming possibility therefore arises that the offending notice may have been issued as a form of institutional protest against @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( AOGC ) responsible for managing the pandemic considered a reckless government decision ?
A decision driven not by the science , but by political and commercial interests no longer willing to be guided by expert opinion .
Please Dr Bloomfield ( wherever you are ! )
please tell me this is NOT what happened .
Because if I ’ m right , and the release of that notice wasn ’ t simply another demonstration of massive institutional incompetence ( to set alongside the many others ) then public trust and confidence in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Covid-19 Pandemic , already visibly shaken , will crumble and collapse .
Moreover ( as if the above speculation isn ’ t wild enough ) there ’ s the additional concern that extreme events , like the publication of that Covid-19 Alert , seldom happen in isolation .
And that is why I would like the reassurance of the Prime Minister that she has NOT – at the insistence of the Finance Minister and the Health Minister – abandoned her hitherto rock-solid determination to put the welfare of the New Zealand people ahead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Please , someone – anyone – tell me , tell the nation , that this is NOT what happened .
While they ’ re at it , they could also tell us why it was that Chris Hipkins , interviewed on Magic Talk Radio just a couple of hours ahead of Jacinda ’ s appearance in the Beehive Theatrette at 1:00pm on Sunday , 30 August , insisted that the government would be “ ploughing-on ” with the transition from Level 3 to Level 2.5 ?
The Health Minister confirmed at today @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Update that he was well aware of the situation relating to the “ mistaken ” Covid-19 Alert at the time of that Magic Talk interview .
So , the question arises : Did Hipkins make the statement about “ ploughing-on ” to signal to our supposed AOGC rebels that their protest had been in vain ?
More to the point , was it also a very public warning to Jacinda that there could be no stepping back from the plan already agreed upon with her longest-standing and closest political allies – Grant Robertson @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the scheduled 11:59pm level-change could hardly fail to be interpreted by the news media as evidence of a serious split in the uppermost reaches of the Coalition Government .
Not something a prime minister heading into a general election would be eager to acknowledge !
The problem with this sort of speculation is where to call a halt .
Viewed through my admittedly dramatic political prism , Jacinda ’ s decision to keep her former health minister , David Clark , in Dunedin – and his job – for a great deal longer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ begins to look like a shrewd method of ensuring the state ’ s response to the Covid-19 pandemic would be decided by the Prime Minister and her Director-General of Health .
( Where is Ashley , BTW , he wasn ’ t at today ’ s update ? )
Did the Director-General ’ s failure to properly implement the Cabinet ’ s directives relating to border security so weaken his position that Robertson and Hipkins were able to elbow him aside and transform the wildly popular , science-driven , duumvirate of Jacinda and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ business-friendly , triumvirate of Grant , Jacinda and Chris ?
And if that is what happened , then what does it say about the government ’ s new direction of travel ?
Jacinda ’ s and Ashley ’ s decision to “ go hard and go early ” represented a revolutionary reversal of the usual neoliberal priorities .
In effect , they opted to put people first and profits second .
The immense and very obvious outpouring of public gratitude and affection that followed the extraordinary success of this strategy made Jacinda effectively @ @ @ @ @ @ @ duumvirate could , somehow , be destabilised , the furious business community ( ably assisted by their right-wing allies in the news media ) could only whinge and moan .
But then Ashley stumbled , and the business community seized its chance .
This morning , on RNZ ’ s Nine-to-Noon political panel , Labour ’ s pollster , Stephen Mills , wondered aloud why Jacinda – backed in the polls but upwards of 80 percent of her fellow New Zealanders , had apparently chosen to abandon her hugely successful go-hard , go-early @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a new strategy of Covid-19 “ containment ” .
Please , someone – anyone – confirm for me , and the rest of the 80 percent , that the explanations offered in this post are nothing more than the fever-dreams of an ageing left-wing commentator .
Please tell us that the sequences of events outlined above bear absolutely no relation to reality .
That there has not been a coup against Jacinda ’ s “ people first ” Covid elimination strategy .
That the 20 percent haven ’ t prevailed .
Please @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s loyal team of four million that this is NOT what has happened !

WHAT JUST HAPPENED? Over the course of the past 72 hours something changed. Exactly what isn’t clear, not yet, but something has. New Zealanders feel it in their bones, in their hearts, and they’re scared.
When it’s impossible to know what has happened, the next best thing is to try and establish what hasn’t happened.
Accordingly, I would like the Director-General of Health’s, Ashley Bloomfield’s, reassurance that the ridiculous – not to say dangerous – Covid-19 Alert, which more-or-less ordered every person living in South and West Auckland to be tested for the virus, was NOT a deliberate attempt to destabilise the New Zealand Government’s management of the pandemic.
Because, what civil servant in their right mind would send out such a message without the formal, traceable, approval of those at the very summit of the civil service hierarchy? More to the point, what sort of senior public servant could fail to appreciate the sheer absurdity of the order and its potential for inducing something close to panic amongst the population of South and West Auckland?
Occam’s Razor allows of only two reasonable explanations. 1) That the action was deliberate and its consequences foreseen. 2) That the calibre of the staff responsible for its release was so abysmal that the notice’s glaring deficiencies passed unnoticed. Neither explanation offers us much comfort. The first admits to sabotage. The second to utter incompetence. The question to be decided, therefore, is whether we are looking at a conspiracy or a cock-up?
What motive would the individuals responsible for that errant notice have for sabotaging the Government’s orderly transition from Level 3 to Level 2.5?
The most obvious answer lies in the all-too-evident trepidation among scientists, civil servants, and members of the general public, that the move out of Level 3 might be premature – dangerous even. Those holding this view have argued that the “perimeter” of the South Auckland Cluster had yet to be conclusively established. The alarming possibility therefore arises that the offending notice may have been issued as a form of institutional protest against what a faction within the All-of-Government Committee (AOGC) responsible for managing the pandemic considered a reckless government decision? A decision driven not by the science, but by political and commercial interests no longer willing to be guided by expert opinion.
Please Dr Bloomfield (wherever you are!) please tell me this is NOT what happened. Because if I’m right, and the release of that notice wasn’t simply another demonstration of massive institutional incompetence (to set alongside the many others) then public trust and confidence in the Government’s handling of the Covid-19 Pandemic, already visibly shaken, will crumble and collapse.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Moreover (as if the above speculation isn’t wild enough) there’s the additional concern that extreme events, like the publication of that Covid-19 Alert, seldom happen in isolation.
And that is why I would like the reassurance of the Prime Minister that she has NOT – at the insistence of the Finance Minister and the Health Minister – abandoned her hitherto rock-solid determination to put the welfare of the New Zealand people ahead of the profits of New Zealand businesses. Please, someone – anyone – tell me, tell the nation, that this is NOT what happened.
While they’re at it, they could also tell us why it was that Chris Hipkins, interviewed on Magic Talk Radio just a couple of hours ahead of Jacinda’s appearance in the Beehive Theatrette at 1:00pm on Sunday, 30 August, insisted that the government would be “ploughing-on” with the transition from Level 3 to Level 2.5?
The Health Minister confirmed at today’s (31/8/20) 1:00pm Covid Update that he was well aware of the situation relating to the “mistaken” Covid-19 Alert at the time of that Magic Talk interview. So, the question arises: Did Hipkins make the statement about “ploughing-on” to signal to our supposed AOGC rebels that their protest had been in vain?
More to the point, was it also a very public warning to Jacinda that there could be no stepping back from the plan already agreed upon with her longest-standing and closest political allies – Grant Robertson and Chris Hipkins? Any deviation from the scheduled 11:59pm level-change could hardly fail to be interpreted by the news media as evidence of a serious split in the uppermost reaches of the Coalition Government. Not something a prime minister heading into a general election would be eager to acknowledge!
The problem with this sort of speculation is where to call a halt. Viewed through my admittedly dramatic political prism, Jacinda’s decision to keep her former health minister, David Clark, in Dunedin – and his job – for a great deal longer than he had any right to expect begins to look like a shrewd method of ensuring the state’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic would be decided by the Prime Minister and her Director-General of Health. (Where is Ashley, BTW, he wasn’t at today’s update?)
Did the Director-General’s failure to properly implement the Cabinet’s directives relating to border security so weaken his position that Robertson and Hipkins were able to elbow him aside and transform the wildly popular, science-driven, duumvirate of Jacinda and Ashley into a new, much more business-friendly, triumvirate of Grant, Jacinda and Chris?
And if that is what happened, then what does it say about the government’s new direction of travel? Jacinda’s and Ashley’s decision to “go hard and go early” represented a revolutionary reversal of the usual neoliberal priorities. In effect, they opted to put people first and profits second. The immense and very obvious outpouring of public gratitude and affection that followed the extraordinary success of this strategy made Jacinda effectively invulnerable to attack. Until the saintly duumvirate could, somehow, be destabilised, the furious business community (ably assisted by their right-wing allies in the news media) could only whinge and moan. But then Ashley stumbled, and the business community seized its chance.
This morning, on RNZ’s Nine-to-Noon political panel, Labour’s pollster, Stephen Mills, wondered aloud why Jacinda – backed in the polls but upwards of 80 percent of her fellow New Zealanders, had apparently chosen to abandon her hugely successful go-hard, go-early “elimination” strategy, in favour of a new strategy of Covid-19 “containment”.
Please, someone – anyone – confirm for me, and the rest of the 80 percent, that the explanations offered in this post are nothing more than the fever-dreams of an ageing left-wing commentator. Please tell us that the sequences of events outlined above bear absolutely no relation to reality. That there has not been a coup against Jacinda’s “people first” Covid elimination strategy. That the 20 percent haven’t prevailed. Please, please, please, reassure Jacinda’s loyal team of four million that this is NOT what has happened!


thedailyblog--2020-09-01--Emergency steps towards a Green New Deal in the 2st Century

A crisis is unfolding that will be an economic and social disaster unless a series of urgent steps are initiated now for a Green New Deal fit for the 21st Century that can reorder and rebuild our society in a manner compatible with the welfare of working people and the planet .
The Labour Party has no right to simply ride the wave of support that exists for being an okay manager of the response to the Covid generated crisis through to the election .
They need to tell us if they are even willing to entertain the notion that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we are to survive .
The Pandemic will be circling the globe for the next few years .
Capitalism is a system of commodity production for profit and in many of the most economically powerful the ruling elite has decided to put profits before public health .
By refusing to shut down economic activity and waiting for so-called “ herd immunity ” they have put their personal enrichment ahead of millions of lives .
Even if a vaccine is discovered it is unlikely that it can be produced and distributed widely enough for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ normal travel and trade for several years .
An economy that depends on three million tourists a year and recycling 300,000 workers without full-rights on temporary visas will not return .
An economy that depends on farming animals on land and poisoning waterways to produce milk which is then turned into powder using coal-powered burners and sent to China for the middle-class to consume is not sustainable .
The pandemic intensified an economic downturn that had already begun globally .
Printing money as a way to escape the crisis is not sustainable .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ decade and has helped create the crisis we are now in .
What the US government and the US Federal Reserve ( with the help of their counterparts across the globe ) are doing is socialising all risk for the capitalists by driving interest rates down and promising to buy all forms of debt if necessary .
But this will not stop the layoffs and restructuring to prioritise the profits of the shareholders above all else .
Since the 2007-08 crisis , the companies on the S & P 500 share index in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ companies in the US have used half their profits to buy back stock .
This is designed to enrich existing shareholders and executive staff by enhancing the share price .
Another 39 % of profit was used for dividends .
Companies have even been using the cheap rates available for borrowed money to buy back shares .
Just 7 % was used for investment .
This is one of the principal reasons the post 2007-8 recovery was one of the weakest ever .
Big New Zealand companies have been doing the same thing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ when sharemarkets are booming in a world where millions are dying and being thrown out of work , and the economies of the biggest capitalist powers in the US , UK Europe and Japan have declined by 10-20 percent .
Unemployment globally is expected to be at levels of between 10 and 20 percent for a number of years .
There is also a risk of the downturn precipitating a broader economic collapse when the temporary rescue packages stop over the next few months .
The wage subsidy and other emergency relief measures @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a deep recession is inevitable .
Unemployment will reach 8-10 percent later this year .
This will mean rates double that for Maori and Pacifica and young people .
Maintaining employment as much as possible was an obvious and necessary step .
The wage subsidy did that .
But the government should have also demanded something in return .
For example , a one-third shareholding of each company so the government would also benefit from future profits and companies that avoided company tax so carefully also have to give something to the government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ does not make sense to continue to pay companies to simply do the same old shit .
The government needs a national plan for a new equitable and sustainable economy that shifts from the production of commodities for profit to delivery of services that meet peoples needs .
For example , Air New Zealand is now in crisis and losing money .
Rescuing the company is necessary but the government should not reward the shareholders or executives who have put their interests above those of the workers , the travelers who have been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ planet .
Air New Zealand has been nationalised , privatised and should be nationalised again .
But the new airline should be run as an essential service owned by the government and run by a board that represents the workers and people as consumers , not just business people .
Its purpose should be to provide essential travel and freight options alongside fast electric trains as part of the public transport network .
The new Air NZ would be probably half the current size and workers should be allowed to transition to new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rail ) not just dumped on the scrap heap .
The new Labour-Greens government must prioritise government measures that protect jobs and the living standards of working people who will become victims of the crisis as the bosses seek to offload any costs onto our shoulders .
The most important immediate steps we need the next government to take are : • All workers have a right to work and the government must guarantee that right • All workers are essential workers and deserve a living wage .
• The Welfare Advisory Groups @ @ @ @ @ @ @ increases and the individualising of entitlements .
• The $ 75 allowance for “ in-work ” welfare recipients with children should be extended to all beneficiaries .
The exploitative temporary migration system should be abolished and those in New Zealand who have made New Zealand their home should be able to access permanent residency .
No more workers should be brought here on “ temporary ” visas without a genuine pathway to residency .
Empower local communities to audit the needs of their people to access work , housing , education , health @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , disability access , food production and distribution , energy production and distribution , public transport availability .
A plan should be drawn up so that the communities themselves can act to eliminate the social deficits and inequalities identified .
The government should fund communities to carry out the plan .
The tremendous displays of humanitarian solidarity and support shown during the crisis should be enabled at the expense of the greed and selfishness that our economic system rewards .
Health care , education , access to energy , public transport and banking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by the people democratically .
The government should develop a national strategy to transition beyond the current system of commodity production for profit to a system based on the needs of working people and the planet .

A crisis is unfolding that will be an economic and social disaster unless a series of urgent steps are initiated now for a Green New Deal fit for the 21st Century that can reorder and rebuild our society in a manner compatible with the welfare of working people and the planet.
The Labour Party has no right to simply ride the wave of support that exists for being an okay manager of the response to the Covid generated crisis through to the election. They need to tell us if they are even willing to entertain the notion that things need to be done differently if we are to survive.
The Political/Medical/Economic framework
The Pandemic will be circling the globe for the next few years. Capitalism is a system of commodity production for profit and in many of the most economically powerful the ruling elite has decided to put profits before public health. By refusing to shut down economic activity and waiting for so-called “herd immunity” they have put their personal enrichment ahead of millions of lives.
Even if a vaccine is discovered it is unlikely that it can be produced and distributed widely enough for New Zealand to be able to restore normal travel and trade for several years.
An economy that depends on three million tourists a year and recycling 300,000 workers without full-rights on temporary visas will not return.
An economy that depends on farming animals on land and poisoning waterways to produce milk which is then turned into powder using coal-powered burners and sent to China for the middle-class to consume is not sustainable.
The pandemic intensified an economic downturn that had already begun globally.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Printing money as a way to escape the crisis is not sustainable. That has been tried for the last decade and has helped create the crisis we are now in. What the US government and the US Federal Reserve (with the help of their counterparts across the globe) are doing is socialising all risk for the capitalists by driving interest rates down and promising to buy all forms of debt if necessary. But this will not stop the layoffs and restructuring to prioritise the profits of the shareholders above all else.
Since the 2007-08 crisis, the companies on the S&P 500 share index in the US which comprise the biggest listed companies in the US have used half their profits to buy back stock. This is designed to enrich existing shareholders and executive staff by enhancing the share price. Another 39% of profit was used for dividends. Companies have even been using the cheap rates available for borrowed money to buy back shares. Just 7% was used for investment. This is one of the principal reasons the post 2007-8 recovery was one of the weakest ever.
Big New Zealand companies have been doing the same thing.
There is something truly grotesque happening when sharemarkets are booming in a world where millions are dying and being thrown out of work, and the economies of the biggest capitalist powers in the US, UK Europe and Japan have declined by 10-20 percent.
Unemployment globally is expected to be at levels of between 10 and 20 percent for a number of years.
There is also a risk of the downturn precipitating a broader economic collapse when the temporary rescue packages stop over the next few months.
New Zealand’s current prospects
The wage subsidy and other emergency relief measures have prevented a broader economic collapse but a deep recession is inevitable.
Unemployment will reach 8-10 percent later this year. This will mean rates double that for Maori and Pacifica and young people.
Maintaining employment as much as possible was an obvious and necessary step. The wage subsidy did that. But the government should have also demanded something in return. For example, a one-third shareholding of each company so the government would also benefit from future profits and companies that avoided company tax so carefully also have to give something to the government for keeping them alive.
But it does not make sense to continue to pay companies to simply do the same old shit.
The government needs a national plan for a new equitable and sustainable economy that shifts from the production of commodities for profit to delivery of services that meet peoples needs.
For example, Air New Zealand is now in crisis and losing money. Rescuing the company is necessary but the government should not reward the shareholders or executives who have put their interests above those of the workers, the travelers who have been ripped off or the sustainability of the planet. Air New Zealand has been nationalised, privatised and should be nationalised again. But the new airline should be run as an essential service owned by the government and run by a board that represents the workers and people as consumers, not just business people. Its purpose should be to provide essential travel and freight options alongside fast electric trains as part of the public transport network. The new Air NZ would be probably half the current size and workers should be allowed to transition to new well-paying jobs in alternative industries (like rail) not just dumped on the scrap heap.
The new Labour-Greens government must prioritise government measures that protect jobs and the living standards of working people who will become victims of the crisis as the bosses seek to offload any costs onto our shoulders.
Immediate steps needed by a Labour-Greens government
The most important immediate steps we need the next government to take are:
1) Protect jobs and incomes:
All workers have a right to work and the government must guarantee that right
All workers are essential workers and deserve a living wage.
The Welfare Advisory Groups proposals should be implemented with significant benefit increases and the individualising of entitlements.
The $75 allowance for “in-work” welfare recipients with children should be extended to all beneficiaries.
2) End the system of migrant labour exploitation
The exploitative temporary migration system should be abolished and those in New Zealand who have made New Zealand their home should be able to access permanent residency. No more workers should be brought here on “temporary” visas without a genuine pathway to residency.
3) Democratically develop a Green New Deal
Empower local communities to audit the needs of their people to access work, housing, education, health care, child care, aged care, disability access, food production and distribution, energy production and distribution, public transport availability. A plan should be drawn up so that the communities themselves can act to eliminate the social deficits and inequalities identified. The government should fund communities to carry out the plan. The tremendous displays of humanitarian solidarity and support shown during the crisis should be enabled at the expense of the greed and selfishness that our economic system rewards.
Health care, education, access to energy, public transport and banking should be public services owned and managed by the people democratically.
The government should develop a national strategy to transition beyond the current system of commodity production for profit to a system based on the needs of working people and the planet.


thedailyblog--2020-09-01--NZ should not buy into Trump’s tech war with China

Most New Zealanders don ’ t trust Donald Trump .
By and large they oppose his “ America First ” stance , which is making effective cooperation between nations very difficult .
Why then are so many people fooled by Trump ’ s attacks on China ’ s most advanced technology companies , like Huawei and TikTok ?
Surely , we can see that in banning TikTok and trying to strangle Huawei , Trump is trying to ensure that America ’ s “ big tech ” companies ( like Microsoft , Google and Facebook ) dominate the global landscape .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ cover story that it is about “ national security ” and protecting our privacy ?
Surely , we ’ ve learnt by now , following the revelations by US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden , that the main threat to the privacy of citizens around the world is the NSA itself .
Few of our communications are out of reach of its global collection system , which far exceeds any current Chinese capability .
Of course , this doesn ’ t mean we take any potential breaches of our privacy from China @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Beijing government runs a pretty tight surveillance state .
If we are worried about social media companies intruding on our privacy , then Facebook should be a bigger target than TikTok .
Facebook ’ s business model requires it to hoover up masses of information to target advertising and to on-sell to third parties .
We ’ re told that Huawei and TikTok will hand over private information to the Chinese government .
Maybe they will , but there is no evidence they have so far .
Their corporate self-interest is also @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Huawei and TikTok are well aware they would lose many millions of customers outside China if they were proven to be a tool of the Beijing government .
What we do know , however , is that American social media and telecommunications companies regularly respond to secret requests from the FBI and other US agencies .
This has become public as a consequence of the Edward Snowden revelations .
Accusing Chinese firms of doing the bidding of Beijing somewhat hypocritical when the Trump administration is repeatedly forcing American companies to do its own @ @ @ @ @ @ @ after Presidential edict forbidding US tech firms from doing business with the likes of Huawei .
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has launched a Clean Network campaign to exclude all Chinese telecom firms from the United States .
To the extent that this is successful , it will only divide the telecommunications world up into two spheres of influence , one American , the other Chinese .
This would not be good for global communications , common IT standards , and an effective and open internet .
Trump ’ s efforts are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ will weaken Huawei but they will also speed up China ’ s efforts to become technologically self-sufficient .
In addition , US firms are taking a big hit from the sanctions on US firms supplying Huawei .
Roger Entner , from Recon Analytics , has estimated that Huawei accounts for a quarter of US annual semi-conductor exports , about $ 32 billion out of $ 120 billion .
But the loss of sales will go beyond the China market .
SEMI , a semi-conductor industry association with 2,400 members , is worried that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of US semi-conductors as “ unreliable ” and “ design-out of US technology ” .
These non-US customers could include Kiwi tech firms now supplying the Chinese market who now have an incentive to use non-US software or components in their products .
Sadly , the US moves against Chinese technology serve to strengthen , not weaken , the grip of China ’ s authoritarian leaders .
Because they are so obviously aimed at slowing China ’ s technological advance , they stir up nationalist sentiments among ordinary Chinese people , which the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by presenting itself as defender of the nation .
New Zealand has an additional reason for not buying into the American campaign .
China is our biggest trading partner .
The Trump administration ’ s talk of “ de-coupling ” from China makes no sense in New Zealand ’ s case .
Yet this is the road that our Government Communications Security Bureau has started to move down .
Some time ago the GCSB turned down a Spark/Huawei proposal to build a 5G network here .
More recently it asked parliamentary staff to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on the grounds that it might be used to access private information .
Of course , our privacy is eroded by many social media apps , and in particular , Facebook .
But by singling out TikTok the GCSB demonstrated once again its loyalty to the US administration , and Donald Trump .
If we are talking about threats to our national security , we should start with the threat from the GCSB which in so accommodating the United States , really does threaten our security .
Of course , we should do @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and to optimise New Zealand ’ s cyber defenses .
Such measures include closing any “ back-doors ” into our communications networks , storing data locally , and making sure Kiwi managers are in charge of critical infrastructure .
We can do this without buying into Trump ’ s war on Chinese technology .
NZ

Most New Zealanders don’t trust Donald Trump. By and large they oppose his “America First” stance, which is making effective cooperation between nations very difficult.
Why then are so many people fooled by Trump’s attacks on China’s most advanced technology companies, like Huawei and TikTok? Surely, we can see that in banning TikTok and trying to strangle Huawei, Trump is trying to ensure that America’s “big tech” companies (like Microsoft, Google and Facebook) dominate the global landscape.
Why do we buy Trump’s cover story that it is about “national security” and protecting our privacy? Surely, we’ve learnt by now, following the revelations by US National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden, that the main threat to the privacy of citizens around the world is the NSA itself. Few of our communications are out of reach of its global collection system, which far exceeds any current Chinese capability. Of course, this doesn’t mean we take any potential breaches of our privacy from China lightly. After all, domestically, the Beijing government runs a pretty tight surveillance state.
If we are worried about social media companies intruding on our privacy, then Facebook should be a bigger target than TikTok. Facebook’s business model requires it to hoover up masses of information to target advertising and to on-sell to third parties.
We’re told that Huawei and TikTok will hand over private information to the Chinese government. Maybe they will, but there is no evidence they have so far. Their corporate self-interest is also at play. As global companies, Huawei and TikTok are well aware they would lose many millions of customers outside China if they were proven to be a tool of the Beijing government.
What we do know, however, is that American social media and telecommunications companies regularly respond to secret requests from the FBI and other US agencies. This has become public as a consequence of the Edward Snowden revelations.
Accusing Chinese firms of doing the bidding of Beijing somewhat hypocritical when the Trump administration is repeatedly forcing American companies to do its own bidding. Trump is issuing Presidential edict after Presidential edict forbidding US tech firms from doing business with the likes of Huawei. US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo has launched a Clean Network campaign to exclude all Chinese telecom firms from the United States.
To the extent that this is successful, it will only divide the telecommunications world up into two spheres of influence, one American, the other Chinese. This would not be good for global communications, common IT standards, and an effective and open internet.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
Trump’s efforts are also counterproductive. In the short-term they will weaken Huawei but they will also speed up China’s efforts to become technologically self-sufficient.
In addition, US firms are taking a big hit from the sanctions on US firms supplying Huawei. Roger Entner, from Recon Analytics, has estimated that Huawei accounts for a quarter of US annual semi-conductor exports, about $32 billion out of $120 billion. But the loss of sales will go beyond the China market. SEMI, a semi-conductor industry association with 2,400 members, is worried that other non-US customers will perceive the supply of US semi-conductors as “unreliable” and “design-out of US technology”. These non-US customers could include Kiwi tech firms now supplying the Chinese market who now have an incentive to use non-US software or components in their products.
Sadly, the US moves against Chinese technology serve to strengthen, not weaken, the grip of China’s authoritarian leaders. Because they are so obviously aimed at slowing China’s technological advance, they stir up nationalist sentiments among ordinary Chinese people, which the regime then uses to its advantage, by presenting itself as defender of the nation.
New Zealand has an additional reason for not buying into the American campaign. China is our biggest trading partner. The Trump administration’s talk of “de-coupling” from China makes no sense in New Zealand’s case. Yet this is the road that our Government Communications Security Bureau has started to move down. Some time ago the GCSB turned down a Spark/Huawei proposal to build a 5G network here. More recently it asked parliamentary staff to delete the TikTok app from their phones on the grounds that it might be used to access private information. Of course, our privacy is eroded by many social media apps, and in particular, Facebook. But by singling out TikTok the GCSB demonstrated once again its loyalty to the US administration, and Donald Trump. If we are talking about threats to our national security, we should start with the threat from the GCSB which in so accommodating the United States, really does threaten our security.
Of course, we should do everything we can to protect our privacy and to optimise New Zealand’s cyber defenses. Such measures include closing any “back-doors” into our communications networks, storing data locally, and making sure Kiwi managers are in charge of critical infrastructure. We can do this without buying into Trump’s war on Chinese technology. NZ


Shifting Sands

IT ’ S THE PERFECT PARABLE for capitalism .
Set in Morocco , it ’ s about the sand that ’ s fast disappearing from the country ’ s tourist beaches .
Once famed for its broad beaches of golden sand , the coastline of Morocco is in the grip of an ecological catastrophe .
Millions of tons of precious sand are disappearing on the backs of lorries , donkeys and the poor .
Jagged rocks now stand exposed where once the backsides of wealthy western tourists rested comfortably .
It ’ s illegal , of course , this mining @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and were the laws protecting it enforced there would be no problem .
But , those laws are not enforced .
They never are : not when the choice is between protecting the environment and protecting business .
So the big trucks roll out , passing with a roar the urban poor toiling away with their shovels .
Where does it go ?
Into the big coastal cities , naturally , where corrupt property developers , hand-in-glove with equally corrupt local and national politicians , are throwing-up long lines of luxury hotels to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who ( pre-Covid ) flocked to enjoy – you guessed it – Morocco ’ s golden beaches !
But wait , there ’ s more .
The illegally acquired sand which these developers are pouring into their concrete-mixers contains perilous quantities of highly corrosive sea-salt .
Concrete structures built with this kind of sand are tragedies waiting to happen .
In just a few years they will begin to crack , crumble , and collapse in a cloud of salty dust .
Just about everybody in a position to prevent this from happening @ @ @ @ @ @ @ That none of them will do anything about it is explicable , almost entirely , in terms of the intricate , mutually-rewarding relationships capitalism creates and protects to facilitate the generation of wealth and the realisation of profit .
Protecting the beaches is , obviously , in the long-term interest of everyone involved .
Without the beaches there will be fewer and fewer tourists ; fewer and fewer guests to pay for the construction of all that additional accommodation ; and fewer still when all those structurally unsound hotels begin collapsing on top @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest of everyone is being sacrificed to the short-term interest of the individuals and corporations deriving immediate monetary reward from the shifting of Morocco ’ s sand .
The failure of humanity to respond proportionately to the existential threat of climate change is really just a case of Morocco ’ s disappearing beaches writ large .
Every politician in a position to take effective remedial action against anthropogenic global warming will restrict their response to a great many words and a handful of symbolic gestures , because taking truly effective action would harm @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their constituents .
It was George “ Dubbya ” Bush ’ s vice-president , Dick Cheney , who put it best when he informed those clamouring for action on climate change that “ the American way of life is non-negotiable ” .
No Republican ( or Democratic ) President is going to bankrupt the big oil companies , crash the automobile industry , vastly increase the price of private travel , or mandate the radical scaling back of personal consumption , that any realistic effort to halt global warming would necessarily entail @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and comforts , the beneficiaries of industrial civilisation will go on backing it until , harking back to our Moroccan example , all the tourists disappear and the hotels start falling down .
Capitalism ’ s most extraordinary achievement is to have created what the French “ Situationist ” philosopher , Guy Debord , called “ The Society of the Spectacle ” .
In capitalism ’ s glittering palace of commodities , human relationships take second place to the relationships consumers form with their purchases .
In the Society of the Spectacle watching @ @ @ @ @ @ @ place where we either become spectators to our own lives , or spectators to the lives we aspire to .
That ’ s the clincher : those inside the glittering arcade watch themselves , while those outside watch them watching .
The masses ’ political dreams , contra Marx , are not about torching the theatre – they ’ re about being seated in the audience .
What brought down the Berlin Wall ?
Pornographic videos and blue-jeans .
What can those who grasp the civilisation-destroying potential of climate change possibly put up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they tell the huddled billions yearning to breathe air-conditioned air ?
Drive a sleek European car ?
Watch a jumbo-sized hi-def flat-screen TV ?
“ In the interests of the human generations yet to be born , you must go on living in a corrugated iron shack on a rubbish dump.
” You might as well tell those poor Moroccan day-labourers with their shovels to stop digging .
Why would they , when behind you they can see the corrupt construction companies ’ big lorries carting away sand by the ton ?
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on digging – so their families can keep on eating – who can blame them ?
The question today ’ s socialists run from is the very same question yesterday ’ s socialists answered with such confidence and conviction : “ What have you got that ’ s better than capitalism ?
” For a brief , enthralling period they pointed to the revolutionary society taking shape in the Soviet Union .
By the late 1920s , however , it was becoming increasingly clear that the ebullient Soviet newsreels were not telling them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in much sooner had it not been for the beating capitalism took from the Great Depression .
Post-World War II , however , and post-Stalin , the world of “ actually existing socialism ” had nothing to set against the astonishing abundance and novelty of the capitalist West .
When an old comrade – a paid-up member of the Moscow-aligned Socialist Unity Party , no less – was asked where he ’ d rather live , Russia or New Zealand , there was only one honest answer he could give .
When you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , your mind is focused on the money it will bring , not the wasteland that will be left behind .
Until runaway climate change finally switches off their bright lights forever , the day-labourers of Planet Earth will keep their eyes firmly fixed on the glittering spectacle of capitalism ’ s magic cities .
Built out of , and on , the corrosive sands which they , themselves , have shifted .

IT’S THE PERFECT PARABLE for capitalism. Set in Morocco, it’s about the sand that’s fast disappearing from the country’s tourist beaches.
Once famed for its broad beaches of golden sand, the coastline of Morocco is in the grip of an ecological catastrophe. Millions of tons of precious sand are disappearing on the backs of lorries, donkeys and the poor. Jagged rocks now stand exposed where once the backsides of wealthy western tourists rested comfortably.
It’s illegal, of course, this mining of Morocco’s precious sand, and were the laws protecting it enforced there would be no problem. But, those laws are not enforced. They never are: not when the choice is between protecting the environment and protecting business. So the big trucks roll out, passing with a roar the urban poor toiling away with their shovels.
Where does it go? Into the big coastal cities, naturally, where corrupt property developers, hand-in-glove with equally corrupt local and national politicians, are throwing-up long lines of luxury hotels to accommodate the vast herds of foreign tourists who (pre-Covid) flocked to enjoy – you guessed it – Morocco’s golden beaches!
But wait, there’s more. The illegally acquired sand which these developers are pouring into their concrete-mixers contains perilous quantities of highly corrosive sea-salt. Concrete structures built with this kind of sand are tragedies waiting to happen. In just a few years they will begin to crack, crumble, and collapse in a cloud of salty dust.
Just about everybody in a position to prevent this from happening is well aware of the danger. That none of them will do anything about it is explicable, almost entirely, in terms of the intricate, mutually-rewarding relationships capitalism creates and protects to facilitate the generation of wealth and the realisation of profit.
Protecting the beaches is, obviously, in the long-term interest of everyone involved. Without the beaches there will be fewer and fewer tourists; fewer and fewer guests to pay for the construction of all that additional accommodation; and fewer still when all those structurally unsound hotels begin collapsing on top of them. Unfortunately, the long-term interest of everyone is being sacrificed to the short-term interest of the individuals and corporations deriving immediate monetary reward from the shifting of Morocco’s sand.
The failure of humanity to respond proportionately to the existential threat of climate change is really just a case of Morocco’s disappearing beaches writ large. Every politician in a position to take effective remedial action against anthropogenic global warming will restrict their response to a great many words and a handful of symbolic gestures, because taking truly effective action would harm the economic welfare of far too many of their constituents.
TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com
It was George “Dubbya” Bush’s vice-president, Dick Cheney, who put it best when he informed those clamouring for action on climate change that “the American way of life is non-negotiable”.
No Republican (or Democratic) President is going to bankrupt the big oil companies, crash the automobile industry, vastly increase the price of private travel, or mandate the radical scaling back of personal consumption, that any realistic effort to halt global warming would necessarily entail. Rather than surrender their immediate interests and comforts, the beneficiaries of industrial civilisation will go on backing it until, harking back to our Moroccan example, all the tourists disappear and the hotels start falling down.
Capitalism’s most extraordinary achievement is to have created what the French “Situationist” philosopher, Guy Debord, called “The Society of the Spectacle”. In capitalism’s glittering palace of commodities, human relationships take second place to the relationships consumers form with their purchases.
In the Society of the Spectacle watching replaces doing. It’s the place where we either become spectators to our own lives, or spectators to the lives we aspire to. That’s the clincher: those inside the glittering arcade watch themselves, while those outside watch them watching. The masses’ political dreams, contra Marx, are not about torching the theatre – they’re about being seated in the audience. What brought down the Berlin Wall? Pornographic videos and blue-jeans.
What can those who grasp the civilisation-destroying potential of climate change possibly put up against the capitalist spectacle? What will they tell the huddled billions yearning to breathe air-conditioned air? Drive a sleek European car? Watch a jumbo-sized hi-def flat-screen TV?
“In the interests of the human generations yet to be born, you must go on living in a corrugated iron shack on a rubbish dump.”
Good luck with that!
You might as well tell those poor Moroccan day-labourers with their shovels to stop digging. Why would they, when behind you they can see the corrupt construction companies’ big lorries carting away sand by the ton? If they decide, instead, to keep on digging – so their families can keep on eating – who can blame them?
The question today’s socialists run from is the very same question yesterday’s socialists answered with such confidence and conviction: “What have you got that’s better than capitalism?” For a brief, enthralling period they pointed to the revolutionary society taking shape in the Soviet Union. By the late 1920s, however, it was becoming increasingly clear that the ebullient Soviet newsreels were not telling them the truth. Disillusionment would have set in much sooner had it not been for the beating capitalism took from the Great Depression. Post-World War II, however, and post-Stalin, the world of “actually existing socialism” had nothing to set against the astonishing abundance and novelty of the capitalist West. When an old comrade – a paid-up member of the Moscow-aligned Socialist Unity Party, no less – was asked where he’d rather live, Russia or New Zealand, there was only one honest answer he could give.
When you’re shovelling the beach into bags, your mind is focused on the money it will bring, not the wasteland that will be left behind. Until runaway climate change finally switches off their bright lights forever, the day-labourers of Planet Earth will keep their eyes firmly fixed on the glittering spectacle of capitalism’s magic cities.
Built out of, and on, the corrosive sands which they, themselves, have shifted.