Building submission in NZ

Share |

I decided to make a submission to the NZ government on the NZ Building Code. You can also make a submission at the following site.

The Building Code which curtails the capacity of people to perform handyman work on their homes and facilities, is the greatest obstacle to competition in the marketplace. Notwithstanding the very real safety concerns, anyone performing work is levied with 'punitive' fines and charges which relate to no objective value, or an inclination to adopt arbitrary, dogmatic rules (divorced from context). This is a form of extortion of fascism....but of course its well-meaning.

The implications

1. Community members are compelled to break laws which ought not exist...in the process inciting lawlessness

2. Hardwares offer 30-50% discount to builders and other tradespeople (at the expense of the homeowner who actually initiates the work performed), adds a huge mark-up, and then after having extorted this wealth from homeowners, uses the proceeds to subsidise an extravagant life of recreation, whilst just working 3 days a week.

3. Members of the community are inclined to avoid home improvements, which reduces justifiable spending

4. NZ home infrastructure goes underfunded in terms of improvement.

5. The govt, which reverses cause & effect, recognising the underspending on improvements, then in its infinite wisdom, then subsidises home improvement schemes like insulation and energy-rated wood burners, which again allow manufacturers and imstallers to extort money from buyers, who think they are getting a bargain (i.e. subsidy). e.g. A $3-5,000 heat pump is the same technology as a refrigerator (cost $800-1200), so that is the extent to which the govt is extorting taxpayers. Why? To placate a group of uncritical thinking scientists with no respect for objectivity who run a campaign of 'global warming' by humanity. These collectivists renounce the mind in favour of scare campaigns. Correlation is not causation....its all too easy to drop the context. A huge waste of money is occurring thanks to government, which is another false economy, whereby politicians extort wealth from taxpayers...some happily (repressors and parasites alike) under a collectivist creed of 'might makes right'. Ultimately the politicians are not accountable because they define the rules by which they will be judged. Under common law, extortion is illegal...under your arbitrary rule, anything becomes possible.

Yes, you preside over a complete shambles of a collectivist state. Democracy provides you with the "legitimacy" to launch your rationalised political spin....knowing all too well that the passive, powerless voter has no effective choice in a two-party electoral system. I do not even pretend that this submission will make a difference. Reason is not the standard of value...not in legislature...and most critically, not in the judiciary....though implicitly judges hear evidence...its a process of rationalisation when the extortionary opinions of parliamentary majorities moved by 'number blocs' rather than reasons and arguments, are the standard of value. There is no real or effective debate.

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

Ethical implications for our CEOs

Share |

I have long argued that wealthy business people are partly the problem. They are partly the reason why we have declining freedom. The reality is that there is some measure of 'material' practicality in their philosophy, but they really don't want to identify the nature of the statist which controls their economic well-being. Whether they are 'intellectually-challenged', compartmentalised thinkers or repressed, or simply goal-orientated in a different direction, the implications are the same as for the parent who chooses to focus upon the growth of the business, as opposed to the proper development of their children. Years later they will disparage the child for their decisions, with no regard to the values they have modelled, or the choices they have made. Just as they are dumb-founded by the final reality of their child which has become a delinquent, so they are dumb-founded by the decline of their country into fascism. They did not see it happen because of their selective focus, and failure to analyse ideas.

So when I had the opportunity to challenge the ideas of our society with a CEO. At first I found him surprisingly agreeable. Well I should not be surprised, as my politics were consistent with his economic interests. Consider his politics:

"What we are seeing with Rudd and co is indeed fascism. They believe they know what is best for us all and that they can have a command economy. This is much worse than the Whitlam years which were bad enough. I don't see how anyone with half a brain could be anything but sceptical about climate matters. We are dealing with really evil people in Federal government just now".

The problem is that he does not grasp the ethical implications of his ideas. Clearly he is opposed to governments imposing their values on him, regardless of what they are. My counter-argument was multi-faceted because I wanted to give him the utmost possibility to integrate a lot of ideas across a range of subjects. e.g. The ethics of his friend/partner, his own values. I think I overwhelmed him and made him feel threatened. For a person with a great deal of pride in his acc0mplishments, influencing people is really a hard task. So I failed in this regard. My reply was very long, so I will only address his response to it:

"I disagree that “capitalism is selfishness”. The quality applies to the individuals, not to “isms”. There are selfish capitalists, selfish socialists, selfish people of religion, etc, just as there are unselfish people with the same political or philosophical bents".

The problem here is a lack of understanding of human motivations. He is not identifying the underlying motivations behind human thought and action. He in effect lacks 'humanities' science, which might be a good thing if he studied the topic at a university because he might have ended up a conflicted humanitarian. This is a flawed conception of selfishness and selflessness in the general community, including business leaders. We are raised with the belief that it is moral to serve others. Its the ethics underpinning socialism and fascism (Hitler: You are nothing, your nation is everything). It is not simply a moral imperative, it is a value alternative. People choose to be altruistic; it is not simply a case of having it thrust upon them by statists. He makes no distinction, so he does not see the underlying science.

He also makes no distinction between competing priorities. i.e. Masalow recognises that people have a hierarchy of values, and that they will prefer one to another. i.e. The love and satisfaction of one's wife to one's pet dog, to the extent that there is a conflict between them. Rather than regarding love as a trade - value for value - he sees love as altruistic. He does not recognise that altruistic love would mean loving her for her flaws (not in spite of them). Why then does he wonder why he did not fall in love with the most worthless girl who threw herself at him. Because he made a value judgement based on her virtues. Mind you, I don't wish to imply that all people make healthy value judgements. But these are psychologically healthy people with good values.

The other aspect of his reply was that 'selfishness' relates to psychology, not to philosophical values. In this regard, he does not identify the integrity of politics and ethics. Pity! I even provided him with a clue, i.e. Trade is based upon the exchange of value for value, which is inherently selfish or self-serving. You don't screw people out of self-interest, you screw people because you are self-loathing, which is the providence of altruists who create nothing, and thus have nothing to trade by flaws or vice. Their tools are guilt, coercion, manipulation like the promise of unconditional love. In fact most people are some blend of these attributes.

My conversation to this gentleman did not have the desired response. Pity I am too busy or overwhelmed to craft a better letter. Too busy to invest in anyone person. I do respect him. The reality however is that people are simply overwhelmed by the implications of these ideas. CEOs are hard nuts to crack because they are not accustomed to feeling vulnerable. We are raised to be strong, even to the point of denying reality. He really doesn't want to deal with these issues. Better to know on the first letter than invest a great deal of time in a relationship which was destined to fail. Keep..keep trying. :)

------------------------------------

Author

Andrew Sheldon

Resource Rent Tax

Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com

We should value our mining industry

Share |

The Australian mining industry is currently being attacked by the Federal government, which is trying to extort higher levels of taxes from the industry, to cynically boost its electoral-buying capacity over the Liberals. It has always been characteristic of Labor to go where 'no man has been before', so Rudd is not fresh faced in this respect. Some criticisms made of the mining industry need to be refuted:

1. Mining companies earn excessive profits. Actually the reality is that profits from mining are very volatile. i.e. They go up 200-400% and then come down. Those profits are used by the industry to finance further mining capacity. If Rudd taxes that capacity to finance more mining, the capacity will be developed overseas. There are a plethora of projects overseas, and if the tax impost does not drive the investment offshore, the arbitrariness of the impost will. i.e. Higher cost of capital because of the higher sovereign risk investing in Australia.

2. Mining investment supports downstream investment in railways, loading facilities, shipping, port services, towns, engineering, catering contractors, etc. More investment here results in lower costs as any new projects benefit from older investment.

3. Investors benefit from the volatility. If you like investing, the mining industry provides a fast track to success. There is however corresponding risks to consider, so those higher returns are well-justified; particularly since Rudd takes no steps to provide ASIC with the resources to rein in some of the mining cowboys ripping off shareholders.

4. Miners helping the country. Mining has minimal impact on the countryside in Australia. We are a low-rainfall country and the benefits of mining dwarf the impact on the environment. Miners are responsible for their impact. Besides that they create jobs, attract a lot of investment, develop infrastructure, support public administration. Might we do better to respect the investors and executives who create the wealth. Are they self-serving....certainly. Without the self-respect and self-serving qualities of entrepreneurship, we could be living in far less appealing economic circumstances. We no longer ride on the sheep's back, its miners. Don't abuse the privilege, otherwise you might just see the succession of WA from the Australian Federation.

5. We have it too good. The reality is we take our mining industry for granted. If we did not have the mining industry, our economy would mirror NZ. We would have a weaker currency, and there would be an exodus of educated Australians to foreign countries, and we would become a nation of farmers and retirees like NZ. Our national incomes are 30% higher than NZ. I suspect that 15% is singularly the result of the mining industry. Its that important.

6. Mining companies are using foreign labour. True enough the mining industry is having to import skilled migrants because there is a shortage in Australia. Most of these people will stay in Australia. I have lived in Asia. Most are jumping at the opportunity to have a better standard of living. What people 'who don't travel' don't realise is that travel changes people. These 'migrants' are often taken advantage of in their home country, so they would prefer to stay here, plus the lifestyle reasons for staying. Their children are growing up here. The relatives back home just want their money. If we don't have babies, and you have centralised government, you will depend on population growth to keep productivity and economic activity growing.

So when I hear that "royalties from mining companies have decreased disproportionately to profits over the last decade from about 16% to 11%", I recognise that metal prices at that point were 300% less than now. i.e. Copper is now $US3.10/lb, it was then $0.80/lb, and miners struggled for 10-15 years. They were helped by a low $0.50 AUD, just as now they are injured by a $0.90 dollar cross-rate.

The argument that we all own the ground they 'pillage' has some credence, but the mining industry already pays a great deal of taxes. This is opportunism for Rudd to get elected. It is the same strategy as Rudd artificially restricting land releases for housing so that property prices rise for the betterment of some at the expense of others. This government is not 'pro-poor' it is self-serving at the expense of anyone and everyone.

Yes, of course multinational mining companies don't like imposts, particularly when its really extortion. These companies are investing billions in the expectation that the government policy or tax rates will be at certain levels....then Rudd applies a huge tax impost. Come on! They can't pass on the cost because its not applied to their competitors. Does Australia really want their government to have more spending money given their historic performance?

In the late 1800s and early 1900s Australia was said to 'live on the sheep's back'. Now we live on the 'miner's back', or investors back, who supports them. The relationship between miner and investor is complimentary, the relationship between government and mining is becoming intolerably parasitical. Government's power needs to be curtailed. This financial crisis was made possible because Howard and Rudd facilitated a huge expansion in global debt. They are complicit with the US government in causing the financial malaise. The mining industry should not pay for it. Even taxpayers ought not to pay for it. It should be repudiated because sovereign debt is extortion by the majority over the minority. Politics has to change!

---------------------------------------------

Author
Andrew Sheldon
Resource Rent Tax
Applied Critical Thinking | www.SheldonThinks.com