A review of things you need to know before you sign off on Wednesday; ASB trims rates, dairy prices rise, insurance survey results released, Stats NZ rethinks census approach, swaps soft, NZD stable, & more

Watch the clip. He is referring to the endowment funds that are just tax free hedge funds. That’s probably the only issue he raises that we don’t have in NZ (yet). 

Prof G's writing on the issues with education are quite prolific. One thing that stands out to me is his discussions of technology as an enabler for high-quality education at affordable prices. The rise of MOOCs is a good example of that. This is good for students in both developed and developing countries. The University of Auckland doesn't even have online resources for study using R programming - arguably the greatest tool that the University can put on its brag sheet. Yet universities like MIT do. 

Snippet from Prof G:

So generally speaking, the cost of housing and education have exploded. And the average inflation-adjusted income of young people has gone down. Our grandparents on an inflation-adjusted basis made more money than our parents, and the parents have made more than younger people.

There’s been an uptick among Gen Z because the employment market is strong. And because of a lot of factors, including everything from less immigration to a labor shortage, they’ve seen their wages rise. But on the whole, as you go down in age, you’re seeing a fairly significant, consistent trend around the essentials usually attributed to wealth creation or progress and housing. Specifically, the price of housing and the cost of education have skyrocketed, while on an inflation-adjusted basis, their purchasing power has declined.

When the education part is subsumed by the monetary part.

What is "well played" ITG ? 

Don't you think it's the parent's responsibility to feed their children?

Don't you think children deserve a roof over their heads?

I'd rather be homeless and well fed than starving in a motel. 

You are very easy to wind up Yvil....

The short answer is children should be raised by nurturing parents.

The long answer is we have a system of social welfare where the state wants to step in and address any shortcomings. Which can never come close to good parenting or more immediate community welfare, whilst also not having any meaningful mechanism to regulate or police bad parenting.

Adoption is hard and complex, and the state doesn't want the optics of removing kids from families.

It’s the safety net that’s getting everyone tangled up. Personally I consider it child abuse to not feed kids, unless you really can’t afford bread. 

Probably a better social investment than handouts for the wealthy old or for preserving property wealth, though, in fairness, and if we're not requiring personal responsibility from those groups it's a bit off to require a much higher standard from impoverished kids.

You are seriously clueless about the types of parents we're talking about. They are shits, feeding their kids properly is not in their top 5 priorities. It's sad but it's a reality. Saying they should makes no difference to whether they will. 

In the 80s over late dinner Monty Python “The Meaning of Life” came up and we discussed not so much the movie but the question posed by its title. Sad to say from my perspective it wasn’t until much later when I experienced my grandchildren with my children that I was mature and wise enough to understand that the answer is - your children. 

A country with back to back trade surpluses somehow still manages to see the benefit/need in means testing their Government super.  

Also, that single line item for us is about $20b.  Total annual tax receipts approx. $100b.  Daren't we talk about it though, because it's not welfare but a loyalty scheme.  

He deserves a cigar..and some some more MP perks (including a free lunch)

Some way back Collins as opposition leader was alongside the government evidencing bi-partisan willingness to address housing affordability by removing many  restrictions. It was though, a one size fits all concept which created both confusion and resistance. It needed to be better planned, presented and offer more flexibility. Maybe here, there is a rekindling of the prospect in better form and if so well and good.

When I visit my dad at his retirement village in Petone I tend to avoid the CBD. It’s like it never left the 1990s. Lots of reasons for that. One of the key ones is protection of earthquake- prone heritage buildings.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-68947834

At the same time why make things harder than they need to be? There are plenty of valid reasons people might enroll on the day.

I genuinely think that New Zealand has one of the best electoral systems in the world, the public has a lot of trust and faith in the system which is probably something a lot of us probably take for granted. Bringing in stuff like the above and making democracy harder to participate in as well as making people feel like they don't have a voice in our political system is a good way to make our government less representative, more disconnected from voters and more like broken dysfunctional systems that we see overseas.

"why do we have to pander to those who are unorganised" 

Because the democratic principles are one person one vote not one organised person one vote. I'm being only slightly facetious.

Why would you not want a disorganised person to vote? Generally speaking people who benefit from making it easy to vote are people who are low income and struggling to make ends meet. They have other priorities on their mind like working and sorting childcare/leave to be able to vote. 

It's why the Republicans and Tories try their hardest to put up barriers to voting. They don't want poor people voting because generally speaking poor people don't vote for people who represent the interests of the rich. 

To me, that makes more of an argument to continue a service that is used by so many. 

Le Quesne said it was "a matter for Parliament to consider and decide" whether same-day enrolments should be canned, but it would make the Electoral Commission's job easier without having to hire "a few hundred more people".