Comments for Gordon Campbell

Comment on Gordon Campbell on Paula Rebstock and her new welfare reform platform by Miriam

Miriam — Wed, 16 May 2012 07:41:28 +0000

Duplication and waste is right.
And to think of all the good that $1.1 million could do in the hands of an org like KidsCan .

Comment on On the dubious economic case for the Auckland convention centre by Paul

Paul — Mon, 14 May 2012 09:34:04 +0000

The main issue of the Sky City proposal to build a convention centre appears to be the trade off involving the increased number poker machines at the casino. The income from more poker machines will help pay the costs of running the centre and increase turnover for the casino. Presumably the cost of building the convention centre will be recovered by the income from conventions and the hotel. The downstream effects, and the ethical dilemma, is likely to be more problem gamblers, along with fewer profits distributed to the community because Sky City keep a greater proportion of the profits when compared to local pub based poker machines.

However, is it not Sky City’s purpose as a business to maximise profits for its shareholders? The economist Milton Friedman (2005) suggests that role of a business is in fact to maximise profits for its shareholders. The casino needs to examine new business opportunities that will help grow the business. By bringing on the new convention centre, the casino is fulfilling its role of increasing income and investment opportunity to its shareholders. How much social responsibility should the public expect from the casino?

Sky City will be investing $350 million of their own money into a facility that will benefit the greater Auckland City. It will bring new business to the city which will fill hotels, restaurants and so on. Presumably it has done the figures and this proposal obviously stacks up. Sky City operates within the law, pays tax, and is legally able to operate its business. Is Sky City ethically responsible for all the downstream effects? Do not the benefits of having a large profitable company in downtown Auckland outweigh the downsides? A profitable company is able to keep operating, provide financial return to its shareholders, and employ a lot of people.
The casino has programmes in place to help problem gamblers. How many other companies directly support customers with issues created by their business, for example, the alcohol industry? The new convention centre will bring a new market opportunity to the company and the emphasis will not be on gambling, but conventions.

Will the addition of more poker machines as a result of the convention centre deal increase problem gambling? This is a debatable point, and no one will really know until the extra poker machines are added to the casino. There may only be a shift of gambling from other areas of Auckland to the casino with no net change in the problem. Does it make any difference for gamblers if a larger percentage of the profits go to the local community? Would this make it ethically better, when the underlying problem still exists? The issue surely is that people have gambling problems that need dealing with. This is where the social support systems paid for through taxes are best applied. The casino keeps a larger share of the poker machine turnover but don’t forget they also have added expenses like staff wages, electricity, rates and so on. The local pub machines don’t have these extra costs because they are paid to have machines on their premises.

The casino is operating in an open and competitive market. They are still free to gamble at their local poker machines, and they do not have to support Sky City Casino. Friedman (2005) would argue that participation by gamblers is voluntary and ‘they need not participate’ (Friedman, 2005, p. 254). The casino is fulfilling its social responsibility by conforming to the basics rules of society and following the law. There is no requirement ‘to contribute to a general social purpose’ (Friedman, 2005, p. 254).

Utilitarianism, where an action should produce the greatest good also applies. The ‘greatest happiness’ (Rachels and Rachels, 2010) to Auckland would be the creation of a convention centre. Should a small percentage of problem gamblers hold hostage a $350 million development? Surely the benefit to Auckland of a new facility that produces many jobs, and brings new tourists to the city, outweighs the downsides of a few that may be affected by the introduction of a few more poker machines? The poker machines already exist, so they are not a new threat. The benefits to the many outweigh the downsides to a few. This is often the case for many new developments, including for example, motorways.

Your statement that ‘isn’t the whole thrust of the government’s local government reforms meant to be against getting embroiled in risky commercial ventures of this sort’ is quite correct. There have been many examples of local authorities wasting ratepayer’s money. Therefore I fail to see how Sky City Casino, through paying for the convention centre itself, can be putting ratepayer’s money at risk. Surely this eliminates the risk for rate and tax payers? It is not the ratepayers, nor taxpayers who are stumping up the $350 million.

Reference

Friedman, M. (2005). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. In G.D. Chryssides & J.H. Kaler (Eds), An introduction to business ethics (pp.249-254). London: Thomson Learning.

Rachels, J. & Rachels, S (2010). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (6th ed). New York: McGraw Hill.

Comment on Gordon Campbell on free contraception for the beneficiary poor by AC

AC — Sun, 13 May 2012 00:14:05 +0000

I was forced to apply for a widow’s benefit at the age of 58 (my first-ever contact with WINZ) and soon learned that I was the underdog in a power relationship vis-à-vis my case manager.

Comment on Gordon Campbell on free contraception for the beneficiary poor by Heavydee

Heavydee — Sat, 12 May 2012 00:42:56 +0000

I tend to think the moral panic around eugenics that has been suggested by Sue Bradford and Gordon above is being overblown. I absolutely agree that not all beneficiaries are in this position by their own choosing and I don’t think solo mothers should be singled out as abusers of the system. However, as a teacher working in South Auckland, I regularly deal with children who come from unhappy homes which are also welfare-dependent homes. Serious behavioural issues and poor academic performance are the result, as are children regularly being sent to school dirty and without any breakfast or lunch. I don’t think providing some options to reduce the number of children born into these conditions is necessarily a bad thing.

Comment on Gordon Campbell on banks passing on their own costs of reform by Joe Blow

Joe Blow — Fri, 11 May 2012 08:54:01 +0000

I’d say they’re delaying the implementation of the new policy because they’re afraid of what it will do to economic growth. The banks will pass on the costs in the form of higher interest rates. They can’t offset this in most countries because interest rates are generally at near zero overseas anyway. The NZRB could arguably do this easier than elsewhere.

So they seem to be unwilling to implement the very policies we need to create a safer banking system because they’re afraid it will deepen the recession. Yeah, they’re still just holding their breath and crossing their fingers and hoping things will improve… It sounds like a rock and a hard place to me. Pretty grim really…

Macroeconomic Impact of Basel III
http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/workingpaper/5kghwnhkkjs8-en

Comment on Gordon Campbell on banks passing on their own costs of reform by Graham Dunster

Graham Dunster — Fri, 11 May 2012 04:19:58 +0000

The John Kay article is indeed interesting. I’m a little confused as there is a Co-operative Bank in existence in the UK so I don’t understand why they should be precluded from upscaling to Lloyds TSb levels.

Comment on Gordon Campbell on banks passing on their own costs of reform by Grant

Grant — Fri, 11 May 2012 03:36:56 +0000

John Kay has a very good article saying that much of the problem is because regulations and regulators force banks to fit one mold only

http://www.johnkay.com/2012/05/09/it-is-time-to-end-the-oligopoly-in-banking

Comment on Gordon Campbell on free contraception for the beneficiary poor by james

james — Fri, 11 May 2012 02:25:24 +0000

Those on the benefit are scum, This is why a poll on tv 3 showed 80% for birth control. Its interesting How the media refer to those on a benefit as them, as if us, having a job gives you the right to judge. Forget that some have got injured from our work places or been made redundant after 20 years in the work force. The issues are complex and there are no simple solutions. Bigots like cameron slater eg breeders and michael laws ferals need to get a life and not be such bigots.

Comment on Gordon Campbell on free contraception for the beneficiary poor by RobertM

RobertM — Fri, 11 May 2012 00:19:20 +0000

My own views are that are young women should have the right to free injections or implants for long lasting contraceptives at say age 15.5 and 18.5 and that an attempt should be made to encourage breeding in say the age range of 21 to 24 and then free contraception after that. I believe women need the right to 24 hour childcare several days a week. The expense would be met by radical cuts to the health system, social work areas. I believe the current health system and in particular the militant left wing interventionist attitudes to the New Zealand medical system is undesirable. The priority of the medical profession should be to enhance peoples sex life. The only long term solution to the growing rest home and alzheimer care problem is the Dutch solution of active euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is not something I support at all.
Good health and good mental health is best achieved by vigorous sex life. Young women at there sexual peak between 15 and 25 should maximise the opportunity

Comment on Gordon Campbell on free contraception for the beneficiary poor by DrWatson

DrWatson — Thu, 10 May 2012 12:17:18 +0000

For those who don’t realise it, Men have been able to get free contraception for a long time. Walk into family planning, get an arm full of condoms, walk out.

This legislation is not compelling, but enabling. It should however, be extended to cover all people on low incomes, and not just those receiving a benefit.