Radio New Zealand reports on results from Auckland Uni's youth survey. Smoking and drinking rates among young Maori are well down. It shouldn't be a surprise to anybody. The
MoH's survey shows substantial reductions in drinking among youths. But folks
determined to see crises will keep being surprised.
The report shows the number of Maori youth who drink alcohol at least once a week has more than halved in the past five years - something which comes as a surprise to Alcohol Healthwatch director Rebecca Williams.
The survey bucks the trend of many other reports but, nonetheless, any indication of a move away from alcohol consumption should be celebrated, Ms Williams says.
No, the survey is entirely in line with the other data that's been coming out. These results are only surprising if your priors are so immune to updating that nothing else has been able to get through. Hard to dismiss the conclusion that MoH is paying Healthwatch
on the order of $600k per year for
derp herping. [Thanks
Nicola!]
actually thats a pretty good argument for NZ
ReplyDeleteWhy is it not relevant whether other countries do the same? If they do do the same, NZ will have a good chance of winning the business; if they don't, we won't. The first would of course be a very good outcome, but there's no reason to think it the more likely.
ReplyDeleteVMC and Elinor. You are missing the point of the analogy. I was not commenting on whether the subsidy is good or bad; but on Elinor's suggestion that whether it would be good depends on the reason that filmmakers would go to other countries absent our subsidy. The fiscal cost to us is the same no matter what the source of other countries' film or banana advantage is, and the benefits to us (advertising, offsetting a tax distortion, economies of scale and scope, whatever) are the same no matter what the source of the other countries' advantage.
ReplyDeleteI agree there is one problem with the analogy. If we subsidise our banana industry, other countries' tropical weather will not improve in response. But if we subsidise films to counteract their subsidy, they are likely to increases their subsidies. So politics being the source of their advantage implies less reason for us to subsidise.
NZ Nat Government raised price on drugs to help people especially Maori.
ReplyDeleteMr Peter is dead, his films were Cyber rubbish, if you dont believe me watch his early movies. Jackson is crap
ReplyDeleteThe Canterbury region experienced no serious earthquakes between Cheviot 1901 and Greendale 2010. This led us all to fall asleep at the switch, to unconsciously assume that we were not sitting on the Ring of Fire. The built environment of Christchurch owed much to looking back sentimentally on British architectural tradition, and very little to earthquake resistance. Assuring that Christchurch buildings would not seriously injure or kill anyone in an earthquake short of 8 or 9, would have meant tearing down and rebuilding a great deal of the central city. Cost and architectural nostalgia ruled that path out.
ReplyDeleteMaking owners liable for those injured or killed when their buildings fall in an earthquake, is completely incompatible with ACC, which effectively socialised all such risks a generation ago. But I agree that from a tort law perspective, the economic incentives faced by the owners of NZ buildings are badly skewed.
Even though many thousands of Christchurch houses were sufficiently damaged by the earthquakes to have been been condemned, very few Christchurch residents were seriously or injured or killed in their houses. The reason is that New Zealand houses are built on timber frames. Timber is an excellent material in an earthquake zone.
Thank you for this blog. If you need car you can visit us. We
ReplyDeletewill manage you a great solution for car. To get more information visit http://www.buyrightcars.co.nz/