Showing posts with label Matt Nippert. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Matt Nippert. Show all posts

Monday, 1 October 2018

Stupid Avatar

I hated the idea of Avatar enough that I didn't want to pay to see it at cinema. The snippets I've caught on TV haven't changed my mind about it.

But it looks like I'll be paying for it for as long as the subsidy-milking franchise is willing to keep on going.

Remember the old days of agricultural subsidies where farmers took money to produce stuff like mutton that people didn't much want to eat?

Matt Nippert goes through a bit more of the film subsidy madness.
The government has abandoned plans to rein in ballooning subsides for Hollywood, citing film industry opposition and the threat of lawsuits from the producers of James Cameron's Avatar films.

The Weekend Herald reported in June these payments - that sees studios get cash payments of up to 25 per cent of their local spending on productions - had totalled $575 million since 2010, prompting Economic Development Minister David Parker to announce he was looking at ways to cap or limit the escalating costs to taxpayers.

But yesterday Parker, speaking from Australia, said following consultations with industry around the viability of their business - and thousands of accompanying jobs - without subsidies, and legal advice over a 2013 deal signed with Avatar producers, said cuts or changes to the subsidy scheme were now off the table.

"We're not proposing to introduce a cap. We accept that the subsides are necessary, and we accept there's a benefit to the country," he said.
Yuck.
Parker said the costs to government from that deal would be significant. The 2013 agreement suggests the Avatar films will cost a minimum of $500m, of which a quarter - or $125m - will be paid by government.

Actual spending on the films - and the accompanying subsidy - is likely to substantially exceed this minimum as two films are already in production with the prospect of two more in the pipeline. The first Avatar film cost $360m to produce in 2009, and Hobbit trilogy of films, also filmed in Wellington under the subsidy scheme, ended up costing a total just over $1b.

Parker sheeted this exposure, potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to the taxpayer, back to the previous National government.
Is there really no way of getting out of this mess?

We've gotten ourselves into a particularly stupid equilibrium where we're throwing tons of money at the film industry so that NZ film school grads will be able to get jobs, and we're subsidising training the next crop of hostages to the film subsidies.

New Zealand is too small to be able to afford a lot of this kind of stupid.
Posted by Eric Crampton at 07:00:00 0 comments
Labels: , ,

Tuesday, 13 January 2015

Convention Centre your way to being on the map

Matt Nippert has a nice round-up on the SkyCity convention centre. He there quotes me accurately; I've pasted below the email summary I'd sent him after a phone chat.
“The deal we were sold when the SkyCity Convention deal was proposed, or at least as I understood it, was that SkyCity would provide a Convention Centre in exchange for some casino concessions. It makes sense to run a convention centre in conjunction with or near a casino as there seem to be complementarities – conventioneers often like taking advantage of casino amenities. The deal was not costless to the government because it could have sold off those casino concessions at auction instead and taken the cash – this was the opportunity cost of the arrangement. But one important cost was, I had thought, taken off the government’s hands: the risk of construction cost overruns, and the risk of ongoing operating losses if the centre turned into a white elephant.” “Under the deal as I understood it, we probably had the least bad way of getting a new convention centre. I’m not convinced that one was needed, but if the alternative were that the government were going to build and run a convention centre anyway, the SkyCity deal beat that – and especially because the government was not going to be on the hook for cost over-runs. If government is going to be on the hook for costs, the case for the deal is much weaker. It’s possible that it’s still the least bad way of getting a new convention centre, but we likely need a rather more thorough business case if the government takes on any of the risk of ongoing operational losses. A one-off contribution towards construction costs is at least limited. But if risk winds up falling on government if fewer conventions book in at the new centre than are expected, we do need a pretty robust look at how many more conventions would really come to New Zealand.”
When this all started, the business case for the convention centre really didn't matter. SkyCity was taking on all the upside and downside risk, so if they were overly optimistic about how many net new conventions would come to town as consequence of the new convention centre, government didn't need to care as SkyCity would take the losses. If the deal now is that the government will cover losses, then somebody needs to be taking a hard look at the business case and weigh it up thoroughly, accounting also for any diversion in custom from existing convention centres.

Government's already shelling out close to $300 million for a convention centre in Christchurch. Queenstown's getting one or two. Wellington too. I wonder how we'd rank on an international league table of "convention centre spaces per capita".

Nippert writes:
Sue Sullivan, head of industry body Conventions and Incentives New Zealand, which has been lobbying for an international convention centre for more than a decade, was unwilling to argue the project was now value for taxpayer money.
She said a convention centre had considerable spin-offs, pointing to studies which showed international convention centre visitors were big local spenders. "We see it as an opportunity for new business, significant business. It puts New Zealand on the map," she said.
Yes, on the map.

Posted by Eric Crampton at 09:33:00 0 comments
Labels: ,

Tuesday, 19 November 2013

The Two Robs

A couple weeks ago, Matt Nippert and I had a bit of fun imagining a Rob Ford sitcom that could follow after the current Toronto Mayoralty reaches its inevitable end.

Here was our pitch. The episodes Matt suggested have his handle.








Since then, we've heard that there's to be a Rob Ford TV show and Matt's suggested Season 2, Episode 1 has come close to reality:
dear Mayor Rob Ford,
the only truth or correct reporting in today's 
repulsive story regarding
my alleged comments about you,
is the accurate spelling of your great city.
your personal life is and never would be,
any of my business.
I'm sorry for any grief this may have caused.
if I can be of any assistance 
in any capacity in this 
media cesspool,
please accept the noble offer of my steady
hand and compassionate heart.
respectfully,
charlie sheen.
Kiwis need to adjust their expectations of Canadians. I'm not 'somewhat rude for a Canadian'; I'm 'remarkably polite and well-adjusted, given his heritage.' Please revise accordingly.

More seriously, here's Andrew Coyne, who rightly assesses that it's time for Ford to go. While there are certain advantages to having all the other mayors scared that your mayor might beat them up, Toronto's well past the Laffer-max on that kind of metric.

Update: Rob Ford's TV show was cancelled after one episode. This was my initial prediction for my proposed Rob Ford TV show. But, it does leave him free for The Two Robs. The same news story informs me that Kory Teneyke is now VP of Sun News. I remember when he headed up the Reform Party's youth wing, when the central party moved to have a bit more central control over its campus affiliates. Memories....
Posted by Eric Crampton at 15:53:00 0 comments
Labels: , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)