A poor Standard

Wow, what’s going on at The Standard – A poor investment. There’s some touchy ‘moderators’.

Being banned there yesterday wasn’t a surprise, Eddie has little tolerance for having the Labour messsage of the day disrupted (even though I agreed with part of post ).

But I thought Irish Bill was one of the more fair ones at The Standard. Until today. He posted a premature ‘analysis’ of the merits of investing in Mighty River. Kevin commented:

After reading your thoughts regarding the partial sell down of energy assets it is probably best that you don’t invest because you don’t exhibit a great deal of knowledge on the subject.

For instance in capital markets shares in energy utilities are amongest the most highly prized of investments because they produce a consistent and regular income stream, an excellent return on investment.

In a New Zealand context the energy utilities are still partially owned by the government which affords good protection from competitive activity, because governments are in a good position to regulate the market and reduce the extreme swings that occur in other markets such as rental housing or finance companies.
Share values in utilities don’t experience the highs and lows of other markets, therefore it is a misnomer that trading in the shares alone is the quick route to wealth, it is not.

Investors in this market are in for the long haul and the dividends and relative security of the investment.

IrishBill: It is probably best you don’t comment on blogs as you seem to lack basic comprehension. Take a week off for starting a comment by insulting an author.

An accurate first statement  that could hardly be called an insult – more of a defensive over reaction in ignorance.

Actually a very sound comment on the nature of investiment in power companies.

And then JR:

As a regular reader of the standard but not a commenter, I am a bit shocked that you would ban someone for that? For those of us without strong leanings one way or another in the political spectrum it is interesting to see and hear both sides of an argument. Given some of the hysterical comments and insults that get thrown around Kevin’s barely registered.

What prompted me to reply was the fact that instead of countering his argument you have a bit of a sulk and ban him for a week?! If his logic and conclusions are cobblers then have the courage in your argument, develop a bit of a thicker skin and demonstrate the flaws in his – not throw a wee tanty and silence his perspective. If all you want are fan boy like responses – ok, but tell people up front….Open dialogue whether you like the comment or not is healthy even if it is just to prove the soundness of your own position.

Many of the bannings I have seen were fully deserved – but this just came across as shutting down a view you didn’t like because you thought it made yours look incorrect. Poor form

IrishBill: For all your regular reading you’ve obviously not paid attention to my moderation style. If you come into my house and start by insulting me you’ll get slung out. I also dislike people attributing motives to me so you can take a week off for that and for your “tanty” remark.

If that’s the sort of ‘insult’ you can expect to get ‘slung out’ for it makes the forum there farcical.

I often comment there knowing the knife is hovering if I push the boundary a little, and sometimes they lose control and ban, despite much worse crap frequentlybeing ignored.

But this is like nothing I’ve seen there – an extreme reaction from Irish Bill because, well, either his comments were financialy ignorant, or they were deliberate crap to try and muddy the investment waters.

Edit: JR has posted again at The Standard, it may not last long so copied here:

JR 10.2.1

@irishbill, not a problem….I will happily go back to just being a reader, I don’t think I can be banned from that can I LOL – you kind of made my point for me, I wanted to see your response to his point but to the average reader with an interest in the topic your choice came across as that banning was simpler than counter argument.

Open abuse of RWNJ’s is ok and never banned, but any considered opposing thought that contains the slightest of negative comment attached gets banned. Is that really the message?

Would you not rather have 500 replies covering all aspects of the topic at hand that show why it is valid versus the RW position.

By all means ban the dross that passes for comment but being a bit precious and banning people for having the temerity to stand up for their thoughts….really? Why even write a blog or opinion piece then?

BTW No nead to publish this – you have made your position clear. Just giving mine. Have a good week





Good to see this place is still as retarded as ever.

And more comments:


This is typical of the ‘Nanny State’ left!
Reason #236 why they currently aren’t in power (the financial literacy that is shown by IrishBill in the article above is reason #1).

Kevin is 100% correct JR, that was his biggest mistake, with no retort all IrishBill could do was ban him for a week to stop him from further embarrassing him on his own topic.

Tom, before I take my imminent (probably permanent) vacation from The Standard, according to the latest figures from treasury (take these with a pinch of salt), the sell down of 49% of these powerco’s is going to reduce income by approx. $100M per annum. The float is expected to raise $4-$7 billion. This means (in very simplistic, inflation not taken into account terms) it would take 40-70 years to raise these funds through dividends. Who knows what new power producing technologies will be available by then……the French are currently working on fission reactors as one example.

If power prices go up as everyone here keeps saying they will, the government dividend goes up and that 100M gap is reduced, so everyone saves money (using the logic of ‘we already own the power stations’). Power prices go down, the government has already cashed out while they were profitable.

Murray Olsen

So sell and hope something better comes up makes economic sense? The sales make perfect sense from a trader’s point of view, but not so much as investments. Key is by nature a trader and a speculator and seems completely unable to take any other viewpoint. Now please go back to your dominatrix state on steroids. While you’re at it, feel free to google “fission reactor” and think about how it can be a new technology.



I’m currently on a ban at The Standard given without warning for  a minor ‘misdemeanour’ that is no different to what is commonly done there – except that Eddie (Labour psuedonym) didn’t like what I linked to because it challenged his crude cartoon lampoon.

I’m also currently on an apparent ban at Red Alert, by comments disappear without trace. I’ve asked both David Clark (my electorate MP) and Clare Curran (the other Dunedin MP) about it and they have ignored me.

Blogs are supposed to be social media, not social engineering. What are Labour afraid of. Having their talking points challenged?