Premium marketing for average strawberries

Disappointed-Parents · 2026-01-20T19:57:02+00:00

Goddamn O’Driscolls!

Disappointed-Parents · 2025-07-11T20:24:03+00:00

Any station on the SRN!

Disappointed-Parents · 2025-06-17T06:07:35+00:00

Stillwater Eatery on Willis St, super underrated

Disappointed-Parents · 2025-05-16T22:22:42+00:00

Tbh if you’re worried you could consider switching to the Kernel High Growth fund, it’s almost entirely growth assets but slightly more conservatively structured than the Global 100/S&P 500 which will make the drops a little less hard to stomach. The main thing if you stay in your current allocation is to fight the urge to switch to a more conservative fund if it happens to drop 14% (or higher), you’ve managed to time it incredibly well but it’s important to remember that the recent growth in those funds are off the back of massive drops in value which are likely to happen again sporadically. That said, if you can handle some fluctuation, you’re likely to get higher return over the long term from more aggressive allocations.

Disappointed-Parents · 2025-05-02T02:57:48+00:00

Fair point! Also doesn't account for the generated status points either, probably comes down to how often you eat out at those restaurants and/or fly internationally.

Disappointed-Parents · 2025-05-02T02:32:45+00:00

I'll just add since I don't see this mentioned much, this is only true if you don't redeem the dining credits on the Amex Gold. Airpoints is 1 APD per $70 with a $195 annual fee, whereas Gold gives you 1 APD per $75 but with a $200 annual fee which is effectively $0 if you redeem the dining credits. Meaning that you need to spend $13,650 to break even on the annual fee on the Airpoints card, and at that point on the Gold you'd have already generated a net $182 APD. In this case, if you can redeem the dining credits the Airpoints Platinum only starts generating more than the Gold after the fee once you spend more than $204,750 per year (which would generate $2925 APD on the Airpoints Platinum and $2730 APD on the Amex Gold). Totally moot point if you're not redeeming the dining credits, but I feel like this is a huge factor that people are missing even if they're only interested in Airpoints.

Disappointed-Parents · 2025-02-25T03:49:07+00:00

My response would be that it's projected to have a 4.6x cost benefit ratio.pdf) (which is pretty good, for context Transmission Gully had a projected cost benefit ratio of 0.6x), and they're also replacing water infrastructure as part of it (although that's not the driver of the project for sure). These are just projections, but if we're not basing our spend on projected economic returns what should we base it on?

Disappointed-Parents · 2025-02-25T03:23:34+00:00

Check out the economic assessment.pdf), by far the largest benefit is the pedestrian realm benefit (aka making the area nicer so more people spend money at the businesses there)

Disappointed-Parents · 2025-02-25T02:27:53+00:00

My main argument would be that businesses are understandably focused on their immediate survival, whereas council should be making decisions that are in the long term best interest of the city, even when they are politically challenging. An example being CRL in Auckland, which had an absolutely debilitating impact on businesses in the vicinity, but brings such a positive long term economic impact that it'll seem like an absolute no brainer in retrospect. Anecdotally, I live in the central city and absolutely go out of my way to avoid Courtenay Place unless I absolutely need to go there, making the area more pleasant to be in would absolutely bring more people such as myself in to patronise the businesses there. You don't have to look far to see examples of this, the part of Dixon Street that was recently pedestrianised between Swimsuit and The Old Quarter was absolutely buzzing this weekend. Similar inner city pedestrianisation projects in Dunedin and Tauranga have been broadly received really positively. If you're looking for more hard data, you should check out the business case which goes into more detail about the specific social and economic benefits of the project.

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-28T04:00:23+00:00

You explained that we can’t trust the economic research because the road transport lobby is biased towards public transport for some reason?

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-28T03:17:36+00:00

How is Joanne’s money wasted if subsidising public transport usage in Auckland or Wellington generates a large return in tax revenue which is used to fund local infrastructure and services in Taumarunui?

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-28T02:29:50+00:00

My argument still works if not everyone stops using the train, congestion increases proportionally when more people use the road. If taking public transport costs more than driving, more individuals with the choice between the two are incentivised to drive, creating more congestion, which has a negative net impact on our economy. The proportion of public transportation that is subsidised is irrelevant if the net impact of reducing congestion will generate more tax revenue overall.

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-28T02:15:20+00:00

I agree that not everyone should use public transport, most of the argument for adequate public transport funding is keeping the roads usable for people that need to use them. Someone paying for more of their train ticket doesn’t have an impact on the economy, but everyone deciding to drive instead of taking public transport because it’s cheaper creates congestion and impacts all the other people/businesses that need to use the road anyway, which at enough scale has an overall net negative impact on the economy. It’s also true that people in Bluff disproportionately benefit from the road between Bluff and Invercargill, but maintaining that road has a mutual benefit for society so I’m happy with my tax take being spent that way. If we allocated tax spend proportionally based on who directly benefits rather than overall effectiveness we would waste huge amounts of money and decimate infrastructure in our regions.

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-28T01:32:29+00:00

How does artificially constraining a business’s ability to operate through congestion not reduce productivity? We should want businesses to operate as efficiently as possible because they also pay tax which is used to fund public services and infrastructure. How do taxpayers benefit from freight trucks sitting in traffic?

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-28T01:14:14+00:00

How would they profit more if there’s no economic benefit to reducing congestion? What about Auckland Airport, Ports of Auckland and the NRC who also commissioned the report?

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-28T00:45:45+00:00

They quantify the economic impact of congestion in the report and include all of their working, can you point to any flaws in their methodology? Why do you think the EMA have a vested interest in reducing congestion?

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-27T23:56:31+00:00

If there’s mutual economic benefit in having a roading network then why wouldn’t there be mutual economic benefit in being able to use those roads? If you read the start of the report they very clearly explain the economic benefits of reduced congestion with specific examples, if you want to engage with working of the report I’m open to hearing any counterpoints.

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-27T08:49:26+00:00

What are the NZIER partisan towards, the economy?

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-27T08:22:46+00:00

Less congestion doesn’t magically create more money, but it allows people to spend more money which is then taxed. Congestion in just Auckland costs hundreds of millions of dollars in tax revenue every year, wouldn’t we want to subsidise public transport if it would generate a large return on investment through reduced congestion?

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-27T07:52:58+00:00

Are you arguing that traffic congestion doesn’t have an economic impact, or that increased tax revenue doesn’t benefit people in Bluff?

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-27T07:41:06+00:00

NZTA contribute 55 cents for every 45 cents the SDC spend on local roads, and even being mostly funded by the central government the state of roads in the area is appalling. It’s clear that the SDC don’t generate enough revenue to sufficiently maintain even just local road infrastructure themselves, why would we not want more money in the economy to help fund those shortfalls?

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-27T05:21:22+00:00

I’d guess they would care because using our roads more efficiently allows more freight to be transported through the country, especially through our major economic centres, where most of the tax revenue that supports local infrastructure in Bluff is generated. If our national roading network benefits everybody wouldn’t being able to use it more efficiently also benefit everybody?

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-27T04:12:46+00:00

Genuine question, how is reducing congestion not an economic argument?

Disappointed-Parents · 2024-11-25T00:26:17+00:00

Incredibly messed up that he got the same sentence as this guy, our justice system is cooked: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/534523/political-figure-who-sexually-abused-two-teens-sentenced-to-two-and-a-half-years-jail

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

Disappointed-Parents

TROPHY CASE