Thursday, 18 December 2008

English gives ignorant xenophobia a go

Here's the latest entry in the file marked 'The More Things Change, the More the New Govt Looks Just Like the Last':

    The Government has vetoed plans by one of Asia's richest men to buy a giant ironsands business in a $250 million deal.
    The new Government, which had criticised the Labour administration's decision to block a partial takeover of Auckland airport, sandbagged the deal because of a lack of "substantial and identifiable benefit" to New Zealand.

As Nigel Kearney comments,

    It's a sale by an Australian firm to a Hong Kong firm. There is no direct economic gain or loss to New Zealand, but the indirect gains are:
    1) Companies will be more willing to invest here if they know they will be able to sell without government interference.
    2) A company that wants to buy is much more likely to look after the business and safeguard jobs than a company that wants to sell but can't.
    Only racism or ignorance can explain English's actions. I'll be charitable and put it down to ignorance.

I’ll put it down to ignorant xenophobia.


  1. I'll be charitable and put it down to ignorance. I’ll put it down to ignorant xenophobia."

    Which is it?

    One of The Standardistas declared Garth McVicar a racist for wanting the tagger-killer let off, because it was 'the only explanation for it', not because of any actual substantial evidence that he is a racist. Does the same apply for "xenophobia" here? (I assume that's the one you want).

  2. Ah, I see you did a late edit.

  3. "Which is it?

    It's not complicated, Stephen. You've just quoted two people there.

    Nigel Kearney attributes it to either racism or ignorance.

    Whereas I attribute it to ignorant xenophobia - or in other words economic ignorance, and rank provincialism.

  4. It's hard to think of any other reason apart from xenophobia that would cause English to veto a sale of a business from one foreigner to another, especially when the sale would have no effect on the operation of the business. Reminds me of when the socialists refused to let a private company (absurdly referred to as "the national airline" - does a business become sacred just cos it has the words "New Zealand" in the name?) not be recapitalised by Singapore Airlines. At least in this case it's probably stupidity rather than deliberate vandalism to facilitate nationalising it.

  5. Red Li should of whacked me on as a nominee shareholder of the HK company and let me buy it financed with his money.

    Australian company sells NZ resource to a New Zealander.

    I mean what's the difference?

  6. > I mean what's the difference?



Say what you mean, and mean what you say.
(Spam will be removed, unless it's been asked for.)