List of Kiwi’s who think they know better

Well, they are pretty certain they are better at making your life choices than you are.

The list from the Hearld is:

  • Sir Paul Reeves, former Governor-General (convenor).
  • Dame Silvia Cartwright, former Governor-General.
  • Archbishop John Dew, Catholic primate.
  • Professor Sir Mason Durie, Maori health expert.
  • Georgina Earl (Evers-Swindell), rowing gold medallist.
  • Jeanette Fitzsimons, former Green Party co-leader.
  • Sir Lloyd Geering, theologian.
  • Dame Te Muranga Batley-Jackson, Manukau Urban Maori Authority founder.
  • Michael Jones, ex-All Black.
  • Dr Semisi Maia’i, Pacific Medical Association co-founder.
  • Caroline Meyer (Evers-Swindell), rowing gold medallist.
  • Archbishop David Moxon, Anglican leader.
  • Inga Tuigamala, ex-All Black.
  • Archbishop Brown Turei, Anglican leader.

Hey guys, if you think there is a problem with New Zealand’s culture of drinking, why don’t you try to understand why the problem exists and then come up with solutions to those problems – rather than just saying we should turn around and introduce prohibition.  I’m tempted to say it’s because these “high powered Kiwis” don’t understand how us common people think and feel – but I better not.

On that note, economics transmission will return next week – once I again have hours in the day to do real posting.

10 replies
  1. ben
    ben says:

    I can see Michael Jones is going to fit right in to the current National Party set up when he becomes a MP. He and Joyce will get on like a house on fire. What mischief won’t they get up to?

  2. Eric Crampton
    Eric Crampton says:

    Interesting that this political advocacy was organized by Douglas Sellman through Alcohol Action New Zealand, which solicits donations here through a Trust registered with the Charities Commission whose sole charitable purpose, according to the Charities Commission website, is to provide scholarships and awards for alcohol and drug research, and which specifically said “no” to that one of its purposes is advocacy.

    Surely it’s all innocent and the foundation is just providing some admin support for Alcohol Action New Zealand. I hope and trust that nobody donating to the advocacy group received tax receipts from the charitable foundation.

  3. Kimble
    Kimble says:

    The RBNZ should use monetary policy to give you more hours in the day, Matt.

  4. Matt Nolan
    Matt Nolan says:


    Agreed. And as long as we give people information about how their action impact on their lives it should be their choice what they do.

    Them turning around and saying “I know better than you what to do with your life” is poor form.

  5. steve
    steve says:

    I agree that it is about information. if people are properly informed they take on the costs (and benefits) at the time of consumption.

    But what about the time inconsistency problem?

  6. Matt Nolan
    Matt Nolan says:


    Hence there is a potential reason for providing a voluntary mechanisms for solving the time inconsistency problem.

    It is a stretch to say that we should increase regulation and taxes further on the basis of time inconsistency – and in order to justify such a claim the goal should be to gather evidence, not to introduce policies and use this as a “ex-post” justification.

    Furthermore, that is not what these people are saying – they are saying “drinking causes harm – you don’t understand that, because you lack our massive “high poweredness”, so we are taking the bottle away from you”. They are willing to reduce peoples liberties, because they don’t think people are capable of using them.

    Time inconsistency always feels like a massive cop-out to me. It is where analysts go once they’ve run out of real externalities and they still need to find a problem so they can get funding from government.

  7. steve
    steve says:

    I’m not saying taxes and regulation (of age) are required for solving time-inconsistency – though they are a possible (perhaps not the most effective) method of dealing with it. And I agree using this explanation requires evidence which we may or may not have. But I don’t think time-inconsistency is a cop-out, I think it is just another type of problem which requires some thought for how to solve it, just as market failures do.

    Then again, perhaps it is not something that needs solving. the time inconsistency problem may in reality only be minor and limited to the 2 final drinks at the end of the evening. further it may not even be a problem if you consider the decision to drink as a single decision and ignore the decision on how much to drink – the surplus may still exceed the cost so there is no problem.

    Even so, I am just curious as to how you would solve it. what are these voluntary mechanisms? or other non-voluntary mechanisms (such as not serving people who are already drunk)?

Comments are closed.