So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned

The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being either
the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit rating
through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
law rates as the government.

The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance and
management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
after all are building and renovating schools all the time.

If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
through using private finance or private providers of management and
maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability for
that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
liability will be higher.

PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures by
ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
result in common sense prevailing.

As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
interference in a property project that is currently under way -
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project

This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the calculations
by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
got things wrong.

The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was told
to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
existed previously:
On 9 February we had
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation

Then on 26 February :
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
and then the next day:
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry

Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into long
term commitments organised by this government?

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>
>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>
>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being either
>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit rating
>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>law rates as the government.
>
>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance and
>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>
>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability for
>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>liability will be higher.
>
>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures by
>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>result in common sense prevailing.
>
>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>
>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the calculations
>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>got things wrong.
>
>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was told
>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>existed previously:
>On 9 February we had
>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>
>Then on 26 February :
>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>and then the next day:
>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>
>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into long
>term commitments organised by this government?
Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it, but not
very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always hated PPPs
and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is politically based,
nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at its worst.

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>
>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>
>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being either
>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit rating
>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>>law rates as the government.
>>
>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance and
>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>
>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability for
>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>>liability will be higher.
>>
>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures by
>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>
>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>
>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the calculations
>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>>got things wrong.
>>
>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was told
>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>existed previously:
>>On 9 February we had
>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>
>>Then on 26 February :
>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>and then the next day:
>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>
>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into long
>>term commitments organised by this government?
>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it, but not
>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always hated PPPs
>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is politically based,
>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at its worst.

All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony. Clearly you do not
understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay for
more expensive financing of any project.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>
>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>
>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being either
>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit rating
>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>>>law rates as the government.
>>>
>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance and
>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>
>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability for
>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>>>liability will be higher.
>>>
>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures by
>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>
>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>
>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the calculations
>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>>>got things wrong.
>>>
>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was told
>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>existed previously:
>>>On 9 February we had
>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>
>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>and then the next day:
>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>
>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into long
>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it, but not
>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always hated
>>PPPs
>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is politically based,
>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at its
>>worst.
>
>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use an
appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
> Clearly you do not
>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay for
>more expensive financing of any project.
Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad - that has
never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
So pprovide evidence or piss off.

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>
>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>
>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being either
>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit rating
>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>
>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance and
>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>
>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability for
>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>
>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures by
>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>
>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>
>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the calculations
>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>
>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was told
>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>>existed previously:
>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>
>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>
>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into long
>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it, but not
>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always hated
>>>PPPs
>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is politically based,
>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at its
>>>worst.
>>
>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use an
>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>> Clearly you do not
>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay for
>>more expensive financing of any project.
>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad - that has
>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
So all you have is empty insults.

A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a project
which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the private
sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing that
is incurred.

What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>>
>>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being either
>>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit rating
>>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>>
>>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance and
>>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>>
>>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>>>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability for
>>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>>
>>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures by
>>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>>
>>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>>
>>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the calculations
>>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was told
>>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>>>existed previously:
>>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>>
>>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>>
>>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into long
>>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it, but
>>>>not
>>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always hated
>>>>PPPs
>>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is politically
>>>>based,
>>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at its
>>>>worst.
>>>
>>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use an
>>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>>> Clearly you do not
>>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay for
>>>more expensive financing of any project.
>>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
>>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad - that has
>>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
>>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
>So all you have is empty insults.
I did not insult you. Insults are your domain.
>
>A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a project
>which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
>itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the private
>sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing that
>is incurred.
>
>What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?
Not all PPPs are more expensive than the alternatives, and sometimes the
cheapst is not the best way. That is baby logic, just for you.

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>>>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being either
>>>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit rating
>>>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>>>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>>>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>>>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance and
>>>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>>>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>>>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>>>>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>>>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability for
>>>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>>>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures by
>>>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>>>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>>>
>>>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the calculations
>>>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>>>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was told
>>>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>>>>existed previously:
>>>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into long
>>>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it, but
>>>>>not
>>>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always hated
>>>>>PPPs
>>>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is politically
>>>>>based,
>>>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at its
>>>>>worst.
>>>>
>>>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>>>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use an
>>>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>>>> Clearly you do not
>>>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay for
>>>>more expensive financing of any project.
>>>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
>>>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad - that has
>>>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
>>>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
>>So all you have is empty insults.
>I did not insult you. Insults are your domain.
>>
>>A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a project
>>which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
>>itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the private
>>sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing that
>>is incurred.
>>
>>What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?
>Not all PPPs are more expensive than the alternatives, and sometimes the
>cheapst is not the best way. That is baby logic, just for you.

As I thought, you do not understand that the cost of borrowing is
lower for the government than for anyone else, and you cannot give any
example of any advantage of a PPP or even describe how a PPP works.

You appear however to be wallowing in your pig ignorance.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>>>>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being either
>>>>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit rating
>>>>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>>>>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>>>>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>>>>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance and
>>>>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>>>>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>>>>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>>>>>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>>>>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability for
>>>>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>>>>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures by
>>>>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>>>>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the calculations
>>>>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>>>>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was told
>>>>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>>>>>existed previously:
>>>>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into long
>>>>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it, but
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always
>>>>>>hated
>>>>>>PPPs
>>>>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is politically
>>>>>>based,
>>>>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at its
>>>>>>worst.
>>>>>
>>>>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>>>>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use an
>>>>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>>>>> Clearly you do not
>>>>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>>>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay for
>>>>>more expensive financing of any project.
>>>>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
>>>>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad - that
>>>>has
>>>>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
>>>>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
>>>So all you have is empty insults.
>>I did not insult you. Insults are your domain.
>>>
>>>A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a project
>>>which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
>>>itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the private
>>>sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing that
>>>is incurred.
>>>
>>>What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?
>>Not all PPPs are more expensive than the alternatives, and sometimes the
>>cheapst is not the best way. That is baby logic, just for you.
>
>As I thought, you do not understand that the cost of borrowing is
>lower for the government than for anyone else, and you cannot give any
>example of any advantage of a PPP or even describe how a PPP works.
I know exactly how they work, far better than you. But that explanation was not
asked for here, cost is only one part of such enterprises and you know that -
you really are daft if you think people are taken in by your fatuous and inane
lies.
>
Rudeness removed.

On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:33:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>>>>>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>>>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being either
>>>>>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit rating
>>>>>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>>>>>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>>>>>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>>>>>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance and
>>>>>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>>>>>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>>>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>>>>>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>>>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>>>>>>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>>>>>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability for
>>>>>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>>>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>>>>>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures by
>>>>>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>>>>>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the calculations
>>>>>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>>>>>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was told
>>>>>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>>>>>>existed previously:
>>>>>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into long
>>>>>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>>>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it, but
>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always
>>>>>>>hated
>>>>>>>PPPs
>>>>>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is politically
>>>>>>>based,
>>>>>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at its
>>>>>>>worst.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>>>>>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use an
>>>>>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>>>>>> Clearly you do not
>>>>>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>>>>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay for
>>>>>>more expensive financing of any project.
>>>>>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
>>>>>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad - that
>>>>>has
>>>>>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
>>>>>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
>>>>So all you have is empty insults.
>>>I did not insult you. Insults are your domain.
>>>>
>>>>A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a project
>>>>which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
>>>>itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the private
>>>>sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing that
>>>>is incurred.
>>>>
>>>>What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?
>>>Not all PPPs are more expensive than the alternatives, and sometimes the
>>>cheapst is not the best way. That is baby logic, just for you.
>>
>>As I thought, you do not understand that the cost of borrowing is
>>lower for the government than for anyone else, and you cannot give any
>>example of any advantage of a PPP or even describe how a PPP works.
>I know exactly how they work, far better than you. But that explanation was not
>asked for here, cost is only one part of such enterprises and you know that -
>you really are daft if you think people are taken in by your fatuous and inane
>lies.

So how does a PPP work, Tony, and what advantages does it have over
other arrangements such as were successfully used for the Kaikoura
Earthquake State Highway project.

>>
>Rudeness removed.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:33:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>>>>>>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>>>>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being either
>>>>>>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit rating
>>>>>>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>>>>>>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>>>>>>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance and
>>>>>>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>>>>>>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>>>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>>>>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>>>>>>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>>>>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>>>>>>>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>>>>>>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability for
>>>>>>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>>>>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>>>>>>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>>>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures by
>>>>>>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>>>>>>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>>>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>>>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the calculations
>>>>>>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>>>>>>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was told
>>>>>>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>>>>>>>existed previously:
>>>>>>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>>>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into long
>>>>>>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>>>>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it,
>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always
>>>>>>>>hated
>>>>>>>>PPPs
>>>>>>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is politically
>>>>>>>>based,
>>>>>>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at
>>>>>>>>its
>>>>>>>>worst.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>>>>>>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use an
>>>>>>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>>>>>>> Clearly you do not
>>>>>>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>>>>>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay for
>>>>>>>more expensive financing of any project.
>>>>>>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
>>>>>>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad - that
>>>>>>has
>>>>>>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
>>>>>>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
>>>>>So all you have is empty insults.
>>>>I did not insult you. Insults are your domain.
>>>>>
>>>>>A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a project
>>>>>which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
>>>>>itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the private
>>>>>sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing that
>>>>>is incurred.
>>>>>
>>>>>What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?
>>>>Not all PPPs are more expensive than the alternatives, and sometimes the
>>>>cheapst is not the best way. That is baby logic, just for you.
>>>
>>>As I thought, you do not understand that the cost of borrowing is
>>>lower for the government than for anyone else, and you cannot give any
>>>example of any advantage of a PPP or even describe how a PPP works.
>>I know exactly how they work, far better than you. But that explanation was
>>not
>>asked for here, cost is only one part of such enterprises and you know that -
>>you really are daft if you think people are taken in by your fatuous and
>>inane
>>lies.
>
>So how does a PPP work, Tony,
Touy are the self declared expert - you tell us.
> and what advantages does it have over
>other arrangements such as were successfully used for the Kaikoura
>Earthquake State Highway project.
Depends on the project obviously.
Help yourself to your favourite search ebgine and for once do some research.
>
>>>
>>Rudeness removed.

On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 00:03:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:33:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>>>>>>>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>>>>>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being either
>>>>>>>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit rating
>>>>>>>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>>>>>>>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>>>>>>>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance and
>>>>>>>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>>>>>>>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>>>>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>>>>>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>>>>>>>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>>>>>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>>>>>>>>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>>>>>>>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability for
>>>>>>>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>>>>>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>>>>>>>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>>>>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures by
>>>>>>>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>>>>>>>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>>>>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>>>>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the calculations
>>>>>>>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>>>>>>>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was told
>>>>>>>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>>>>>>>>existed previously:
>>>>>>>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>>>>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into long
>>>>>>>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>>>>>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it,
>>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always
>>>>>>>>>hated
>>>>>>>>>PPPs
>>>>>>>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is politically
>>>>>>>>>based,
>>>>>>>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at
>>>>>>>>>its
>>>>>>>>>worst.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>>>>>>>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use an
>>>>>>>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>>>>>>>> Clearly you do not
>>>>>>>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>>>>>>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay for
>>>>>>>>more expensive financing of any project.
>>>>>>>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
>>>>>>>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad - that
>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
>>>>>>>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
>>>>>>So all you have is empty insults.
>>>>>I did not insult you. Insults are your domain.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a project
>>>>>>which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
>>>>>>itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the private
>>>>>>sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing that
>>>>>>is incurred.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?
>>>>>Not all PPPs are more expensive than the alternatives, and sometimes the
>>>>>cheapst is not the best way. That is baby logic, just for you.
>>>>
>>>>As I thought, you do not understand that the cost of borrowing is
>>>>lower for the government than for anyone else, and you cannot give any
>>>>example of any advantage of a PPP or even describe how a PPP works.
>>>I know exactly how they work, far better than you. But that explanation was
>>>not
>>>asked for here, cost is only one part of such enterprises and you know that -
>>>you really are daft if you think people are taken in by your fatuous and
>>>inane
>>>lies.
>>
>>So how does a PPP work, Tony,
>Touy are the self declared expert - you tell us.
That presumably should have been Tony is - but of course he is
demonstrably _not_ an expert

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 00:03:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:33:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>>>>>>>>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>>>>>>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being
>>>>>>>>>>>either
>>>>>>>>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit
>>>>>>>>>>>rating
>>>>>>>>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>>>>>>>>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>>>>>>>>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance
>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>>>>>>>>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>>>>>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>>>>>>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>>>>>>>>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>>>>>>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>>>>>>>>>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>>>>>>>>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability
>>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>>>>>>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>>>>>>>>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>>>>>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures
>>>>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>>>>>>>>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>>>>>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>>>>>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>calculations
>>>>>>>>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>>>>>>>>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was
>>>>>>>>>>>told
>>>>>>>>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>>>>>>>>>existed previously:
>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>>>>>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into
>>>>>>>>>>>long
>>>>>>>>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>>>>>>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it,
>>>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always
>>>>>>>>>>hated
>>>>>>>>>>PPPs
>>>>>>>>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is
>>>>>>>>>>politically
>>>>>>>>>>based,
>>>>>>>>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at
>>>>>>>>>>its
>>>>>>>>>>worst.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>>>>>>>>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use an
>>>>>>>>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>>>>>>>>> Clearly you do not
>>>>>>>>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>>>>>>>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay for
>>>>>>>>>more expensive financing of any project.
>>>>>>>>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
>>>>>>>>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad -
>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
>>>>>>>>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
>>>>>>>So all you have is empty insults.
>>>>>>I did not insult you. Insults are your domain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a project
>>>>>>>which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
>>>>>>>itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the private
>>>>>>>sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing that
>>>>>>>is incurred.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?
>>>>>>Not all PPPs are more expensive than the alternatives, and sometimes the
>>>>>>cheapst is not the best way. That is baby logic, just for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>As I thought, you do not understand that the cost of borrowing is
>>>>>lower for the government than for anyone else, and you cannot give any
>>>>>example of any advantage of a PPP or even describe how a PPP works.
>>>>I know exactly how they work, far better than you. But that explanation was
>>>>not
>>>>asked for here, cost is only one part of such enterprises and you know that
>>>>-
>>>>you really are daft if you think people are taken in by your fatuous and
>>>>inane
>>>>lies.
>>>
>>>So how does a PPP work, Tony,
>>Touy are the self declared expert - you tell us.
>That presumably should have been Tony is (what a child Rich is) - but of
>course he is
>demonstrably _not_ an expert
No it is you that is demonstrably no expert and yet you portray yourself as
one.,
>
>>> and what advantages does it have over
>>>other arrangements such as were successfully used for the Kaikoura
>>>Earthquake State Highway project.
>>Depends on the project obviously.
>>Help yourself to your favourite search ebgine and for once do some research.
>
>Happy to help you, Tony.
>See:
>https://www.amazon.com/Public-Net-Worth-Accounting-Government/dp/303144342X
>and from that page:
>
>"As individuals, we depend on the services that governments provide.
>Collectively, we look to them to tackle the big problems - from
>long-term climate and demographic change to short-term crises like
>pandemics or war. Funding this activity, and managing the required
>finances sustainably, is difficult � and getting more so.
>
>But governments don't provide � or use � basic financial information
>that every business is required to maintain. They ignore the value of
>public assets and most liabilities. This leads to inefficiency and bad
>decision-making and piles up problems for the future.
>
>Governments need to create balance sheets that properly reflect assets
>and liabilities, and to understand their future obligations and
>revenue prospects. Net Worth � both today and for the future � should
>be the measure of financial strength and success.
>
>Only if this information is put at the centre of government financial
>decision-making can the present challenges to public finances around
>the world be addressed effectively, and in a way that is fair to
>future generations.
>
>The good news is that there are ways to deal with these problems and
>make government finances more resilient and fairer to future
>generations.
>
>The facts, and the solutions, are non-partisan, and so is this book.
>Responsible leaders of any political persuasion need to understand the
>issues and the tools that can enable them to deliver policy within
>these constraints."
Entirely off topic. You know nothing about commerce or business. PPPs work in
the right environments but your objection to them is simply political (that is
all you have, what a pathetic life you have). After all you have often
suggested the return of the most inefficient mob ever to have pissed all over
this country - the minsitry or wors - God help us.
>
>_________________________________________
>
>So Tony (Nasty Rich blkeatings removed) , the reality is that in some
>countries governments
>will book the value of an asset as it is built, but the corresponding
>outflow of money to pay the PPP Partner is only counted each year as
>it is paid. That makes the project look good for a long time, by which
>time it has become an historic project that nobody is interested in
>any more. For New Zealand, the net value of payments is booked as the
>net value of asset increases - and it is the net return that shows the
>value added from the project. New Zealand has good accounting
>standards for government that accrue income, outgo and asset values
>allowing for all commitments into the future. So borrowing at a
>higher rate than government can borrow just results in the government
>paying more to the PPP partner than would otherwise have been needed -
>and that will show up in the comparison of values paid and committed
>vs projected value generated and to be generated. Understand now?
>
>New Zealand has comprehensive standards and rules around accounting
>for government activities - and those standards and rules are
>supported by all major political parties
>
>So you may well ask why would National be talking about a PPP if it is
>going to cost more? Well that goes to other issues. It may be paying
>off a company that gave a substantial political donation (possibly fed
>through an Atlas Member that just happens to now pay for political
>polling from Curia - owned by David Farrar of Kiwiblog fame). You may
>be able to think of less unpalatable reasons. Transmission Gully was
>arranged through a PPP - with companies behind the consortium that got
>the contract creating a project specific entity to isolate the risk to
>them of something going bad - some tradies refused to work for it
>because if something went wrong they could walk away leaving
>sub-contractors with noting. What was a project that worked well?
>Transmission Gully. The National-led government did not have time to
>set up a PPP - they just got contractor to work for experts employed
>by the government - both sides discussed issues as the work
>progressed, short term contracts covered work in stages as they found
>out what needed doing, and it was completed in probably as close to
>the methods of the old Ministry of Works as any project can these
>days.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Rudeness removed.
>You do hate the truth, Tony - never mind, previous posts are still
>there.
Not here little dim bulb.
I love the truth, you can't even pronounce the word.

On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 15:51:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 00:03:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:33:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>>>>>>>>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>>>>>>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being either
>>>>>>>>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit rating
>>>>>>>>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>>>>>>>>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>>>>>>>>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance and
>>>>>>>>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>>>>>>>>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>>>>>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>>>>>>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>>>>>>>>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>>>>>>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>>>>>>>>>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>>>>>>>>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability for
>>>>>>>>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>>>>>>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>>>>>>>>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>>>>>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures by
>>>>>>>>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>>>>>>>>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>>>>>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>>>>>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the calculations
>>>>>>>>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>>>>>>>>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was told
>>>>>>>>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>>>>>>>>>existed previously:
>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>>>>>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into long
>>>>>>>>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>>>>>>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it,
>>>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always
>>>>>>>>>>hated
>>>>>>>>>>PPPs
>>>>>>>>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is politically
>>>>>>>>>>based,
>>>>>>>>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at
>>>>>>>>>>its
>>>>>>>>>>worst.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>>>>>>>>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use an
>>>>>>>>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>>>>>>>>> Clearly you do not
>>>>>>>>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>>>>>>>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay for
>>>>>>>>>more expensive financing of any project.
>>>>>>>>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
>>>>>>>>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad - that
>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
>>>>>>>>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
>>>>>>>So all you have is empty insults.
>>>>>>I did not insult you. Insults are your domain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a project
>>>>>>>which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
>>>>>>>itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the private
>>>>>>>sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing that
>>>>>>>is incurred.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?
>>>>>>Not all PPPs are more expensive than the alternatives, and sometimes the
>>>>>>cheapst is not the best way. That is baby logic, just for you.
>>>>>
>>>>>As I thought, you do not understand that the cost of borrowing is
>>>>>lower for the government than for anyone else, and you cannot give any
>>>>>example of any advantage of a PPP or even describe how a PPP works.
>>>>I know exactly how they work, far better than you. But that explanation was
>>>>not
>>>>asked for here, cost is only one part of such enterprises and you know that -
>>>>you really are daft if you think people are taken in by your fatuous and
>>>>inane
>>>>lies.
>>>
>>>So how does a PPP work, Tony,
>>Touy are the self declared expert - you tell us.
>That presumably should have been Tony is - but of course he is
>demonstrably _not_ an expert
>
>>> and what advantages does it have over
>>>other arrangements such as were successfully used for the Kaikoura
>>>Earthquake State Highway project.
>>Depends on the project obviously.
>>Help yourself to your favourite search ebgine and for once do some research.
>
>Happy to help you, Tony.
>See:
>https://www.amazon.com/Public-Net-Worth-Accounting-Government/dp/303144342X
>and from that page:
>
>"As individuals, we depend on the services that governments provide.
>Collectively, we look to them to tackle the big problems - from
>long-term climate and demographic change to short-term crises like
>pandemics or war. Funding this activity, and managing the required
>finances sustainably, is difficult – and getting more so.
>
>But governments don't provide – or use – basic financial information
>that every business is required to maintain. They ignore the value of
>public assets and most liabilities. This leads to inefficiency and bad
>decision-making and piles up problems for the future.
>
>Governments need to create balance sheets that properly reflect assets
>and liabilities, and to understand their future obligations and
>revenue prospects. Net Worth – both today and for the future – should
>be the measure of financial strength and success.
>
>Only if this information is put at the centre of government financial
>decision-making can the present challenges to public finances around
>the world be addressed effectively, and in a way that is fair to
>future generations.
>
>The good news is that there are ways to deal with these problems and
>make government finances more resilient and fairer to future
>generations.
>
>The facts, and the solutions, are non-partisan, and so is this book.
>Responsible leaders of any political persuasion need to understand the
>issues and the tools that can enable them to deliver policy within
>these constraints."
>
>_________________________________________
>
>So Tony and Touy, the reality is that in some countries governments
>will book the value of an asset as it is built, but the corresponding
>outflow of money to pay the PPP Partner is only counted each year as
>it is paid. That makes the project look good for a long time, by which
>time it has become an historic project that nobody is interested in
>any more. For New Zealand, the net value of payments is booked as the
>net value of asset increases - and it is the net return that shows the
>value added from the project. New Zealand has good accounting
>standards for government that accrue income, outgo and asset values
>allowing for all commitments into the future. So borrowing at a
>higher rate than government can borrow just results in the government
>paying more to the PPP partner than would otherwise have been needed -
>and that will show up in the comparison of values paid and committed
>vs projected value generated and to be generated. Understand now?
>
>New Zealand has comprehensive standards and rules around accounting
>for government activities - and those standards and rules are
>supported by all major political parties
>
>So you may well ask why would National be talking about a PPP if it is
>going to cost more? Well that goes to other issues. It may be paying
>off a company that gave a substantial political donation (possibly fed
>through an Atlas Member that just happens to now pay for political
>polling from Curia - owned by David Farrar of Kiwiblog fame). You may
>be able to think of less unpalatable reasons. Transmission Gully was
>arranged through a PPP - with companies behind the consortium that got
>the contract creating a project specific entity to isolate the risk to
>them of something going bad - some tradies refused to work for it
>because if something went wrong they could walk away leaving
>sub-contractors with noting. What was a project that worked well?
>Transmission Gully. The National-led government did not have time to
>set up a PPP - they just got contractor to work for experts employed
>by the government - both sides discussed issues as the work
>progressed, short term contracts covered work in stages as they found
>out what needed doing, and it was completed in probably as close to
>the methods of the old Ministry of Works as any project can these
>days.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Rudeness removed.
>You do hate the truth, Tony - never mind, previous posts are still
>there.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 15:51:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 00:03:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:33:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>>>>>>>>>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>>>>>>>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being
>>>>>>>>>>>>either
>>>>>>>>>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit
>>>>>>>>>>>>rating
>>>>>>>>>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>>>>>>>>>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>>>>>>>>>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance
>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>>>>>>>>>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>>>>>>>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>>>>>>>>>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>>>>>>>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>>>>>>>>>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability
>>>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>>>>>>>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>>>>>>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures
>>>>>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>>>>>>>>>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>>>>>>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>>>>>>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>calculations
>>>>>>>>>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>>>>>>>>>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was
>>>>>>>>>>>>told
>>>>>>>>>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>>>>>>>>>>existed previously:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>>>>>>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into
>>>>>>>>>>>>long
>>>>>>>>>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>>>>>>>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it,
>>>>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always
>>>>>>>>>>>hated
>>>>>>>>>>>PPPs
>>>>>>>>>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is
>>>>>>>>>>>politically
>>>>>>>>>>>based,
>>>>>>>>>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at
>>>>>>>>>>>its
>>>>>>>>>>>worst.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>>>>>>>>>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use
>>>>>>>>>an
>>>>>>>>>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly you do not
>>>>>>>>>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>>>>>>>>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay for
>>>>>>>>>>more expensive financing of any project.
>>>>>>>>>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
>>>>>>>>>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad -
>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>>>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
>>>>>>>>>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
>>>>>>>>So all you have is empty insults.
>>>>>>>I did not insult you. Insults are your domain.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a project
>>>>>>>>which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
>>>>>>>>itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the private
>>>>>>>>sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing that
>>>>>>>>is incurred.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?
>>>>>>>Not all PPPs are more expensive than the alternatives, and sometimes the
>>>>>>>cheapst is not the best way. That is baby logic, just for you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>As I thought, you do not understand that the cost of borrowing is
>>>>>>lower for the government than for anyone else, and you cannot give any
>>>>>>example of any advantage of a PPP or even describe how a PPP works.
>>>>>I know exactly how they work, far better than you. But that explanation
>>>>>was
>>>>>not
>>>>>asked for here, cost is only one part of such enterprises and you know
>>>>>that -
>>>>>you really are daft if you think people are taken in by your fatuous and
>>>>>inane
>>>>>lies.
>>>>
>>>>So how does a PPP work, Tony,
>>>Touy are the self declared expert - you tell us.
>>That presumably should have been Tony is - but of course he is
>>demonstrably _not_ an expert
>>
>>>> and what advantages does it have over
>>>>other arrangements such as were successfully used for the Kaikoura
>>>>Earthquake State Highway project.
>>>Depends on the project obviously.
>>>Help yourself to your favourite search ebgine and for once do some research.
>>
>>Happy to help you, Tony.
>>See:
>>https://www.amazon.com/Public-Net-Worth-Accounting-Government/dp/303144342X
>>and from that page:
>>
>>"As individuals, we depend on the services that governments provide.
>>Collectively, we look to them to tackle the big problems - from
>>long-term climate and demographic change to short-term crises like
>>pandemics or war. Funding this activity, and managing the required
>>finances sustainably, is difficult � and getting more so.
>>
>>But governments don't provide � or use � basic financial information
>>that every business is required to maintain. They ignore the value of
>>public assets and most liabilities. This leads to inefficiency and bad
>>decision-making and piles up problems for the future.
>>
>>Governments need to create balance sheets that properly reflect assets
>>and liabilities, and to understand their future obligations and
>>revenue prospects. Net Worth � both today and for the future � should
>>be the measure of financial strength and success.
>>
>>Only if this information is put at the centre of government financial
>>decision-making can the present challenges to public finances around
>>the world be addressed effectively, and in a way that is fair to
>>future generations.
>>
>>The good news is that there are ways to deal with these problems and
>>make government finances more resilient and fairer to future
>>generations.
>>
>>The facts, and the solutions, are non-partisan, and so is this book.
>>Responsible leaders of any political persuasion need to understand the
>>issues and the tools that can enable them to deliver policy within
>>these constraints."
>>
>>_________________________________________
>>
>>So Tony and Touy, the reality is that in some countries governments
>>will book the value of an asset as it is built, but the corresponding
>>outflow of money to pay the PPP Partner is only counted each year as
>>it is paid. That makes the project look good for a long time, by which
>>time it has become an historic project that nobody is interested in
>>any more. For New Zealand, the net value of payments is booked as the
>>net value of asset increases - and it is the net return that shows the
>>value added from the project. New Zealand has good accounting
>>standards for government that accrue income, outgo and asset values
>>allowing for all commitments into the future. So borrowing at a
>>higher rate than government can borrow just results in the government
>>paying more to the PPP partner than would otherwise have been needed -
>>and that will show up in the comparison of values paid and committed
>>vs projected value generated and to be generated. Understand now?
>>
>>New Zealand has comprehensive standards and rules around accounting
>>for government activities - and those standards and rules are
>>supported by all major political parties
>>
>>So you may well ask why would National be talking about a PPP if it is
>>going to cost more? Well that goes to other issues. It may be paying
>>off a company that gave a substantial political donation (possibly fed
>>through an Atlas Member that just happens to now pay for political
>>polling from Curia - owned by David Farrar of Kiwiblog fame). You may
>>be able to think of less unpalatable reasons. Transmission Gully was
>>arranged through a PPP - with companies behind the consortium that got
>>the contract creating a project specific entity to isolate the risk to
>>them of something going bad - some tradies refused to work for it
>>because if something went wrong they could walk away leaving
>>sub-contractors with noting. What was a project that worked well?
>>Transmission Gully. The National-led government did not have time to
>>set up a PPP - they just got contractor to work for experts employed
>>by the government - both sides discussed issues as the work
>>progressed, short term contracts covered work in stages as they found
>>out what needed doing, and it was completed in probably as close to
>>the methods of the old Ministry of Works as any project can these
>>days.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Rudeness removed.
>>You do hate the truth, Tony - never mind, previous posts are still
>>there.
>
>Here is an interesting article about government debt, but partway
>through it does cover some aspects of PPPs :
>
>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/does-a-fiscal-debt-target-make-sense
>"�Sorry, Minister, you can�t get around the debt ceiling constraint by
>using a public-private-partnership in which the private sector does
>the borrowing but the government services the debt.� Other countries
>use this ghost public debt so they can, in effect, borrow more than
>their debt ceiling allows. But it is still a government liability and,
>because we use more rigorous accounting standards, it appears as such
>as in the Government's Financial Statements and is included in overall
>debt. (Currently it amounts to $3.7b. It is backed by two state
>highways, three corrections facilities, and some education assets.)"
>
>The essential issue is that a future commitment to pay off a PPP is
>recognised at current value in government accounts. If the interest
>rate is higher, the debt recognised by government will be higher. Why
>not finance the project at the lowest rate available to government?
>
>In other words, PPPs are generally undesirable from a financial point
>of view. Subsidising private sector firms is generally less desirable
>- especially as in some cases they have been off-shore companies that
>will not even spend their profits in New Zealand.
So you say - an opinion based entirely on political motives. You just want the
Ministry of Works back - a Marxist to the core.

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:33:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 15:51:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 00:03:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:33:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>rating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing maintenance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on capital
>>>>>>>>>>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>through using private finance or private providers of management and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the liability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business, that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those failures
>>>>>>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>>>>>>>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>calculations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that she
>>>>>>>>>>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>told
>>>>>>>>>>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>existed previously:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>>>>>>>>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have always
>>>>>>>>>>>>hated
>>>>>>>>>>>>PPPs
>>>>>>>>>>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is
>>>>>>>>>>>>politically
>>>>>>>>>>>>based,
>>>>>>>>>>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics at
>>>>>>>>>>>>its
>>>>>>>>>>>>worst.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>>>>>>>>>>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use
>>>>>>>>>>an
>>>>>>>>>>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly you do not
>>>>>>>>>>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>>>>>>>>>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay for
>>>>>>>>>>>more expensive financing of any project.
>>>>>>>>>>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
>>>>>>>>>>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad -
>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>>>>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
>>>>>>>>>>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
>>>>>>>>>So all you have is empty insults.
>>>>>>>>I did not insult you. Insults are your domain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a project
>>>>>>>>>which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
>>>>>>>>>itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the private
>>>>>>>>>sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing that
>>>>>>>>>is incurred.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?
>>>>>>>>Not all PPPs are more expensive than the alternatives, and sometimes the
>>>>>>>>cheapst is not the best way. That is baby logic, just for you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>As I thought, you do not understand that the cost of borrowing is
>>>>>>>lower for the government than for anyone else, and you cannot give any
>>>>>>>example of any advantage of a PPP or even describe how a PPP works.
>>>>>>I know exactly how they work, far better than you. But that explanation
>>>>>>was
>>>>>>not
>>>>>>asked for here, cost is only one part of such enterprises and you know
>>>>>>that -
>>>>>>you really are daft if you think people are taken in by your fatuous and
>>>>>>inane
>>>>>>lies.
>>>>>
>>>>>So how does a PPP work, Tony,
>>>>Touy are the self declared expert - you tell us.
>>>That presumably should have been Tony is - but of course he is
>>>demonstrably _not_ an expert
>>>
>>>>> and what advantages does it have over
>>>>>other arrangements such as were successfully used for the Kaikoura
>>>>>Earthquake State Highway project.
>>>>Depends on the project obviously.
>>>>Help yourself to your favourite search ebgine and for once do some research.
>>>
>>>Happy to help you, Tony.
>>>See:
>>>https://www.amazon.com/Public-Net-Worth-Accounting-Government/dp/303144342X
>>>and from that page:
>>>
>>>"As individuals, we depend on the services that governments provide.
>>>Collectively, we look to them to tackle the big problems - from
>>>long-term climate and demographic change to short-term crises like
>>>pandemics or war. Funding this activity, and managing the required
>>>finances sustainably, is difficult – and getting more so.
>>>
>>>But governments don't provide – or use – basic financial information
>>>that every business is required to maintain. They ignore the value of
>>>public assets and most liabilities. This leads to inefficiency and bad
>>>decision-making and piles up problems for the future.
>>>
>>>Governments need to create balance sheets that properly reflect assets
>>>and liabilities, and to understand their future obligations and
>>>revenue prospects. Net Worth – both today and for the future – should
>>>be the measure of financial strength and success.
>>>
>>>Only if this information is put at the centre of government financial
>>>decision-making can the present challenges to public finances around
>>>the world be addressed effectively, and in a way that is fair to
>>>future generations.
>>>
>>>The good news is that there are ways to deal with these problems and
>>>make government finances more resilient and fairer to future
>>>generations.
>>>
>>>The facts, and the solutions, are non-partisan, and so is this book.
>>>Responsible leaders of any political persuasion need to understand the
>>>issues and the tools that can enable them to deliver policy within
>>>these constraints."
>>>
>>>_________________________________________
>>>
>>>So Tony and Touy, the reality is that in some countries governments
>>>will book the value of an asset as it is built, but the corresponding
>>>outflow of money to pay the PPP Partner is only counted each year as
>>>it is paid. That makes the project look good for a long time, by which
>>>time it has become an historic project that nobody is interested in
>>>any more. For New Zealand, the net value of payments is booked as the
>>>net value of asset increases - and it is the net return that shows the
>>>value added from the project. New Zealand has good accounting
>>>standards for government that accrue income, outgo and asset values
>>>allowing for all commitments into the future. So borrowing at a
>>>higher rate than government can borrow just results in the government
>>>paying more to the PPP partner than would otherwise have been needed -
>>>and that will show up in the comparison of values paid and committed
>>>vs projected value generated and to be generated. Understand now?
>>>
>>>New Zealand has comprehensive standards and rules around accounting
>>>for government activities - and those standards and rules are
>>>supported by all major political parties
>>>
>>>So you may well ask why would National be talking about a PPP if it is
>>>going to cost more? Well that goes to other issues. It may be paying
>>>off a company that gave a substantial political donation (possibly fed
>>>through an Atlas Member that just happens to now pay for political
>>>polling from Curia - owned by David Farrar of Kiwiblog fame). You may
>>>be able to think of less unpalatable reasons. Transmission Gully was
>>>arranged through a PPP - with companies behind the consortium that got
>>>the contract creating a project specific entity to isolate the risk to
>>>them of something going bad - some tradies refused to work for it
>>>because if something went wrong they could walk away leaving
>>>sub-contractors with noting. What was a project that worked well?
>>>Transmission Gully. The National-led government did not have time to
>>>set up a PPP - they just got contractor to work for experts employed
>>>by the government - both sides discussed issues as the work
>>>progressed, short term contracts covered work in stages as they found
>>>out what needed doing, and it was completed in probably as close to
>>>the methods of the old Ministry of Works as any project can these
>>>days.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>Rudeness removed.
>>>You do hate the truth, Tony - never mind, previous posts are still
>>>there.
>>
>>Here is an interesting article about government debt, but partway
>>through it does cover some aspects of PPPs :
>>
>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/does-a-fiscal-debt-target-make-sense
>>"‘Sorry, Minister, you can’t get around the debt ceiling constraint by
>>using a public-private-partnership in which the private sector does
>>the borrowing but the government services the debt.’ Other countries
>>use this ghost public debt so they can, in effect, borrow more than
>>their debt ceiling allows. But it is still a government liability and,
>>because we use more rigorous accounting standards, it appears as such
>>as in the Government's Financial Statements and is included in overall
>>debt. (Currently it amounts to $3.7b. It is backed by two state
>>highways, three corrections facilities, and some education assets.)"
>>
>>The essential issue is that a future commitment to pay off a PPP is
>>recognised at current value in government accounts. If the interest
>>rate is higher, the debt recognised by government will be higher. Why
>>not finance the project at the lowest rate available to government?
>>
>>In other words, PPPs are generally undesirable from a financial point
>>of view. Subsidising private sector firms is generally less desirable
>>- especially as in some cases they have been off-shore companies that
>>will not even spend their profits in New Zealand.
>So you say - an opinion based entirely on political motives. You just want the
>Ministry of Works back - a Marxist to the core.

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:33:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 15:51:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 00:03:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:33:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>rating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>maintenance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>capital
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>through using private finance or private providers of management
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>liability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>failures
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>calculations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>she
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>told
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>existed previously:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>hated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>PPPs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>politically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>based,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>worst.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>>>>>>>>>>>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use
>>>>>>>>>>>an
>>>>>>>>>>>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly you do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>>>>>>>>>>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay
>>>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>>more expensive financing of any project.
>>>>>>>>>>>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
>>>>>>>>>>>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad -
>>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>>>>>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
>>>>>>>>>>>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
>>>>>>>>>>So all you have is empty insults.
>>>>>>>>>I did not insult you. Insults are your domain.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a project
>>>>>>>>>>which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
>>>>>>>>>>itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the private
>>>>>>>>>>sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing that
>>>>>>>>>>is incurred.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?
>>>>>>>>>Not all PPPs are more expensive than the alternatives, and sometimes
>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>cheapst is not the best way. That is baby logic, just for you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>As I thought, you do not understand that the cost of borrowing is
>>>>>>>>lower for the government than for anyone else, and you cannot give any
>>>>>>>>example of any advantage of a PPP or even describe how a PPP works.
>>>>>>>I know exactly how they work, far better than you. But that explanation
>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>asked for here, cost is only one part of such enterprises and you know
>>>>>>>that -
>>>>>>>you really are daft if you think people are taken in by your fatuous and
>>>>>>>inane
>>>>>>>lies.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So how does a PPP work, Tony,
>>>>>Touy are the self declared expert - you tell us.
>>>>That presumably should have been Tony is - but of course he is
>>>>demonstrably _not_ an expert
>>>>
>>>>>> and what advantages does it have over
>>>>>>other arrangements such as were successfully used for the Kaikoura
>>>>>>Earthquake State Highway project.
>>>>>Depends on the project obviously.
>>>>>Help yourself to your favourite search ebgine and for once do some
>>>>>research.
>>>>
>>>>Happy to help you, Tony.
>>>>See:
>>>>https://www.amazon.com/Public-Net-Worth-Accounting-Government/dp/303144342X
>>>>and from that page:
>>>>
>>>>"As individuals, we depend on the services that governments provide.
>>>>Collectively, we look to them to tackle the big problems - from
>>>>long-term climate and demographic change to short-term crises like
>>>>pandemics or war. Funding this activity, and managing the required
>>>>finances sustainably, is difficult � and getting more so.
>>>>
>>>>But governments don't provide � or use � basic financial information
>>>>that every business is required to maintain. They ignore the value of
>>>>public assets and most liabilities. This leads to inefficiency and bad
>>>>decision-making and piles up problems for the future.
>>>>
>>>>Governments need to create balance sheets that properly reflect assets
>>>>and liabilities, and to understand their future obligations and
>>>>revenue prospects. Net Worth � both today and for the future � should
>>>>be the measure of financial strength and success.
>>>>
>>>>Only if this information is put at the centre of government financial
>>>>decision-making can the present challenges to public finances around
>>>>the world be addressed effectively, and in a way that is fair to
>>>>future generations.
>>>>
>>>>The good news is that there are ways to deal with these problems and
>>>>make government finances more resilient and fairer to future
>>>>generations.
>>>>
>>>>The facts, and the solutions, are non-partisan, and so is this book.
>>>>Responsible leaders of any political persuasion need to understand the
>>>>issues and the tools that can enable them to deliver policy within
>>>>these constraints."
>>>>
>>>>_________________________________________
>>>>
>>>>So Tony and Touy, the reality is that in some countries governments
>>>>will book the value of an asset as it is built, but the corresponding
>>>>outflow of money to pay the PPP Partner is only counted each year as
>>>>it is paid. That makes the project look good for a long time, by which
>>>>time it has become an historic project that nobody is interested in
>>>>any more. For New Zealand, the net value of payments is booked as the
>>>>net value of asset increases - and it is the net return that shows the
>>>>value added from the project. New Zealand has good accounting
>>>>standards for government that accrue income, outgo and asset values
>>>>allowing for all commitments into the future. So borrowing at a
>>>>higher rate than government can borrow just results in the government
>>>>paying more to the PPP partner than would otherwise have been needed -
>>>>and that will show up in the comparison of values paid and committed
>>>>vs projected value generated and to be generated. Understand now?
>>>>
>>>>New Zealand has comprehensive standards and rules around accounting
>>>>for government activities - and those standards and rules are
>>>>supported by all major political parties
>>>>
>>>>So you may well ask why would National be talking about a PPP if it is
>>>>going to cost more? Well that goes to other issues. It may be paying
>>>>off a company that gave a substantial political donation (possibly fed
>>>>through an Atlas Member that just happens to now pay for political
>>>>polling from Curia - owned by David Farrar of Kiwiblog fame). You may
>>>>be able to think of less unpalatable reasons. Transmission Gully was
>>>>arranged through a PPP - with companies behind the consortium that got
>>>>the contract creating a project specific entity to isolate the risk to
>>>>them of something going bad - some tradies refused to work for it
>>>>because if something went wrong they could walk away leaving
>>>>sub-contractors with noting. What was a project that worked well?
>>>>Transmission Gully. The National-led government did not have time to
>>>>set up a PPP - they just got contractor to work for experts employed
>>>>by the government - both sides discussed issues as the work
>>>>progressed, short term contracts covered work in stages as they found
>>>>out what needed doing, and it was completed in probably as close to
>>>>the methods of the old Ministry of Works as any project can these
>>>>days.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rudeness removed.
>>>>You do hate the truth, Tony - never mind, previous posts are still
>>>>there.
>>>
>>>Here is an interesting article about government debt, but partway
>>>through it does cover some aspects of PPPs :
>>>
>>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/does-a-fiscal-debt-target-make-sense
>>>"�Sorry, Minister, you can�t get around the debt ceiling constraint by
>>>using a public-private-partnership in which the private sector does
>>>the borrowing but the government services the debt.� Other countries
>>>use this ghost public debt so they can, in effect, borrow more than
>>>their debt ceiling allows. But it is still a government liability and,
>>>because we use more rigorous accounting standards, it appears as such
>>>as in the Government's Financial Statements and is included in overall
>>>debt. (Currently it amounts to $3.7b. It is backed by two state
>>>highways, three corrections facilities, and some education assets.)"
>>>
>>>The essential issue is that a future commitment to pay off a PPP is
>>>recognised at current value in government accounts. If the interest
>>>rate is higher, the debt recognised by government will be higher. Why
>>>not finance the project at the lowest rate available to government?
>>>
>>>In other words, PPPs are generally undesirable from a financial point
>>>of view. Subsidising private sector firms is generally less desirable
>>>- especially as in some cases they have been off-shore companies that
>>>will not even spend their profits in New Zealand.
>>So you say - an opinion based entirely on political motives. You just want
>>the
>>Ministry of Works back - a Marxist to the core.
>
>Now you are being stupid. The accounting standards for government
>accounts are consistent with those of private companies - this is not
>political at all. The Ministry of Works has been gone a long time, but
>the success of the Kaikoura coastal Road project that did not use a
>private contractor for the whole project does suggest that the
>government could do well to keep expert advisors (engineering,
>electrical, etc) available to ensure projects are most efficiently
>managed. Do you hate the John Key National-led Government that much,
>Tony?
You are an isipid, idiotic moron. What I wrote is correct, what you wrote is
politiocal bias. Pure and simple.
If I tol;d you that it is normally darker at night than in the daytime you
would disagreee.
Piss of you pointless piece of guano.

On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:12:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:

>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:33:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>
>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 15:51:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 00:03:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:33:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding - that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>rating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as early
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>maintenance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>capital
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project - they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary - whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>through using private finance or private providers of management
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>liability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>failures
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being cast
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>calculations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>she
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>told
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>existed previously:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PPPs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>politically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>based,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent politics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>worst.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>>>>>>>>>>>>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should use
>>>>>>>>>>>>an
>>>>>>>>>>>>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly you do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should pay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>more expensive financing of any project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in many
>>>>>>>>>>>>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad -
>>>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>>>>>>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
>>>>>>>>>>>So all you have is empty insults.
>>>>>>>>>>I did not insult you. Insults are your domain.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a project
>>>>>>>>>>>which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
>>>>>>>>>>>itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the private
>>>>>>>>>>>sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing that
>>>>>>>>>>>is incurred.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?
>>>>>>>>>>Not all PPPs are more expensive than the alternatives, and sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>cheapst is not the best way. That is baby logic, just for you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>As I thought, you do not understand that the cost of borrowing is
>>>>>>>>>lower for the government than for anyone else, and you cannot give any
>>>>>>>>>example of any advantage of a PPP or even describe how a PPP works.
>>>>>>>>I know exactly how they work, far better than you. But that explanation
>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>asked for here, cost is only one part of such enterprises and you know
>>>>>>>>that -
>>>>>>>>you really are daft if you think people are taken in by your fatuous and
>>>>>>>>inane
>>>>>>>>lies.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So how does a PPP work, Tony,
>>>>>>Touy are the self declared expert - you tell us.
>>>>>That presumably should have been Tony is - but of course he is
>>>>>demonstrably _not_ an expert
>>>>>
>>>>>>> and what advantages does it have over
>>>>>>>other arrangements such as were successfully used for the Kaikoura
>>>>>>>Earthquake State Highway project.
>>>>>>Depends on the project obviously.
>>>>>>Help yourself to your favourite search ebgine and for once do some
>>>>>>research.
>>>>>
>>>>>Happy to help you, Tony.
>>>>>See:
>>>>>https://www.amazon.com/Public-Net-Worth-Accounting-Government/dp/303144342X
>>>>>and from that page:
>>>>>
>>>>>"As individuals, we depend on the services that governments provide.
>>>>>Collectively, we look to them to tackle the big problems - from
>>>>>long-term climate and demographic change to short-term crises like
>>>>>pandemics or war. Funding this activity, and managing the required
>>>>>finances sustainably, is difficult – and getting more so.
>>>>>
>>>>>But governments don't provide – or use – basic financial information
>>>>>that every business is required to maintain. They ignore the value of
>>>>>public assets and most liabilities. This leads to inefficiency and bad
>>>>>decision-making and piles up problems for the future.
>>>>>
>>>>>Governments need to create balance sheets that properly reflect assets
>>>>>and liabilities, and to understand their future obligations and
>>>>>revenue prospects. Net Worth – both today and for the future – should
>>>>>be the measure of financial strength and success.
>>>>>
>>>>>Only if this information is put at the centre of government financial
>>>>>decision-making can the present challenges to public finances around
>>>>>the world be addressed effectively, and in a way that is fair to
>>>>>future generations.
>>>>>
>>>>>The good news is that there are ways to deal with these problems and
>>>>>make government finances more resilient and fairer to future
>>>>>generations.
>>>>>
>>>>>The facts, and the solutions, are non-partisan, and so is this book.
>>>>>Responsible leaders of any political persuasion need to understand the
>>>>>issues and the tools that can enable them to deliver policy within
>>>>>these constraints."
>>>>>
>>>>>_________________________________________
>>>>>
>>>>>So Tony and Touy, the reality is that in some countries governments
>>>>>will book the value of an asset as it is built, but the corresponding
>>>>>outflow of money to pay the PPP Partner is only counted each year as
>>>>>it is paid. That makes the project look good for a long time, by which
>>>>>time it has become an historic project that nobody is interested in
>>>>>any more. For New Zealand, the net value of payments is booked as the
>>>>>net value of asset increases - and it is the net return that shows the
>>>>>value added from the project. New Zealand has good accounting
>>>>>standards for government that accrue income, outgo and asset values
>>>>>allowing for all commitments into the future. So borrowing at a
>>>>>higher rate than government can borrow just results in the government
>>>>>paying more to the PPP partner than would otherwise have been needed -
>>>>>and that will show up in the comparison of values paid and committed
>>>>>vs projected value generated and to be generated. Understand now?
>>>>>
>>>>>New Zealand has comprehensive standards and rules around accounting
>>>>>for government activities - and those standards and rules are
>>>>>supported by all major political parties
>>>>>
>>>>>So you may well ask why would National be talking about a PPP if it is
>>>>>going to cost more? Well that goes to other issues. It may be paying
>>>>>off a company that gave a substantial political donation (possibly fed
>>>>>through an Atlas Member that just happens to now pay for political
>>>>>polling from Curia - owned by David Farrar of Kiwiblog fame). You may
>>>>>be able to think of less unpalatable reasons. Transmission Gully was
>>>>>arranged through a PPP - with companies behind the consortium that got
>>>>>the contract creating a project specific entity to isolate the risk to
>>>>>them of something going bad - some tradies refused to work for it
>>>>>because if something went wrong they could walk away leaving
>>>>>sub-contractors with noting. What was a project that worked well?
>>>>>Transmission Gully. The National-led government did not have time to
>>>>>set up a PPP - they just got contractor to work for experts employed
>>>>>by the government - both sides discussed issues as the work
>>>>>progressed, short term contracts covered work in stages as they found
>>>>>out what needed doing, and it was completed in probably as close to
>>>>>the methods of the old Ministry of Works as any project can these
>>>>>days.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Rudeness removed.
>>>>>You do hate the truth, Tony - never mind, previous posts are still
>>>>>there.
>>>>
>>>>Here is an interesting article about government debt, but partway
>>>>through it does cover some aspects of PPPs :
>>>>
>>>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/does-a-fiscal-debt-target-make-sense
>>>>"‘Sorry, Minister, you can’t get around the debt ceiling constraint by
>>>>using a public-private-partnership in which the private sector does
>>>>the borrowing but the government services the debt.’ Other countries
>>>>use this ghost public debt so they can, in effect, borrow more than
>>>>their debt ceiling allows. But it is still a government liability and,
>>>>because we use more rigorous accounting standards, it appears as such
>>>>as in the Government's Financial Statements and is included in overall
>>>>debt. (Currently it amounts to $3.7b. It is backed by two state
>>>>highways, three corrections facilities, and some education assets.)"
>>>>
>>>>The essential issue is that a future commitment to pay off a PPP is
>>>>recognised at current value in government accounts. If the interest
>>>>rate is higher, the debt recognised by government will be higher. Why
>>>>not finance the project at the lowest rate available to government?
>>>>
>>>>In other words, PPPs are generally undesirable from a financial point
>>>>of view. Subsidising private sector firms is generally less desirable
>>>>- especially as in some cases they have been off-shore companies that
>>>>will not even spend their profits in New Zealand.
>>>So you say - an opinion based entirely on political motives. You just want
>>>the
>>>Ministry of Works back - a Marxist to the core.
>>
>>Now you are being stupid. The accounting standards for government
>>accounts are consistent with those of private companies - this is not
>>political at all. The Ministry of Works has been gone a long time, but
>>the success of the Kaikoura coastal Road project that did not use a
>>private contractor for the whole project does suggest that the
>>government could do well to keep expert advisors (engineering,
>>electrical, etc) available to ensure projects are most efficiently
>>managed. Do you hate the John Key National-led Government that much,
>>Tony?
>You are an isipid, idiotic moron. What I wrote is correct, what you wrote is
>politiocal bias. Pure and simple.
The accounting standards have no political bias - they did not change
with the election of a new government!

Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 01:12:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>
>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:33:30 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 09 Apr 2024 15:51:25 +1200, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Tue, 9 Apr 2024 00:03:10 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 19:33:55 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>On Mon, 8 Apr 2024 05:13:35 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 22:23:11 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 21:17:48 -0000 (UTC), Tony
>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>So companies are not interested in PPPs - what a surprise!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/513676/companies-not-interested-in-public-private-partnerships-for-schools-government-warned
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The excuse often given for a PPP is that the private sector can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>take
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on risk the Government wants to avoid by providing funding -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>misses the reality that the private sector cannot borrow at as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>favourable rates as the government - and with New Zealand being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>either
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the only or one of very few countries that improved it's credit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>rating
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>through the Covid period, no private sector company can borrow
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>law rates as the government.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The government can also take a longer view than a private
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>company
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>the private company will want to capitalise its profits as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>early
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>as
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>possible - and indeed may want to sub-contract ongoing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>maintenance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>management to someone else - who will also want a return on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>capital
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>employed that is higher than the government needs to pay. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>government also has economies of scale - they can design and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>build
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>schools in accordance with a relatively small range of designs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they do not have to develop from scratch for every project -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>after all are building and renovating schools all the time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>If future payments are going to be higher than necessary -
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>whether
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>through using private finance or private providers of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>management
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>maintenance), that will be reflected in the value of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>liability
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that project in the government's books - and if there is a risk
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>company underperformance or the company going out of business,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>liability will be higher.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PPPs have generally been a disaster overseas, although in some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>countries governments have been able to hide some of those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>failures
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>ignoring the long term costs. It is good that doubt is being
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>cast
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>these plans of the new Government by the private sector - it may
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>result in common sense prevailing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>As an example of what can go wrong, see the result of political
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>interference in a property project that is currently under way
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/510800/rolleston-college-not-consulted-on-completely-inappropriate-redesign-of-major-project
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>This is caused by panic due to the financial holes in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>calculations
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>by the new Finance Minister, and her unwillingness to admit
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>she
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>got things wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>The reason for this appears to be that the Education Minister
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>told
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>to find savings, so suddenly problems appear that may well no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>existed previously:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>On 9 February we had
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/508712/new-classroom-builds-in-doubt-amid-cost-cutting-and-reprioritisation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Then on 26 February :
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510268/school-building-inquiry-absolutely-not-a-cost-cut-exercise-erica-stanford
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and then the next day:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/510427/education-buildings-review-won-t-delay-work-ministry
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Can we blame private sector companies for not wanting to get
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>long
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>term commitments organised by this government?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Your barrel is the deepest it has ever been and you are scraping
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>it,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>very successfully, what an idiotic subject this is - you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>always
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>hated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>PPPs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>and any excuse to hit them is all you need. Your hatred is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>politically
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>based,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>nothing to do with whether PPPs work or not. Transparent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>politics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>worst.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>All you have is empty rhetoric and abuse, Tony.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>You are not called Tony, so when speaking to yourself you should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>appropriate term - something like Rich, or prick, or liar would do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly you do not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>understand that the government can borrow more cheaply than any
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>private company - so there is no reason why New Zealand should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>pay
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>more expensive financing of any project.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>Clearly you are obsessed with political rhetoric. PPPs work in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>circumstances, your politics dictates that they are inherently bad
>>>>>>>>>>>>>-
>>>>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>never been proven, no evidenc of that has ever been produced by
>>>>>>>>>>>>>you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>So pprovide evidence or piss off.
>>>>>>>>>>>>So all you have is empty insults.
>>>>>>>>>>>I did not insult you. Insults are your domain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>A simple question for you, Tony. Let us assume that there is a
>>>>>>>>>>>>project
>>>>>>>>>>>>which needs funding, and the government can either borrow the money
>>>>>>>>>>>>itself and pay the bills as they come in, or they can get the
>>>>>>>>>>>>private
>>>>>>>>>>>>sector to borrow instead, and cover the higher cost of borrowing
>>>>>>>>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>>>>is incurred.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>What makes it worth paying that extra money for a PPP, Tony?
>>>>>>>>>>>Not all PPPs are more expensive than the alternatives, and sometimes
>>>>>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>>>>>cheapst is not the best way. That is baby logic, just for you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>As I thought, you do not understand that the cost of borrowing is
>>>>>>>>>>lower for the government than for anyone else, and you cannot give any
>>>>>>>>>>example of any advantage of a PPP or even describe how a PPP works.
>>>>>>>>>I know exactly how they work, far better than you. But that
>>>>>>>>>explanation
>>>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>>>not
>>>>>>>>>asked for here, cost is only one part of such enterprises and you know
>>>>>>>>>that -
>>>>>>>>>you really are daft if you think people are taken in by your fatuous
>>>>>>>>>and
>>>>>>>>>inane
>>>>>>>>>lies.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>So how does a PPP work, Tony,
>>>>>>>Touy are the self declared expert - you tell us.
>>>>>>That presumably should have been Tony is - but of course he is
>>>>>>demonstrably _not_ an expert
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and what advantages does it have over
>>>>>>>>other arrangements such as were successfully used for the Kaikoura
>>>>>>>>Earthquake State Highway project.
>>>>>>>Depends on the project obviously.
>>>>>>>Help yourself to your favourite search ebgine and for once do some
>>>>>>>research.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Happy to help you, Tony.
>>>>>>See:
>>>>>>https://www.amazon.com/Public-Net-Worth-Accounting-Government/dp/303144342X
>>>>>>and from that page:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>"As individuals, we depend on the services that governments provide.
>>>>>>Collectively, we look to them to tackle the big problems - from
>>>>>>long-term climate and demographic change to short-term crises like
>>>>>>pandemics or war. Funding this activity, and managing the required
>>>>>>finances sustainably, is difficult � and getting more so.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>But governments don't provide � or use � basic financial information
>>>>>>that every business is required to maintain. They ignore the value of
>>>>>>public assets and most liabilities. This leads to inefficiency and bad
>>>>>>decision-making and piles up problems for the future.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Governments need to create balance sheets that properly reflect assets
>>>>>>and liabilities, and to understand their future obligations and
>>>>>>revenue prospects. Net Worth � both today and for the future � should
>>>>>>be the measure of financial strength and success.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Only if this information is put at the centre of government financial
>>>>>>decision-making can the present challenges to public finances around
>>>>>>the world be addressed effectively, and in a way that is fair to
>>>>>>future generations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The good news is that there are ways to deal with these problems and
>>>>>>make government finances more resilient and fairer to future
>>>>>>generations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The facts, and the solutions, are non-partisan, and so is this book.
>>>>>>Responsible leaders of any political persuasion need to understand the
>>>>>>issues and the tools that can enable them to deliver policy within
>>>>>>these constraints."
>>>>>>
>>>>>>_________________________________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So Tony and Touy, the reality is that in some countries governments
>>>>>>will book the value of an asset as it is built, but the corresponding
>>>>>>outflow of money to pay the PPP Partner is only counted each year as
>>>>>>it is paid. That makes the project look good for a long time, by which
>>>>>>time it has become an historic project that nobody is interested in
>>>>>>any more. For New Zealand, the net value of payments is booked as the
>>>>>>net value of asset increases - and it is the net return that shows the
>>>>>>value added from the project. New Zealand has good accounting
>>>>>>standards for government that accrue income, outgo and asset values
>>>>>>allowing for all commitments into the future. So borrowing at a
>>>>>>higher rate than government can borrow just results in the government
>>>>>>paying more to the PPP partner than would otherwise have been needed -
>>>>>>and that will show up in the comparison of values paid and committed
>>>>>>vs projected value generated and to be generated. Understand now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>New Zealand has comprehensive standards and rules around accounting
>>>>>>for government activities - and those standards and rules are
>>>>>>supported by all major political parties
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So you may well ask why would National be talking about a PPP if it is
>>>>>>going to cost more? Well that goes to other issues. It may be paying
>>>>>>off a company that gave a substantial political donation (possibly fed
>>>>>>through an Atlas Member that just happens to now pay for political
>>>>>>polling from Curia - owned by David Farrar of Kiwiblog fame). You may
>>>>>>be able to think of less unpalatable reasons. Transmission Gully was
>>>>>>arranged through a PPP - with companies behind the consortium that got
>>>>>>the contract creating a project specific entity to isolate the risk to
>>>>>>them of something going bad - some tradies refused to work for it
>>>>>>because if something went wrong they could walk away leaving
>>>>>>sub-contractors with noting. What was a project that worked well?
>>>>>>Transmission Gully. The National-led government did not have time to
>>>>>>set up a PPP - they just got contractor to work for experts employed
>>>>>>by the government - both sides discussed issues as the work
>>>>>>progressed, short term contracts covered work in stages as they found
>>>>>>out what needed doing, and it was completed in probably as close to
>>>>>>the methods of the old Ministry of Works as any project can these
>>>>>>days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>Rudeness removed.
>>>>>>You do hate the truth, Tony - never mind, previous posts are still
>>>>>>there.
>>>>>
>>>>>Here is an interesting article about government debt, but partway
>>>>>through it does cover some aspects of PPPs :
>>>>>
>>>>>https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/does-a-fiscal-debt-target-make-sense
>>>>>"�Sorry, Minister, you can�t get around the debt ceiling constraint by
>>>>>using a public-private-partnership in which the private sector does
>>>>>the borrowing but the government services the debt.� Other countries
>>>>>use this ghost public debt so they can, in effect, borrow more than
>>>>>their debt ceiling allows. But it is still a government liability and,
>>>>>because we use more rigorous accounting standards, it appears as such
>>>>>as in the Government's Financial Statements and is included in overall
>>>>>debt. (Currently it amounts to $3.7b. It is backed by two state
>>>>>highways, three corrections facilities, and some education assets.)"
>>>>>
>>>>>The essential issue is that a future commitment to pay off a PPP is
>>>>>recognised at current value in government accounts. If the interest
>>>>>rate is higher, the debt recognised by government will be higher. Why
>>>>>not finance the project at the lowest rate available to government?
>>>>>
>>>>>In other words, PPPs are generally undesirable from a financial point
>>>>>of view. Subsidising private sector firms is generally less desirable
>>>>>- especially as in some cases they have been off-shore companies that
>>>>>will not even spend their profits in New Zealand.
>>>>So you say - an opinion based entirely on political motives. You just want
>>>>the
>>>>Ministry of Works back - a Marxist to the core.
>>>
>>>Now you are being stupid. The accounting standards for government
>>>accounts are consistent with those of private companies - this is not
>>>political at all. The Ministry of Works has been gone a long time, but
>>>the success of the Kaikoura coastal Road project that did not use a
>>>private contractor for the whole project does suggest that the
>>>government could do well to keep expert advisors (engineering,
>>>electrical, etc) available to ensure projects are most efficiently
>>>managed. Do you hate the John Key National-led Government that much,
>>>Tony?
>>You are an isipid, idiotic moron. What I wrote is correct, what you wrote is
>>politiocal bias. Pure and simple.
>The accounting standards have no political bias - they did not change
>with the election of a new government!
You pathetic fool, you really believe you can squirm out of it by deliberately
misunderstanding what I wrote.
You are driven by politics, particularly in this thread. Whether PPPs are good
or otherwise has nothing to do with accounting standards or politics - it is to
do with whether they are "good" or "bad". Suck it up.
>
>
>>If I tol;d you that it is normally darker at night than in the daytime you
>>would disagreee.
>>Piss of you pointless piece of guano.