Just Left

On the #tppa - The Context

I've been thinking about the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (common twitter hashtag #tppa) for a while due to my professional interest in what is happening in international Intellectual Property Law.

This post sets out some of the bigger picture as I see it, and will be followed by a further post about the potential impact of the agreement, and then probably a final post on the implications for Labour's trade policy.

It's slightly heavy going. The takeaway point? Be concerned, and find out more.

What is the #tppa anyway?

The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement is a "comprehensive" plurilateral agreement (i.e. between multiple countries), being negotiated between some Latin American, North American, Australasian and East Asian states (Viet Nam, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Peru, Chile, the United States, Australia and New Zealand).

It is important to understand first that the TPPA is NOT A TRADE AGREEMENT. It will be called that a lot in the media, but that isn't its purpose. It goes "behind the border" and deals with a huge range of things that are about building comprehensive common standards and platforms in a huge range of areas - electronic commerce, investor-state dispute resolution, telecommunications, banking, services, intellectual property. These are all above and beyond the "trade" related aspects of the agreement.

The timetable is that the negotiators are aiming to finalise an agreement towards the end of this year, around the date of the U.S. Presidential election.

The TPPA builds on an existing agreement, known if memory serves as the P4, though it is in fact being negotiated from the ground up.

Japan, Canada and Mexico have all expressed an interest in joining the agreement, interest which has not so far been reciprocated by the negotiating parties.  The total two-way trade value between the United States and the eight other countries is around $440bn a year, making the value of the agreement reasonably small in the scheme of U.S. and global trade.

So that is what it is. In thinking about it, there are three bits of context to keep in mind with this agreement:

• the geo-strategic situation,
• the nature of globalisation and trade agreements, and
• the future prospects of New Zealand's economy.

Geo-strategic situation: is it all about China?

I am not a geo-politics expert, but it seems to me that part of the web of conflicting ambitions about this agreement relate to whether the purpose is economic, or geo-political. U.S. policy in the Asia Pacific is at least in part about the containment of China. That has to be why China is not involved in the negotiations, at least in part.

Readers will be more across the foreign and security policy debate than me, but the important point about that context is this: to the extent that economics is the core of the agreement, the U.S. will push hard for (in particular) Intellectual Property rules, as that is the main area of potential economic gain for them. The other countries will push back. Agreement will be hard to find. If on the other hand the geo-political imperative is what is driving it, then the U.S. will be more likely to accommodate reasonable economic demands from the other countries in the agreement.

Nature of globalisation: less is best.

More globalisation isn't always better.

Dani Rodrik made an argument in a recent book "The Globalisation Paradox" (a Washington Post review is here) that I fundamentally agree with. The TPPA is an example of the constant pressure to try and go beyond freeing up global trade (which I support), and into reducing the differences between countries on a whole range of fronts that up until now have been left to national decision. His view is that globalisation would have more legitimacy, and actually deliver better, if it was in essence "thin" - focused on reducing trade barriers, but leaving democratic governments to regulate the social and cultural elements of their societies as they see fit.

This appeals to me on a number of grounds. One is practical. I think that "subsidiarity" is an awful word that hides a great concept: make decisions as close to the grassroots as you can. There isn't any problem with countries cooperating to do things they can't do by themselves: e.g. freer trade, or tackling climate change, and so on. But there isn't much point in taking things they can do for themselves (e.g. choosing the balance between the interests of creators and users in the intellectual property universe) and forcing decisions on those into complex, slow, multilateral or global forums. Governments are closer and more accountable to the public, and can change things faster.

Another is principled: I think as a matter of democratic choice that most choices SHOULD be available to governments. In trade you generally both gain, but in some of the other areas agreements like #tppa seek to regulate, there can be very one sided gains that just cost some parties a lot, to put money in the pocket of another. IP (intellectual property) is the classic example. The U.S. wants #tppa states to lengthen the copyright term. That would put more money in the hands of U.S. IP producers of old, end-of-term copyrights (like some early Disney stuff) at the expense of consumers who would, once copyright expires, be able to make free use of that content. States should choose that balance, based on what is good for their people. They should not be locked in to choices made in one context that cannot later be changed.

So I suppose my head is at a "thin" globalisation model. Free trade is broadly good. But trying to use international agreements to pick the pockets of the poorer countries is not good. Taking away government ability to choose what suits a country best isn't good either.

Next steps for New Zealand's economy - the future or the past?

The third bit of context is about what comes next for our economy. We are unusually dependent on primary industry today for our exports and our standard of living. We have a very efficient agricultural sector in economic terms.

I don't think that that represents our future. I apologise in advance for the generalisations here, but this is trying to set out some big themes.

Here's why it isn't our future. We are hitting limits. Environmental limits mainly: but also physical ones. There isn't a lot more land to use, and the rising intensity of use of existing agricultural land requires ever increasing inputs - that add to the pollution being caused. Also, our agriculture industry is quite polluting, and is resisting the imposition of simple pricing mechanisms that would force them to start down a less-polluting path.

We can make our best future as an economy by adding value through innovation. A lot of that will happen in agriculture, but it can also happen in other areas: design, music and culture, high value manufacturing, business services, electronic commerce, high value tourism etc.

Those sectors tend to be faster growing than agriculture, and importantly, they are less capital intensive than agriculture - and they create more and better jobs for a given investment than agriculture does.

One way the #tppa could fall would be to give us some limited goods market access to the U.S., say in dairy and in meat. The cost would be tougher IP laws that hurt those new economy sectors I mentioned above.

I think that would be cutting off our future. We should not sign up to an agreement that advantages the old-economy industries with relatively limited growth prospects, and puts barriers in the way of new-economy industries that represent cleaner, greener and richer jobs for people who live and work in New Zealand. We would be doubly disadvantaged: relative advantage would be with industries with a slower growth path, leaving all of us worse off; and the chances of upgrading our economy into a more high-tech and high-income zone would be lost to us.

Conclusion

So that presents three areas of context. There are others that I don't have time to cover in any depth. There might be nuance you care to share with me that I haven't thought of - I'd love to hear from you if that is the case.

My view is already probably quite obvious. I think there are major risks to New Zealand's future present in the #tppa, the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement. I'll try and get to some of those specific concerns in the next post, probably over the weekend.

Fiscal responsibility

There was a nice set of numbers in a Stuff story yesterday about net Government debt levels in the past few years:

Net core Crown debt in $NZ:
2000: $25.9b
2002: $25.3b
2005: $19.9b
2008: $10.3b
2011: $40.1b

Forecasts:
2012: $53.8b
2014: $67.8b
2016: $72.5b

These numbers show Labour's prudence in office, and National's profligacy.

Yes, there has been damage to the government's financial position through the Canterbury earthquakes and the global recession. Those are granted. But the chipping away at NZ's debt levels has also come about through wilful cuts to government revenue through tax cuts to those who need them least, only partly offset by tax rises on those who feel the pain the most.

The story contains a broader narrative about public impressions of who is responsible for the debt.

I've never understood why anyone would think it's a left wing thing to run up public debt.

The Clark governments in 1999-2008 weren't exactly National-lite, and they paid off a large volume of net debt. The Nats in the 1990s left it more or less where they found it; Labour in the 1980s and National in the 70s both lifted debt significantly.

Modern social democrats aren't interested in running unsustainable deficits. Given the New Zealand private sector's obsession with borrowing to the hilt, it is more important for the NZ Govt to be conservative fiscally than is the case for many other countries.

That is why our policy last election was a mix of tax increases and spending restraint that would have seen borrowing a little higher in the short run but lower after about four years, and for all time after that.

David Shearer has decided the policy should avoid the confusions inherent in the 2011 pledge to re-start NZ Super fund contributions while the deficit still exists. That's fine. Since National is promising surplus by 2014/15, which Labour was too, I anticipate the incoming Labour led government in 2014 will pretty quickly be looking to start the pre-funding again.

Fiscal responsibility is what we are all about -- along with a broader responsibility to society and the economy which isn't part of National's DNA.

We will on average run higher levels of government spending and tax than National, because we have different judgements about where the line should be drawn between individual and community responsibility in some areas, and because we use the State to undo the inequalities the market creates by its ordinary operation.

We will be tougher on pollution than National because we don't believe in giving some sectors a free ride that they don't deserve.

We will be more careful about preparing for the upcoming baby boomer retirement and the costs it will impose on super and health spending. Thus our painful pledge to raise the retirement age over time; thus the KiwiSaver initiative; thus the creation of the NZ Superannuation fund; thus our determination to run fiscal surpluses and pay off debt.

Two final thoughts.

First, external prospects. If the world enters a prolonged low-growth period, then Labour will have to do tough thinking. It is easy to be fiscally responsible when revenue is rising through economic growth. When it is not, tougher choices will be required -- and our take on them has to be clear well before 2014.

Second, the broader economic fight between the parties isn't on fiscal issues - it's on how to grow and develop. The wider structures that are driving poor performance in our economy - flawed tax regimes that exempt capital and incentivise non productive investment; limits on firm scale growth due to lack of access to capital; an under-regulated labour market that keeps wages low and lets firms avoid tough choices about productivity - are the actual real difference between Labour and National these days. Even in a world of low growth, doing these things better will leave New Zealanders better off.

As David Parker said in his excellent pre-Budget speech this morning: "Change nothing, and nothing changes -- but don't blame Greece!".

Telco and broadband people - help me with my thesis

I'm in the finishing stages of an MA thesis in politics. The case study is of broadband policy in New Zealand from 2000 to 2011.

Can you help me out with your view on a question?

The case study documents the rising tide of state involvement in (tele)communications - in regulatory and in investment decisions. The details are not the purpose of my ask so don't worry about that too much.

Here's the question: why was this rising tide consistently rising regardless of the political colour of the government of the day?

Ideological, interest group, voter bloc or distribution don't especially well explain...

What does is a universalist liberal view that the installation of high speed broadband is an economic imperative, an infrastructure states must guarantee access to.

What do you think? Comments fine or email me.

Work and Wages: more of both thanks, to #ownourfuture

Should we close the wage gap with Australia a bit?

Would organising the world of work a little bit more similarly to the way Australia does, to help with that task?

My answer to both questions is yes, which is why I was pleased with our release today of Labour's Work and Wages policy.

Ever since the 1980s, New Zealand workers have seen wages lower than they should have done.  The radical reforms of Rogernomics weren't the issue so much as the massive stripping away of labour market deregulation.

Instead of dealing with a sclerotic system of compulsory union membership by sorting things out, political parties of the right conspired with employers to remove almost every protection Kiwi workers have, other than the barest minima of procedural fairness.

The result, partly of this and partly of other anti-fairness policies, is a hollowed out labour market with poverty wages at the bottom, and stagnant incomes in the middle, with the rich running away with the loot, pardon the phrase.

Those people have had a dream run.  The basic attack on collective bargaining embodied in the ECA was not fully turned around by the Employment Relations Act.  The voices of the powerful made sure that Act could never be as effective as it should have been.

So today, aside from other important and welcome minimum code improvements like better minimum wages, we announced a new form of employment agreement that can join individual and collective agreements: Industry Standard Agreements.

These offer industries with some baseline collective bargaining going on, the chance to extend core norms for minimum conditions across the whole industry.  It's like customising the minimum code for a particular industry, depending on its ability to pay and other circumstances.

It's a great idea.  It avoids the pitfalls of compulsory membership of trade unions, but strengthens the impact of collective bargaining none the less.

Watch for the people who complain about it.  They will form into two camps.  They'll be motivated apologists for, or attack dogs of, the political Right.  Or, they will be representatives of employer and industry groups who have enjoyed a long period of free-loading on the shoulders of people who work hard and pay their taxes.

Neither should be given much attention on an objective basis, but the voices of the rich and the powerful are always amplified loudly - especially when someone challenges their assumed privileges (in this case, the privilege to under-pay people).

By moving towards the more regulated Australian labour market, we will see relatively higher wages in New Zealand than we otherwise would.

National is pledging further weakening of labour laws.  That would feed through into lower wages, greater inequality, and the top end pocketing the lot -- precisely what has happened every time it's been tried, no matter where.

Decent wages are a good thing for the people earning them, and for the companies who employ too.  They focus management minds on lifting productivity.  They honour the efforts people make in the work place.

There's only one hitch: it won't happen on its own. 

To make things better, you've got to vote for change, and that means a change to a Labour-led government.

The centre-right's policy is the opposite.  Lower wages and vulnerable work is their ambition. That is what National and ACT stand for.

The choice is up to you.

Labour's policy on Information and Comms Technology

Another policy release this morning from our ICT spokesperson Clare Curran.  You can find the details at http://www.ownourfuture.co.nz/communications-and-ict

Labour's big picture in ICT has always been a well-rounded one.  You saw in the 2000s that our Digital Strategies didn't just focus on connections, but on the ability of people to use them, and for there to be relevant Kiwi content for people to access through ICT.

This policy expands on that approach, and tackles digital divides in some useful ways. For instance, out of the scarce cash that Labour's tight fiscal framework will allow, there is some more money for Computers in Homes and for the Computer Clubhouse. 

There are some critically important but arguably quite wonky specifics too:  we'd finally converge New Zealand's telco and broadcasting regulation under one agency, bring all the government machinery on ICT into one Ministry, and work to make rural and provincial broadband better by expanding the remit of the ultra-fast broadband project so that, over time, more people get it.

I only have one regret really about the whole broadband sector. If National had carried on with Labour's Broadband Investment Fund approach to roll out fibre, there'd be quite a lot of it out there today. Instead we got a three-year delay, and now in November 2011 we are back to where we were in November 2008, except that New Zealand is spending a lot more cash to do only a little bit more rollout.

That said, most of the other things we suggest in our policy are about common sense, knitting ICT into the every day of communities, schools, businesses and people's homes -- as it is for many people today.

The theme of inclusion matters.  If we want to build a New Zealand where we own our own future, broadband and ICT use can't just be used by those who are most familiar with them, and can't only be accessible to those with cash.

Labour's Rainbow policy: a clarification for some liars out there

I've always been proud that the Labour Party has been in the vanguard of pushing an equality agenda in New Zealand.  Our record in government during the 2000s was good, with most Labour MPs voting in favour of civil unions (compared with 3/27 Nats), and a range of improvements in other areas under way. Our role in bringing about the decriminalisation of homosexuality in the 1980s is a matter of record.

This progress comes from our commitment to equality, and our belief that everyone has the same rights, no matter what their sexual orientation is.  This is a view that is nowadays widely shared in New Zealand society, and that is good.

Labour has released the policy document which you can read here: http://www.ownourfuture.co.nz/rainbow

It tackles what might be summarised as the rights agenda, the respect agenda, and an international agenda to help make the world a safer place for people of different sexual orientations.  We will move on equal relationship law and tackle the vexed issue of adoption, which goes far beyond the question of whether gay couples can adopt and needs a thorough look.

Of course, with any issue like this there are some tricky politics.  I was at a Rainbow Wellington public forum last night where the ACT Candidate in Wellington Central, Stephen Whittington, referenced some dumb comments Trevor Mallard made in Parliament a while ago, calling the (openly gay) Attorney General Chris Finlayson "Tinkerbell".

This has been amplified today by that well known defender of the rights of queer people, David Farrar, on his blog KiwiBlog, and by Whittington himself in a media release.  The result is this Stuff story "Labour accused of homophobia cover-up" by Andrea Vance.

Farrar's allegations are nonsense.  He (and Whittington) are lying when they say that Grant and Charles denied Trevor's 'tinkerbell' stuff.  They did no such thing.

They would have been stupid to. The remarks were well covered at the time.  We told Trevor what we thought. Making slurs like that in Parliament is totally unacceptable.

What they denied is that Mallard is homophobic. They are right.  Trevor has been a staunch defender of social liberal causes and was a key player in the fight to decriminalise homosexuality in the 1980s. His voting record on queer rights issues is perfect. 

So my message to Whittington and to David Farrar is: stop lying on this point.

Farrar's other comments are much more low key.

• The quote from Ashraf was a jumble of nonsense which he was horrified by and which he apologised for at the time, and in any case he is leaving Parliament at this election.
• The reason our policy talks about the care of children issue is that adoption is complex and problematic from a whole set of different directions. It isn't just about gay adoption and I don't think it would be right to try and make it so.

For someone who is a social liberal, David sure does spend a lot of time stirring up nasty stuff.  Today's post is not the first example.

As for Stephen Whittington:  Steve, I don't know if you're gay or not, and I don't care either way, but next time you make a fuss about what happens at a public meeting, you might want to make sure you have your facts right.

And to both - this is a pretty sad attempt to cover up and distract from the question at the Rainbow Wellington forum that kicked this all off, which is about the views that a certain Mr John Banks holds on issues of homosexuality, and the things he did and said about it in the 1980s.  Or perhaps the distraction is from Tau Henare's homophobic remarks to Charles Chauvel the other week in Parliament?  Either way, sad.

Update - Fri 14 Oct, 4.40pm:

Trevor in Stuff this morning acknowledged that he should never have made the "Tinkerbell" remarks, which is true and good.

Out of the Rainbow Wellington meeting, Tony Reed (who is RW Secretary and isn't a candidate for any political party!) has the view that Grant and Charles did deny that Trevor had made homophobic remarks. Their argument is that they denied he was homophobic.

This begins to sound very much like dancing on the head of a pin, and I can't judget it as I wasn't there.

I stand by the key points I made above in the body of the post:

• Trevor should never have said what he said in Parliament, and it is indefensible that he did it.
• Grant and Charles wouldn't have defended it
• Trevor isn't a homophobe, and Grant and/or Charles were right to say so

If anyone else who was at the meeting and isn't affiliated to a political party has a view of what happened, I'd be interested to hear it.

I've never defended homophobia anywhere and I'm not defending it now.  I don't like seeing my friends dragged in the mud for things that they haven't done or haven't said.  There is more than enough in what people have said and done to keep political debate going.

All teens earning or learning - youth skills and employment

Phil Goff was in Lower Hutt at lunchtime today to launch Labour's youth skills and employment policy for the election.

At the core of it is Labour's ambition to see every Kiwi under age 20 earning or learning, inside the next three years.

That's the focus because in that age bracket are where long term habits and directions are formed.  It makes most sense to spend limited funds in the window they will make the most difference.

A critical mechanism proposed, and one I fully support, is giving the same cash as the dole would be (a bit over $8,000 for a year) to an employer who takes on a young person in a full time position with proper training and education as part of it.

Employers are better off. The young workers are on a start to their future.  The Government saves money in the medium and long run. There are no downsides.

The thing I like most about this policy is that the bit I've focused on is just one of twelve specific initiatives.  It's about better careers advice at schools, better transitions from schools to work, more training and apprenticeships, some seasonal work options and more.

This sums up, again, the difference between National and Labour. 

There is a problem with young people out of education, training or work.  It needs to be tackled with smart policies that will make a difference.  Our suite of policies will do just that.

National, with all the resources of government, two and a half years of responsibility for the problem, and clear understanding that this is an issue the public care about, managed to come up with..... a gimmic, a payment card that would stop 16-17yos buying things they already can't buy.

Want serious solutions to the things that matter?  Looks like Labour's the party for you....

The full policy document is here and the costings are here (pdf both, sorry). 

Copyright Law needs to change

The opportunities the Internet offers New Zealanders are massive.  The ability to share our views with the world, to engage in economic activity that defeats the barriers of distance, and to build new communities and connections between us all are unparalleled in the history of our species.

To someone like me, who has had Internet access since high school, that is kind of obvious.  Yet many of my colleagues in the Labour party have a different experience, and don't understand the Internet's importance.

And even more of them, don't yet fully grasp the relationships between the opportunities afforded by an open and accessible Internet, and other pieces of law - law like copyright.

Which is why I was a bit nervous speaking this afternoon at the demonstration in Wellington protesting the #skynet legislation - the imposition from 1 September of a new part of the Copyright Act which is aimed at penalising repeat infringers through filesharing.

Here's a nice photo of the small but perfectly formed group:

As someone who works in the Internet world, I've never supported this legislation. In a post on this blog in 2009, I criticised it (yes, the original version was passed by the fifth Labour government) and ended that post by saying this:

[N]o, I didn't as a Labour Party candidate criticise this in public on this blog last year. I made my views well known inside, and through my job did what we could to help on this, working hard with David Farrar and others in InternetNZ to try and push a re-think.

It is just two of the facts of life in party politics that a) things happen you disagree with, and b) you can't publicly criticise them. There is a degree of collective discipline in politics which is important: the alternative is an ill-disciplined rabble which would never have any political success. You stay involved if the fundamentals are right and if you are making more progress than not. You never find you agree with everything. You bite your tongue for the common cause.

When you are in opposition, though, there is more space to say what you think. So I make no apologies for highlighting this silly law now, and I make no apologies for keeping my mouth shut about it on the blog last year. That's life, and it's juvenile to think otherwise in my opinion.

Since that post, the Labour Party has executed an astonishing and very welcome u-turn on copyright policy.

From being the originators of 92A, which would have on accusation seen people disconnected from the Internet, the Party now has a good understanding of the vital importance of access to the Internet, as a way for people to exercise their fundamental human rights to impart and receive information & opinion, and to exercise free speech.

Labour has also accepted that the review we attempted in the 2000s, to make the Copyright Act fit for the digital age, didn't end up achieving that goal.

My task at today's protest was to explain, given those changes of view, why the Labour caucus voted in favour of the current version of the legislation at the third reading in April.

My understanding is this: the Labour team was offered a deal on account suspension/termination (which Labour now opposes).

If we voted against the legislation, termination would be brought in from 1 September.

If we agreed to vote with the Government, the termination provisions would not come into effect, and would require an order in council to do so.  People would not see their Internet access cut off from 1 September.

Labour decided to do that deal and so voted in favour at third reading.  That doesn't change the party's opposition to termination or suspension -- but my God, it makes it a lot harder to explain than it would have been had we simply voted no.

We will be announcing our copyright policy soon.  It will acknowledge that we have done a reversal from the 2008 legislation.  I expect it will, as my colleague Clare Curran has already announced, confirm Labour's intention to repeal the provisions of the Copyright Act that allow for account suspension.

I think that we finally accept the argument that the Copyright Act is not fit for the Internet era.  A far wider and more in depth consideration of how copyright can work today is needed.  Our policy will have something to say about this.

It's not just policy that counts though: the industry has to play ball too.  It's the fact that people can't get lawful, affordable access to online content here that drives part of the offending.  Rights holders in the movie and music industries don't really deserve to have attention paid to their demands for tougher laws for online infringing, when they don't make the content available in the first place.

In the end, I wished today the policy was already out so I could have explained it. It's better to talk about your plans and hopes than putting right mistakes.

There's an old rule in politics that explaining is losing.  Maybe that's right.  But when your party has made a mistake in the eyes of an important community, you have to say why -- and what you're going to do differently. Timing issues meant I couldn't do all of the second part of that, but I was not unhappy to have a go at doing the first.

Gareth Morgan provokes thought

Gareth Morgan is an economist who often gets me thinking.

Have a look at this page on his site, about the launch of his new book "The Big Kahuna" - about a plan for NZ to develop an integrated tax/benefits system that would give everyone, in his view, a fairer go in life.

There are a series of videos of his launch speech.

It's about "turning tax and welfare in New Zealand on its head - a revolution".  I need to mull on it, and shall be buying the book.

Have you read it?  What are your thoughts?

 

Buy land for suburbs & develop them

So far as I can tell (and that's a big caveat, really), the scheme the government has come up with to deal with red zone properties in the earthquake area of Christchurch and surrounds is a reasonable looking deal. But the issue of paying people out is surely only half the problem, and the other half is being ignored.

The other half is of course options for new properties: either to buy or to rent, on safe secure land, and still within the Christchurch or Canterbury area.

Nobody likes profiteering. Yet it is impossible to miss the signs of it: developers are, by what media are reporting, pushing the prices of new land up to the point where rebuilding requires people to expand mortgates just to stand still, in terms of section and house size.

This isn't good enough.

I would love to see the Government, in partnership with the local councils, taking some initiative here. A Canterbury Housing Development Authority could be set up as part of CERA, and it could have the job of acquiring land and building new suburbs.

It could sell these down slowly over time only meeting its cost of capital, so in the long run it would be fiscally neutral.

Developing new suburbs on that scale must, inevitably & surely, mean that per-dwelling costs are lower. Especially if a bit of low-rise apartment accommodation is included as a new choice for Canterbury residents to consider.

Private developers can't do that. They have a legal responsibility to make money for their shareholders as their prime imperative.  They have moderately short time horizons.  They would be logically insane to pass up the opportunities that very high demand presents to them.

It is time for the people, working together through the public authorities, to take matters into their own hands and to plan and deliver new housing options that work for everyone.

That is a silver lining that could emerge out of the dark cloud of this disaster -- if the government and if the councils have the wit and the wisdom to grab at the chance.

What do you think?  Is this a good idea or a mad one?  Would other opportunities be better to take? Will the private market deliver fine, and I'm just wrong?