Wealth Defence – what you don’t know about John Key’s real agenda


Outside of the ruling class most of John Key`s supporters are politically disengaged. They don`t write blogs or talk passionately about politics in public places. Altruistic concern is foreign to them. Their lives are dominated by the prospect of self advancement and the fear of downward mobility. John Key is their leader, a talisman of aspiration standing against the know-it-alls, doom mongers and bludgers. He`s made $50 million plus without a silver spoon accent or unnecessary erudition. The `aw shucks` mannerisms and occasional hesitancies seem reassuring.

John Key appeals to recent migrants without political knowledge of the national past and to anyone else who eschews the broader social picture. How is society organised? For what purpose and for whose benefit? Why are some people doing well and others not? If these questions are not publically addressed National will remain in office after 2014.

From the government`s perspective everything was going fine until a major book on inequality was launched and publicised. Then,last week Bryan Bruce`s `Mind the Gap` documentary on TV3 repoliticised the issue at the worst possible time.

The` living wage` campaign was under way and unions were marching against new labour legislation. In Labour`s caucus the right wing faction became leaderless. Two dead snapper were left twisting in the wind. The aspirants for David Shearer`s job invoked Norman Kirk and Michael Joseph Savage in the name of a more equal society.


For the Key government and its backers this is all bad news. For readers of the Daily Blog, however, it is now time for a `national conversation` as they say. So, let me start by discussing Max Rashbrooke`s edited collection, `Inequality: a New Zealand crisis`.

This follows international publications such as Richard Wilkinson and Kate Picket`s `Spirit Level` and Joseph Stiglitz`s `The Price of Inequalty`. After 30 plus years of neo-liberal ideology mainstream social scientists and non-doctrinaire economists had reached a consensus; increasing inequality has worsened social problems without improving economic growth or development. Some well off people were even prepared to support progressive taxes and increased social provision for the purposes of social cohesion. It was thus hard to sustain an ethical defence of neo-liberal policy programmes.

In this regard Max Rashbrooke notes that New Zealand is a special case. From the mid 1980s to the mid 2000`s the rich-poor gap widened faster than in any other developed country (p1). Various authors consider the nature, causes and consequences of this development over 15 chapters.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

Interspersed between them are 14 unique viewpoints on wealth and poverty in New Zealand. A range of graphs, figures and tables give empirical weight to the view that inequality is structurally entrenched and socially damaging.

Of the analytical chapters two stand out. Max Rashbrooke`s statistical overview is bleakly compelling. Our top income decile starts at a mere $72,000. The top one per cent begins at $170,000 and the top 0.4 per cent at $250,000. Presiding over this tiny group are the chief executives of large companies who receive an average salary of $1.5 million. Meanwhile, 70 per cent of New Zealanders earn less than $43,000 and 50 per cent less than $24,000 (p20-21).

If one considers net wealth (incorporating cash and assets minus money owed) then the top one per cent of the adult population owns 16 per cent. In contrast, no-one from the poorest 20 per cent of New Zealand owns more than $6000 in assets. The entire lower half of adults own just five per cent of all national wealth. (p22). As Rashbrooke points out, these numbers are the outcome of an extreme neo-liberal policy agenda; regressive tax scales,privatisation, tariff removal, benefit cuts, public sector restructuring and de-unionisation. One should also mention a strict monetary policy regime dependent on a `natural` rate of unemployment (see Alister Barry`s `in a Land of Plenty`).

Wealth and income disparities have also widened more recently. Between 2009 and 2011, after the financial crash, living standards fell for the bottom 50 per cent as those of the top decile improved. Robert Wade`s chapter reveals how Anglo-American inequalities are driven by global capitalism in general and finance capitalism in particular. As of 2011 a global super-entity of 147 interlinked firms predominated. All of the top 50 except one were financial institutions. Wade comments that `such concentration provides financial firms with the leverage to colonise the governments of nation states and shape public policy in line with their preferences` (p41). Within New Zealand this process was deilneated by Bruce Jesson in `Only Their Purpose is Mad : the money men take over New Zealand`.

Of the viewpoint pieces in Rashbrooke`s collection, the most interesting were those registering the unease of well off New Zealanders. Thus, Damien Christie contrasts class privilege, property speculation and advertising with the creative contributions of writers and journalists. The latter groups, he suggests, are poorly and unfairly renumerated in New Zealand. Similarly, Asher Emanuel, a former Saint Kentigern College student concedes that skill and effort are not the primary factors in individual success. He regards meritocracy as a myth which obscures the class hierarchies associated with the secondary school system.

Each of the contributions to this book touch upon one or more aspects of inequality; poor health, substandard housing, tax loopholes, suburban boundaries, the impossibility of budgeting, the stigmatisation of beneficiaries. The general picture is, of couse, appalling and a much needed corrective to the mindless optimism of this government. Nevertheless, there are deficencies here which we need to identify before countermeasures can be developed.


Firstly, the destruction of New Zealand`s economic sovereignty is given insufficient attention. As Bruce Jesson observed, `Rogernomics` facilitated major changes in the structure of New Zealand capitalism. Directorial elites, institutional investors and shareholders were caught up in an unprecedented wave of mergers and acquistions. Corporate creditors used local or global markets to activate passive shareholders against against target companies through buyouts and offers of higher dividend returns. From 1984 to 1987, the fourth Labour government accelerated this process by deregulating the finance sector and floating the New Zealand dollar. Consequently banking,finance and finance investment expanded and the `real` economy contracted.

After the October 1987 stockmarket crash New Zealand domestic business activity was routinely incorporated within the flows of global capitalism. Between 1989 and 2008 foreign controlled sharemarket value increased from 19 to 41 per cent. From 1989 to 2006 direct foreign investment increased from $1.9 billion to $82.7 billion. These funds were focussed on the purchase of existing assets rather than the creation of new productive capacity. Between 1997 and 2006,for example, transnational corporations made NZ $50.3 billion in profits from their New Zealand operations, yet only 32 per cent of this sum was reinvested domestically. These developments are of crucial importance in understanding the government`s vantage point. John Key`s personal business success and social advancement was premised upon the erosion of economic sovereignty, in New Zealand and elsewhere. The likes of Merrill Lynch and the Bankers Trust profited from foreign exchange trades and derivatives speculation at the expense of national economies.

Secondly, the book did not fully investigate the business and social worlds of New Zealand`s wealthiest people. The same can be said of Bryan Bruce`s documentary, the plight of homeless and stressed out families should be set against the luxurious lifestyles associated with wealth concentration. Do the rich inhabit a global or national world? Where do they make most of their money? To what extent are they repatriating profits offshore? Answers to these questions will provide a more complete picture of inequality in New Zealand.

The prospect of an ongoing national conversation about inequality will be terrifying the Key government. For the truth is this. They are less interested in economic development and national prosperity than in wealth defence. The 2008-10 tax cuts, the refusal to consider a capital gains tax, taxpayer subsidies for South Canterbury Finance and Rio Tinto, the low interest loan for Media works (now bankrupt), the sweetheart deal with Sky casino, the partial privatisation of Mighty River Power and Meridian, this is all about maintaining privileges and investment opportunities for the wealthy few. Their contributions to a National re-election victory will thereby be guaranteed.

Don`t let them get away with it! Make inequality a political issue and expose the greed that masquerades as individual aspiration.


    • Sadly , there are too many long words in it and not enough stuff of real interest like who’s going to be in ‘Dancing With The Stars ‘ next season .
      The dumbing down of NZ is a fait accompli .

      • no no don’t say that. There is always hope. But we must reintroduce topics such as civic instruction at school so that from a young age people understand how important it is they have a say and remain in power, through voting, joining unions and being politically active. And also for them to realise how wrong it is for the Prime Minister of New Zealand to say that a ‘referendum is a waste of time’.

        • This is absolutely critical, it’s apalling that it isn’t already standard. How do you have a democracy when kids don’t even understand civic duty and it simply isn’t taught. Absolutely appalling, a shocking indictment on the department of education, and really I hate to say it, an argument for funding alternative eduction providers.
          Also how can NZ ers see the the corrupt machinations of neo liberal ideology when they aren’t even given a basic, accurate understanding of the economic system..

  1. You and I ? We could be twins .
    Thank you for being so exonerating of my rantings , pleadings and dire warnings spanning thirty years . It’s taken all this time to read this kind of thing and so wonderfully able to be broadcast in RAW format for anybody to read . Your Post here . It’s quite the moving experience and it means a great deal to me personally . You and your erudite fellow Bloggers put these things more succinctly than I ever can . Well done you .

    Dirty little pig farmer douglas will be writhing in his sweaty bed . Writhe you bastard . The State gave him an education and he turned around and fucked us over with it . Him and his cronies , the dirty , greedy , evil bastards !

  2. “It was thus hard to sustain an ethical defence of neo-liberal policy programmes.”

    No it isn’t. I just need to point to all the problems in places in Europe that follow the sort of left wing economic policies advocated by left wingers like yourself.

    Take France for example where they are now realising you can’t just keep on taxing the productive side of the economy more and more without negative consequences.

    If you want to have this debate then have it but don’t pretend there is only one side to it.

    • “yours didnt work” isnt a defence of your own idea gossie

      if you want to stick up for neo-liberalism then make your case.

      but i think we all know your not the slightest bit interested in debate. By your own admission your presence is solely to shit stir

      • If the left wing policies advocated by people like Wayne Hope worked better than the neo-liberal alternative we should be seeing this in the countries tgat follow them. In this regard it is an entirely acceptable proposition to make that nations following said policies are generally doing worse than say NZ. It should cerainly be part of any debate on the issue.

        • That’s the best you’ve got as a come back to the brilliance of Dr Wayne’s blog? Some mumble fuck comparison with Europe that was caught in the same house of cards mass speculation of the 1%? Honestly Gosman, your trolling skills are plummeting as fast as your precious free market fallacies. Lift your game champ, this is embarrassing.

            • Not really for a number of reasons.

              1: This isn’t a remedial class for Gosman
              2: I try not to feed trolls
              3: Are you still climate denying?
              4: The mass deregulation of finance companies impacted far and wide across Europe, trying to twist that into some petty point scoring to rob Dr Wayne Hope’s brilliantly well researched blog just seems churlish in the extreme. Your inability to refer to his facts at all highlight how vacuous the free market platform you champion has become. If you wish to hold up a system that empowers an oligarchic plutocracy and call that ‘freedom’ do it in your own time.

              • Martyn … give him a remedial class….please!!… one less to have to worry about.
                Where do you get your information from gosh man!…..One News at Six?

          • But Gosman is Useful!

            Every time he trolls, or asks for the other side to be expounded, someone obliges and – we all get to learn more.

            Because Gosman is – the discussion is deepened.

            However pesky, there’s a certain je ne sais quoi about the way ‘he’ turns up and contributes provocation, despite being routinely quelled.

            Gosman has my kindness, for true.

        • Until the late 1970s most economies in the world were rather stable, apart from some “banana republics” in South America and here and there, and that for decades. Wage and income gaps were not wide in virtually all developed economies, and unemployment only started to establish itself as a problem from mid to late 1970s on, over following decades growing at times, but also decreasing a fair bit again during growth periods.

          Economic issues became more serious firstly due to the oil crisis, due to economic restructuring where jobs were increasingly being replaced by machines and automated processes. But still then there was demand for labour in many countries, like also New Zealand, hence some migration was allowed to fill the gaps.

          The global economic disparities and shake ups really got damaging with wide scale outsourcing and off-shoring of large manufacturing processes and with shifting investment into low wage and low standard countries, creating masses of workers that suddenly had no jobs to go to. The service industry was supposed to fill this gap, but what we got was a lot of low paid jobs, paying insufficient to allow a living income.

          There was some “growth” in new rising economies where investment went, but that came for the price other workers had to pay elsewhere. Since the late 1980s and 1990s we have seen capital flow very freely, while workers did not have the same opportunities. Plants were built and opened here and there, e.g . in garment manufacturing, and abandoned, closed down or reduced when new cheaper locations became available.

          This has led to what we have, where much is made in low wage countries, and not in traditional industrial countries. There are ever growing armies of manpower all over the globe, but not enough jobs for all. The capitalist investors and manufacturers can take their pick, where to exploit, and they tempt us here in NZ for instance, to believe, it is all for our benefit, as we sell commodities and get “cheaper” products in return for it.

          But that will never last, and with the credit business tempting people to go into dept, to buy products and homes now, then work it off and pay endless interest, some make great profits, while more and more workers end up in modern day dependency and slavery.

          In simplistic words that is what is going on, and I have not even raised the inevitable question of sustainability, as resources are not infinite and will become scarcer and cost more in future.

          Surely, there will always be the ones like John Key and others, who make money no matter what the world looks like. I see their times running out fast though, as they will be far outnumbered by havenots and cheated.

          • Marc that post war period is a bit anomalous. It came about for reasons to do with the opening up of the World in the 2 World Wars.

            In themselves possibly premeditated events. The Wars are run for profit and power. I address this here;
            Before the Wars there was a wealthy class/aristocracy that ran the game. They had to give way to the overwhelming and revolutionary forces released through the world’s participation in all that carnage. The cry for freedom and fairness was very loud.

            As with any ideal state corruption and complacency erode the edifice and here the ‘Dumbing down of the People’ has contributes to popular drowsiness allowing the elite’s to claw back their ‘rightful position’.

            For a picture of the USA back then see Ferdinand Lundberg’s ‘The Rich and the Super Rich.’

            So is the question; how do we reclaim that advance we made in the immediate post war period? or

            Is it; how do we stop the elite’s advance?

            Or is it? how do we build an effective egalitarian democracy?

            …and by the way Syria for Syrians.

    • Gosman –

      What a rubbish argument. Most of Europe was doing fairly well, until the Global Financial Crisis hit. And then government’s did the same as the US government did in some cases, bail out large banks, deemed “too damned big to fail”. That added debt burdens to the states, as debt was “socialised”. Add the downturn after the worst part of the GFC, and then the economies had to struggle for a few years, with lower tax take and increased welfare payouts.

      Nothing of that is due to the economic performance of European businesses, who have mostly been following rather free market directions for decades anyway.

      This propaganda of supposedly “socialist Europe” is utter nonsense. And France had a government under right wing presidents and Prime Ministers until a year or so ago, who were pushing more free market policies and less state spending. Same was the case for Italy. So the you call guys like Berlusconi “socialists”, I suppose?

      Get a reality check, please, you are commenting total rubbish again.

      Only dumb or misguided NZ governments believed they had to be even “purer” neo-liberal market economy practitioners than anyone else in the world, but we have sold out most value added production and live off raw commodities and low value added exports, same as NZers serving tourists drinks, meals and adventure tourism at often low wages.

      Overseas students are not coming in such high numbers anymore, because private entrepreneurs ripped too many off in the form of “wild west style” private education establishment providers.

      It is a short term gain, a gain for a few – and a poorly planning future agenda what we have, where casinos are given special treatment to get tourists come here and gamble, to “contribute” to the economy. They allow large complex brothels next door, so the clientele can spend a bit there also.

      Welcome to the “developing” world, formerly known as “3rd world”, for this country. What a shame, and some fall for all the misinformation, lies and deceit. Get off the brain changing drug you are no, and withdraw from the propaganda, please. Come clean for once!

      • The impact of the GFC was mainly felt amongst the economies with property bubbles and where investment banking played a large role. The problems with Europe are more to do with sovereign debt and the unproductive side of the economy than with investment banks and asset bubbles. The situation in France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, and Greece is to do with them following left wing not right wing policies. Yes Sarkozy and Berlusconni are far more Socialist than even someone like Cunnliffe. They certainly suppirt a far bigger role for the State than Labour does here.if these policies worked Europe would be streets ahead of other places rather than the funk it now is in.

        • “Yes Sarkozy and Berlusconni are far more Socialist than even someone like Cunnliffe.”

          Hah, really?

          Berlusconi gave tax breaks for the middle class and upper class, while also ensuring pension payments, catering for his voter classes of upper class, upper middle class and some in the middle class that were all either employed, running businesses and the likes.

          He shat on the poor and hated the unions, he indoctrinated the Italians with the many television stations and other media he owns, so that they would fall for his enticements. That is how he bought votes, but left insufficient in the kitty for infrastructure and other development, for welfare and so forth.

          While doing so he was enjoying his bunga bunga parties and had young prostitutes flown in from Eastern Europe. He also enjoyed his escapades with underage teens, hence his recent court convictions. So much for a corrupt conservative you call a “socialist”? It is largely the socialists in Italy that are desperately trying to keep the conservative and corrupt business folks honest.

          As for Sarcozy, he was not much better, but did not go as far. By the way France has followed a more managed economic direction for decades, and only over more recent years has their debt burden reached more worrying levels. They did quite ok for a leading industrialised nation.

          Yes, much was due to real estate bubbles in Ireland, Spain and less so in the UK, but there were banks saved in Belgium, Netherlands, a fair few in Spain and also Italy and Greece. They were given more credit and were allowed to offload bad debt into special institutes. I can look up the names of the banks that were bailed out and kept afloat, but I have better things to do tonight.

          Public money was used to do all that, and much was due to the fallout in the US, also local bodies, banks and businesses in Europe having invested in dodgy financial instruments that were issued in the US. Some US investors invested in Europe also, with borrowed money from US banks, and they left a mess behind for sure.

      • Which banks were bailed out by the French and Italians during thw GFC by the way? I don’t think there were any major ones.

        • Gosman –

          A whole number of Spanish banks had to be refinanced for starters, and there was one big one, and Santander was facing problems too, but I think they managed through the worst.

          Unicredit in Italy was having serious issues, so did others.

          By the way, that is also why the ESM was created, and the institution that came before it, if you may remember, if you have ever heard about the rescue packages that were tied up over many months of negotiations by the EU finance ministers, the Eurozone ministers and so forth over the last few years.

          • So you can’t name any major French or Italian banks that needed bailing out then.

            The ESM is more to do with sovereign debt rather than providing support to the banks directly.

    • I’ll put it simply, just for Gooseman: The fact that eating gravel is bad for your health, and gravel is hard, doesn’t mean that shit is a healthy diet. You might like swallowing it, but call it by its real name. Coprophilia is not a vaild economic or social theory.

    • They pay quite a bit of tax in France, whether they are individuals or corporate, and the wealthier you are, the higher the rate that applies to you. But you know what, they is also that deep understanding in France that rates contribute to the well-being of ALL and that it is a DUTY to pay them. Perhaps we can learn something from a country that is not only about rights, but also about duties. New Zealand certainly could.

    • Cripes, Mr Gosman, what planet are you on? The problems in Europe are precisely the same – only worse – as those faced by this country, and by every bloody country in the world. Nor do I see in any one of them a Government that could, even in the dimmest light, be called ‘left wing’. In no country could their economic practices remotely be called ‘left wing.’

      The economic policies they are following are an extension of the same idiotic ‘licence to loot’ policies run by the USA since Nixon’s time, and in NZ went under the sobriquet ‘Roger-nomics’ in the 1980s and ‘Ruthanasia’ in the 1990s. The same crazy Neo-Classical claptrap that allowed right-wing coups d’etat in Latin American nations, followed by wholesale theft of the public good by already wealthy thieves, murderers, rapists and sundry other monsters.

      To call the governments who oversaw the kind of looting of the Common Weal on such a global scale ‘left wing’ is to display an ignorance so profound as to wonder if it is at all possible to plumb its true depths. There is an horrific fascination with the idea of making the attempt. Fortunately the realization it would be a waste of time draws one back from the brink…

    • What ? like how Finland and Norway have living standards that dwarf our own? Or that Germany with it’s strong unions is now propping up the rest of the EU, and for example produces twice as many cars as the US while paying twice the wages.

      I’m afraid countries with real “left wing” systems, lets just say intelligent, democratic, humanist values and policies, KICK ARSE on more neo liberal countries, or had you not noticed that NZ is down the toilet after 30 years of the bullshit.

      Also, no pure neo liberal country exists, because it’s not a viable system, numb nuts, the extent to which countries are not down the toilet is due to the degree of socialism left that allows them to function, you goddamn moron.

      Pull your head out of your arse you ignorant troll.

      Moron little drones like you regurgitating your Koch brothers sponsored think tank brain washing all over the place, while entertaining the delusion that you’re an original thinker and smarter than everyone else, make me want to puke.
      You fundamentalist f**ktard ideologues worship an invisible hand, and a mediocre, B grade novelist. Everything you think was invented for you by filthy rich corporate propagandists, and guess what? YOU”LL NEVER EVER EVER BE ONE, LOSER! THAT WAS JUST A PLOY TO GET DIM WITTED MORONS LIKE YOURSELF TO VOTE TO DISENFRANCHISE YOURSELVES !
      How does it feel to have your self importance and mistaken faith in your own superiority torn to shreds? Did you like that, cause I just tore you a new one, numb nuts.
      Now please, before you embarrass yourself any further; go play in the traffic, one less suck up willing propaganda dupe dick head in the world would be about the greatest contribution to humanity a piece of shit like you will ever make.
      Or just live out the rest of your gormless, ineffectual, deluded little life and die… whateve’s, who cares, you’re less than a speck of fly shit on the window of the universe.

  3. “So, let me start by discussing Max Rashbrooke`s edited collection, `Inequality: a New Zealand crisis`.

    This follows international publications such as Richard Wilkinson and Kate Picket`s `Spirit Level` and Joseph Stiglitz`s `The Price of Inequalty`. After 30 plus years of neo-liberal ideology mainstream social scientists and non-doctrinaire economists had reached a consensus; increasing inequality has worsened social problems without improving economic growth or development.”

    Every now and then, I despair deeply, and I must rush and seek refuges like ‘The Daily Blog’, for the simple reason, to protect my sanity. This article by Wayne Hope is another glimmer of hope for New Zealand, which sadly is just a glimmer.

    The horrible truth is that most people do not read such literature as Wayne refers to, and most people are either getting their “news” from mainstream broadcast or print media, also online these days. Those are though rather misinforming or informing selectively, hiding the actual figures and trends from us.

    We are delivered infotainment and dumbing-down “news”, we are sold the “Kiwi aspiration”, or “New Zealand way” of doing things, meaning to “struggle”, to be entrepreneurial, to not ask questions and moan, rather to go and “get a life”, “chip in” and get stuck into work and business. We have “do it yourself” spirit held up high, we have television programs catering to fill those dream aspirations, where young ones compete to become singing stars, to build or do up homes, to be better cooks and to be nice looking models.

    Matters of substance are frowned upon, and John Key is to some even an “idol” himself, a “self made man”, who made his millions, as a “common Kiwi”.

    Yet the true figures show that most struggle, are barely making ends meet, many are sinking into working poor existences, facing unaffordable houses, which are built now for the top 10 per cent only, or for wealthy new migrants or those coming from longer term OEs with a nice bank balance.

    It is time to speak out, to dismantle this facade of a “successful economy”, of people having more in their pockets, as that is only true for a damned minority.

    So, yes, expose the truth, show that New Zealand is now one of the most unequal societies in the “developed world”, and where we have 3rd world diseases and starving children going to school. We have beneficiaries turned into scape goats and “bludgers”, frowned upon, whipped and treated like scum in too many cases, as the policies of division are made to work, by manipulating the wider public by presenting false information.

    Read about the truth behind welfare reforms, and how hand-picked “experts” were used to push the agenda through:


    • JK worked for a number of failing financial companies, all of which have since imploded.
      The $50million has never been proven one way or another

  4. In Marilyn Waring’s excellent book “Counting for Nothing” she discussed how Muldoon in order to finance his Think Big projects borrowed international money which required him as the PM and Minister of Finance of the day (in 1970’s) to sign up NZ to the United Nations System of National Accounting as recommended by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This attempt by Muldoon to borrow to fund large infrastructure projects that he probably thought would give NZ more economic independence long term..Debt however is the method of control by which large international banks then control national economies… The TPPA Act is a scary act that is a huge threat to our countries economic sovereignty, lets try and stop this act a huge reaction is needed otherwise National will try and pass this before the next election and any future government will be bound to it’s international rules on issues like employment law and environmental law.

    • Bronwyn you are a deft mind reader. Excellent!

      Last seen the deed to New Zealand is in New York at the Securities Commission;

      There is a distinct difference between The British Monarchy who signed the Treaty and the Crown Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand (Of whom did not sign the Treaty)

      Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand does not represent Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the Head of State of New Zealand. It is an Executive Corporation that is registered with the US Securities & Exchange Commission. They can be found on the website:

      http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000216105&owner=exclude&count=40 .

      Tell me why is the New Zealand Crown registered with the US Securities & Exchange Commission???

      It is because Prime Minister Rob Muldoon sold the country to the Federal Reserve in the US over his Think Big Projects that went bust. However that debt (only) belongs to the NZ Government who in turn uses its NZ citizens to pay it. They are not the same entities, they are two separate entities. The census is a stock take on the New Zealand herd.

      The NZ Crown is a subisdary of the CROWN, which is the City of London Corporation, while the “Her Majesty the Queen in Right of New Zealand” is the trust of our joint and several sovereignty, that is bankrupt.

      Who shares this sort of information about the legal fiction that is New Zealand?

      To have a democracy without aristocratic foreign sovereign rulers would be a nice touch.

      I imagine TPPA is part of re-securing whatever is outstanding on NZ inc. They view it a cow to be milked..

  5. Has anyone got the skills to put these facts onto graphics such as Wealth Inequality in America.

    Although predominantly a reader, something similar to this six minute video could be distributed easily via social media. Who knows? even referred to or played on MSM…

  6. How do you get this out to the public? How do you get New Zealanders off their couches, out of their boxes and to be more concerned about the wellbeing of this lovely country than about their concern for the Cornwalls.
    How do we get people to see that if they don’t do something now … about JK and his National sycophants … if they don’t take that immense sacrifice that Shearer has presented the country with, to get it done, right this time…this country is going only one way … and it’s not going to be pretty….. Oh nevermind they are all at New Zealand fashion week!

Comments are closed.