There is only so much official stats can be massaged enough to keep the level of inequality off the political radar, of course ordinary people always sense the experience of inequality best…
Income gap growing – poll
Nearly three-quarters of New Zealanders believe the gap between rich and poor has increased under six years of National Government and almost two-thirds feel they are no better off or have gone backwards, a Herald-DigiPoll survey suggests.Forty four per cent of the 750 New Zealanders surveyed this month said the gap between the rich and poor had got a lot bigger over the past six years.
…you can always trust the elite voices of punditry to rush to the fore to remind Labour not to go to the left when confronting the inequality 30 years of neoliberalism has gifted us. Cue John Armstrong for friendly advice on silting the throat of Marx once and for all…
Are Labour’s stagnant poll ratings partly the result of the party re-fighting old battles that have long been lost or are no longer relevant to most voters’ daily existence? Reluctant as it is to offer free advice, National (quietly) thinks so.
…Armstrong then manages to shrug off the latest valuation for asset privatisation as the Government prepares its next privatisation hit list, this time the social service provision of health and education and welfare. To Armstrong, and National, if Labour couldn’t stop energy companies from being sold off, what hope do they have stopping service provision that is mostly invisible to an uncaring majority? This has all the political etiquette of a vulture.
If Stephen Joyce handed out gold stars for best manufactured narrative services to the National Party, Armstrong earned two with that column.
Our Economy has earned the ‘Rock Star’ tag set against a global meltdown in the financial markets. Our relatively strong position is dictated by geography, not brilliant economic stewardship. China is our largest trading partner, Australia our second largest while China is Australia’s first largest trading partner. The frailty of that rock star tag has been well identified with a China slowdown and Auckland’s insane property bubble…
House prices, China ‘could dent recovery’
Rising house prices and a China slowdown could threaten New Zealand’s economic recovery, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) says.
…hoping to rebuild from natural disasters isn’t an economic policy.
Meanwhile, the asset sale program has been a complete failure…
Lower return but also less heat and light
Twelve months and $4.7 billion later, the Government’s asset sales programme has fallen billions of dollars short of the headiest predictions and the hoped-for queues of mum and dad investors have shrunk after many were stung by an initial flop.
…borrowing $5billion over four years for tax cuts so the richest NZers can buy shares in our public assets while bashing beneficiaries and ignoring 285 000 children in poverty is the biggest scam this Government has managed to get away with.
This heartless, selfish Government can not represent the popular will of my fellow NZers can it?
Labour failing to distinguish itself from the Nats and their own neoliberal past seems to me to be the problem for Labour. So no surprise here on the advice for the left. It would be interesting if Labour came out against fracking and drilling in response to the UN report on Climate. Would the polls respond positively? All politicians seem to be running scared of Oil interests. Even Russell Norman is backing off clear statements now. Just heard him on Morning Report. Do these corporates really have that much influence here or do our MPs fear tht all kiwis love their petrol fuelled cars. Failure to present practical alternatives makes people more fearful than they need to be. Come on Labour show some leadership on Climate change and see if people support it.
I don’t think the average kiwi has any idea what a complete cock this government has made of the economy. The MSM sure won’t be telling them – it’s been captured by Gnat insiders like Audrey Young.
But Labour’s strength of late has not been in economics but in identity politics. I think this is a strategic mistake in that the left must offer an alternative economic narrative – or it will be dominated by RWNJ like English and their media sock-puppets.
“But there is no dispute that when it came to power, the country was staring down the barrel at a decade of deficits and skyrocketing debt. The May Budget will show that National has done a remarkable job of turning that around by bringing forward the return to surplus by some years and lowering the debt trajectory. ”
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/9898122/Labour-needs-sense-of-urgency
What unmitigated piffle. $60 billion in debt and going nowhere – it is no surprise that this gross and pathetic failure has nothing to talk about but Labour.
The truth is in every worker’s pay packet, in every lost job, in every closing business, in every surging power bill and none of your lies can hide it.
Bill English and his thicko mates have achieved nothing beyond the transfer of a substantial chunk of public wealth to themselves. On the day we get a decent government they will answer for it.
No look, just copying and pasting from one of the National Party’s propaganda writer’s doesn’t really constitute effective trolling – I’m not even going to bother grading this.
Tracey Watkins as a reference…there we have it, right-wing reasoning
But, IV, you’ve left out the fact that the “decade of deficits and skyrocketing debt” was due to National’s mismanagement of the economy; two unsustainable taxcuts; and the 2007/08 GFC/Recession impacting on our economy.
There was no “decade of deficits” due to Labour – that is National/ACT spin (ie; lies) from Tory spindoctors. And which you keep repeating.
Under Labour, Cullen posted nine straight surpluses and paid down nearly all of this country’s sovereign debt.
By comparison, English has increased debt and never posted a surplus. Quite a feat eh?
No Frank. The decade of deficits arose from the 2008 PREFU, before National even took office. Good try, but no cigar.
Around 50 percent of them it does.
Are you stating statistics are being manipulated by public servents for political purposes? If so then that is a very serious charge. I presume you have some evidence to backl this view up.
I like the chutzpah of this comment. Most people assume statistics are routinely manipulated but forcefully asserting the complete opposite is often a good way to catch people off guard. Unfortunately the spelling error doesn’t help the attempt to fake the moral ground so just a B this time.
Remember to review your writing before posting, that could have been an A.
What is it “lies, damn lies and statistics.” It’s probably the interpretation that’s the problem.
“This heartless, selfish Government can not represent the popular will of my fellow NZers can it?”
I too have asked myself that question.
The answer, apparently, is that those who do care, nevertheless do not to care enough to bother to get our and vote.
“I don’t think the average kiwi has any idea what a complete cock this government has made of the economy. The MSM sure won’t be telling them”
So the Stuff article cited above doesn’t count as MSM?
“Nearly three-quarters of New Zealanders believe…”
Whether they believe it or not doesn’t make it true.
The fact remains that your criticism of the Govt’s policies is not gaining traction because people can see that it is not evidence based.
NZ has far lower interest and inflation rates than the current Govt.inherited. The country is moving into surplus on it’s internal accounts, and debt to GP is lower than it was under Labour. Annual GDP growth is around 3%, whereas this government inherited an economy that was tanking before the GFC impacts hit.
That’s a record that no amount of twisting and turning can deny.
” The country is moving into surplus on it’s internal accounts”
Comedy Gold!!! If we don’t look at the part of the accounts that shows all the borrowing we can see quite clearly that we’re not in debt.
How do you say that stuff with a straight face?
It’s a shame too because the rest of your trolling was quite effective – even though you had the logically inconsistent attempt to say it’s a fact that criticism of the government is not gaining traction just after admitting that 3/4s of the country think inequality is growing under National, you wrote it in the sort of confident style that usually fools people into thinking you make sense.
However, despite the good use of bluster the absurdity of your opening gambit means this gets an E. Could I suggest more time spent on less comments will produce higher quality trolling.
“The half-yearly opening of the books last December forecast an $86 million surplus after six years of deficit, followed by surpluses in the following years of $1.6 billion, $3.1 billion and $5.6 billion.”
From the NZ Herald…Audrey Young.
Let’s recall what Labour left the country…that’s right, a decade of projected deficits, huge additional committed spending, and a massive hole in the ACC Balance sheet.
That anyone can have the gall to project Labour as anything other tan economic incompetents is hilarious.
Hmm, that’s good trolling, I’m impressed with your comeback. It is rather dependent on people believing that economic forecasts are accurate so hopefully no one will dig too deeply on that one.
There’s a lot of unsubstantiated stuff near the end there but the important thing is that you state it with confidence. In fact so much confidence that I can almost imagine you believe it. Well done A-.
But, but Aaron, he had TWO spelling mistakes AND he referenced Audrey thingy⁉
Wow, what a work of fiction!
“Annual GDP growth is around 3%” You wish! English has NEVER delivered 3%. He may this year – 1 out of 6 – for an all-up average of under 1.5%, but that’s just his election year spend-up. Frankly, on his perfermance he should go out and shoot himself.
The economy was surging under Cullen, and English munted it, which is why most of the people who work for a living haven’t had a pay rise in years, much less kept pace with inflation.
There is no evidence whatsoever that Gnat policies produce growth. All they do is allow a corrupt elite to plunder the public estate.
A government that means to reverse the pernicious trend established by these failed neo-liberal policies, and restore the real standard of living most New Zealanders enjoyed before rogergnomics will need to consistently demonstrate growth in the 4-7% range – much easier than might be supposed due to 3 decades of underperformance.
In spite of paid trolls, and an invertebrate media, the Gnat defeat is almost assured. Lying to people who have to worry about feeding their kids is an unproductive and frankly dangerous game.
Stuart
GDP growth in 2012 was 2.7% (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate). The last 4 quarters have shown a GDP growth of 3% (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/gdp-growth).
The GDP growth under Labour was fuelled by the nest global economic conditions of a lifetime; National are achieving growth within the context of the world coming out of a GFC.
Labour left the economy with a structural deficit problem, high interest rates and high inflation rates, and declining economic activity. Quite a remarkable achievement.
The election year spend up you speak of is a fiction. Current economic growth is being fuelled by Govt. policies, including letting business get on with their own business. Labour will reverse al of that, and have us heading back into the lame economy they left in 2008.
What a shame, that’s a poor effort at trolling and it’s straight after the really good one above it.
The stats you provided appear to agree with what Stuart was saying so I’m not sure you really put the time into this comment that you should have.
The real shame here is that Stuart actually left an opening for you to get back at him and you completely failed to take it. See if you can guess what it is.
If you come back with a better attempt I might reconsider but for now that’s clearly a D.
I’m not interested in guessing anything, just in presenting the facts. Stuart denied GDP growth was near 3%, I proved him wrong. Stuart asserted the economy was surging under Cullen, I proved him wrong. Not sure what agreement you see, unless you are simply trolling.
Fatuous nonsense – you’re trying to evade the point – one year of normal economic growth out of six is a comprehensive failure – and you know it perfectly well.
Labour left the economy in good shape – but a healthy economy enables the populace to resist crisis measures like privatisation. So English engineered this collapse by swingeing public service cuts in the middle of a recession. Guaranteed to wreck havoc on the economy, especially during a global downturn. Tarring and feathering is too good for this scumbag, impalement is a more suitable punishment for his crimes against the New Zealand people.
No, Labour did not leave the economy in good shape. They left the economy with a long term and structural debt problem, high inflation and high unemployment. They over taxed and over spent their way to near calamity.
Claims for which you have no evidence and have been using cherry-picked data; mis-information; and outright lies to try to prove.
Do you really think that by repeating your bullshit that it becomes true?!
You’re a joke, IV. 😀
“But there is no dispute that when it came to power, the country was staring down the barrel at a decade of deficits and skyrocketing debt. The May Budget will show that National has done a remarkable job of turning that around by bringing forward the return to surplus by some years and lowering the debt trajectory. ”
As cited above. You were saying?
I see you’re still publishing your misinformation, IV?
Let me refresh your memory on these points that you keep re-posting blogpost after blogpost (and hoping I fail to spot them, I suppose);
1. “The GDP growth under Labour was fuelled by the nest global economic conditions of a lifetime; National are achieving growth within the context of the world coming out of a GFC.”
What does that mean except that growth under both Labour and National was based on overseas demand?
The fact that you attempt to deride growth under Labour as “fuelled by the nest global economic conditions of a lifetime” whilst trumpeting “National are achieving growth within the context of the world coming out of a GFC” is nothing more than dishonest National/ACT-inspired spin.
But at least you have been forced to admit that the growth we are now experiencing has nothing to do with National and everything to do with overseas demand for our raw products.
2. “Labour left the economy with a structural deficit problem, high interest rates and high inflation rates, and declining economic activity..”
More of your lies.
As I’ve posted previously,
“Recent Economic Performance and Outlook”
– http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2012/09.htm
So everything you’ve said is a lie.
Tragic, isn’t it? You’ve got no real criticisms to throw at Labour, so you ACT/National supporters have resorted to fabrication and cherry-picking?
Sad.
By the way, IV, are you really suggesting that “high interest rates” are indicative of a badly managed economy?
“What does that mean except that growth under both Labour and National was based on overseas demand?”
No, but I’m not surprised you’re confused. Growth is certainly impacted by overseas demand, but it is the fundamentals of the economy, and what the Govt. does to manage that demand that matter. Labour spent it all, and left the country with a decade of deficits.
“Recent Economic Performance and Outlook”
What on earth does that have to do with what Labour left? Here are the facts:
Inflation – 2008 Q3 Annual 5.1%, 2013 Q3 Annual 1.4%.
Mortgage Interest Rates – 10/08 9.6%, 10/13 5.8%
GDP Growth – 2008 Q4 (0.8%), 2013 Q2 2.7%
2008 (4 quarters to Sep 2008) (1.7%)
2013 (4 quarters to Sep 2013) 3.5%
Labour left an economy with a structural deficit, high interest rates, high inflation rates and shrinking GDP. Quite an impressive list of failure.
“By the way, IV, are you really suggesting that “high interest rates” are indicative of a badly managed economy? ”
Actually, yes, they can be. Particularly when they coincide with high inflation and declining GDP. Cullen was remarkable in what he was able to ruin. Better than Nero.
Just as well that, according to Treasury, Annual inflation averaged 2.6% and the New Zealand economy expanded by an average of 3.5% each year.
But the kicker is your comment that you agree that “high interest rates are indicative of a badly managed economy”.
Because quite recently (13 March), Key stated,
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/9822918/Mortgage-pain-time-OCR-rises-to-2-75-per-cent
So if our interest rates under Labour really were as high as you claim (which is doubtful, considering all your other lies) – then the economy must’ve been surging ahead!
Or is John Key wrong?
You see Frank when interest rates rise to settle a growing economy then that is a sign of a sound economy. That’s what is happening now. However when interest rates are high and inflation is high and growth is stalling, you have a cocktail that tastes like an economy with massive structural problems. Overspending. Overtaxation. And that’s what Labour left to NZ in 2008.
Utterly inept.
As is your use of superlative adjectives! Priceless!
Oh ho!! Double standards much, IV?!?!
So rising interest rates under Labour is “utterly inept” – but rising interrest rates un der National “is a sign of a sound economy”?
That’s a strange view of economics you have, IV. Unfortunately for you, your partisan opinion isn’t the same as facts.
So even your criticism of rising interest rates has been undermined – by your own Prime Minister!! 😀
That leaves you with bugger all to throw at the 2000-08 Labour government, sunshine. Everything you’ve posted has been discredited or shown to be cherry-picked out of context.
Really – is it that hard to prove your case without resorting to mis-representation and outright bullshit?
“So rising interest rates under Labour is “utterly inept” – but rising interrest rates un der National “is a sign of a sound economy”?”
When did I say that?
Interest rates rising to achieve price stability when an economy is in a growth period is evidence of a sound economy. That is the position in 2014.
On the other hand, high interest rates, at a time when the economy had been stagnating for over 2 years, and when inflation remains high, is a sign of economic incompetence. That was the position in 2008.
No, Labour have been sound economic managers in the past. For example the 1984-87 Labour Government transformed our economy into the envy of the world after an incompetent National Govt left the economy on the verge of ruin. Command economies fail, free market economies succeed.
You’ve been saying it all along.
You’ve just been caught out – again – with your double standards.
That’s the problem with your National/ACT propaganda, IV – it’s easy enough to find information to show you as the liar that your are.
Carry on. 😉
Transforming economies is not the same as sound economic management. Particularly not in the example you cite.
That ‘transformation’ created huge collateral damage that we’re still paying for today.
‘envy of the world’? More like gob-smacked, dear IV. Notice how few followed our reckless path – and those who did… Sad. Very sad. Set back the introduction of your fantastical free markets by, we hope, decades at least.
“So even your criticism of rising interest rates has been undermined – by your own Prime Minister!! ”
Not at all, and nothing you’ve posted comes even close to suggesting that.
A “sound” economy is prepared for the future, but the ones that you trust to run this country are nothing but IV (intravenous, aka “intrinsicvenous”) drug addicts.
Not only diversification of production and services, but also longer term planning for sustainable economic activity, for more creative, smarter, value added production and service delivery should be on the agenda.
Instead we have export addicts and fanatics dream of doubling dairy milk powder exports to China and the likes, and nothing is “smart” about that.
They plan for yet more migration, for Auckland to become a mega city of 2.5 million, for intensified agriculture, while climate change will mean a drier climate, more droughts, less water to supply to Auckland and other places, and therefore potentially LESS agricultural production.
Sea level rises will expose much of costlines, including along the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours, now being “developed” for residential housing, to increased flooding.
Hey, “smart” indeed, IV, is that not?
Hi Marc
There are elements of your post that I agree with you on whole heartedly. I live in Auckland and I have absolutely no desire to live in a city of 2.5m people. The problem though is that that is Len’s Brown dream, and it is based on his ideologically blinkered love affair with public transport.
When you write about ‘export fanatics’, I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at. Exporting is the way a country pays for it’s standard of living, in the same way a household needs to earn money from outside of itself. Are you proposing moving to a self sufficient, agrarian style existence? What is it exactly you are proposing would work better?
NZ is already a smart, value add economy. Yes we can do more, and we will, because that’s how the market works. I have the feeling you would prefer a more command approach, such as David Cunliffe is proposing, but such an approach is seriously flawed. If the market won’t take risks on a certain project, why should the Govt. be allowed to spend our money taking the sae risk? Frankly there are just too many examples of Govt. failure when it comes to ‘picking winners’ that I very thankful for my children’s sake we have put that behind us. Cullen’s repurchase of KiwiRail and the establishment of Kiwibank are two examples of Gov’t investment with economically unfavourable consequences for the tax payer.
“NZ is already a smart, value add economy.”
????????????????????????????????????????? Gasp, ???????????????????? Is this for real???????????????
IV, intravenous, intrinsic, value or none, if you have not seen or heard it, travel a bit, go to Europe, parts in East Asia, to North America and other places, and see what you can make from milk, milk solids and from other agricultural raw products, please!!!
I see damned little of diverse products of added value here, although of course, over the years there have been some improvements here and there.
Indeed, Marc. I can’t see much “smart, value add economy” in the thousands of logs down at Wellington’s Centrepoint wharf, waiting to be shipped overseas…
Marc I travel frequently, mostly on business. But I’m not sure you do. NZ is exporting value add. We are already a very smart economy. Yes there is more we could do, and we will. Just as long as the left are not given the levers of power to screw our economy up again.
Really, seems to me you spend most of your time trolling on left-wing blogs, hey but if that is business then you are pretty good at it.
IV – going by your almost 24/7 presence here, you seem to be doing a lot of cyberspace travel but little else. Or do you also do mind travel during your sleep?
“A “sound” economy is prepared for the future,”
Absolutely. A sound economy does not bequeath a decade of deficits. A sound economy does not run interest rates at 11% when GDP is declining. A sound economy does not deplete the value of savings by running inflation at 5%. A sound economy does not result in GDP growth in decline before the impacts of a GFC. A sound economy does not incorporate increasing income tax to pay for middle class welfare.
I think you and Bill English have discovered a new field IV – instead of facts it works on airy promises and Treasury projections – let’s call it hickonomics!
Like Hart’s world cup efforts, it produces excuses instead of results.
A wiser man than you once said “It doesn’t matter whether a cat is white or black, as long as it catches mice.”
Hickonomics has proven to be spectacularly ineffective in practice. But it still attracts a surprising number of second rate apologists. You have what it takes to be a leader of this gullible demographic – the greatest hickonomist in histry!
Predictions (forecasts) are important, but results are what really matter.
When National took office inflation was a shade over 5%. It is now running at a shade over 1%.
Mortgage interest rates were around 11%. They are now under 6%.
GDP growth was (0.8%). GDP growth is currently running at over 3%.
The Current Account deficit as a % of GDP was 8.8%. It is now running at around 4.3%.
Household Debt as a % of disposable income was 151.9%, now it is 147.6%.
The facts speak for themselves.
Yes – the facts speak for themselves – falling real incomes – declining educational outcomes – compound GDP growth 15% below what it ought to be – declining home ownership, social mobility and productivity – massive unemployment and underemployment and inflation static as you would expect from a moribund or contracting economy.
Bill English is certainly the worst economic manager New Zealand has ever had – he’s borrowed more and achieved less than any of his predecessors.
There is no economic basis for your infatuation IV – are you in love?
Stuart care to try to support any of your contentions? Any. Looks like a load of crap to me. And how on earth do you measure what something “ought to be”? You’re just clutching at straws.
Given that your speculations run to ‘ten years of deficits’ your lack of consistency and self-awareness is frankly astonishing.
Projecting normal growth over five years as a baseline makes a reasonable rough guide for assessing government performance. 3% is normal in most healthy economies. Failing to account for compound growth makes English’s low growth figures superficially less severe – but put on a curve beside a better managed economy, such as Australia’s, the deficiency is stark.
“Given that your speculations run to ‘ten years of deficits’ ”
Not my speculations. These were Treasury forecasts, based on Labour party policies in 2008.
Ah yes! Treasury forecasts – were they verified by your other astrologer?
Why would you think that your ignis fatuus makes anybody care what you think? Your hickonomics has no basis either in reality or scholarship, it seems more like infatuation or religious enthusiasm.
It’s like wrestling with a pig – the pig seems to enjoy it and you just get dirty.
Spare me your arguments and statistical projections – show me the real-world benefits – if your figures are meaningful there will be some.
Oh so you’ve lost the debate so you throw insults, is that it?
You’re mad.
Not an insult.
An observation.
“compound GDP growth 15% below what it ought to be”
What it ‘ought’ to be? Please enlighten me about how you know what it ought to be.
Predictions without results are fantasies.
In your RWNJ fantasy world this government is a success.
But people cannot eat their lies, nor pay their power bills with them. Economic statistics are a powerful tool, but only to the extent that they reflect reality. And the reality is that Bill English is a liar and an asset thief, and that New Zealand is infinitely worse off for his mismanagement.
The facts speak for themselves, as they will in September when this useless shower of wankers get the drubbing they so richly deserve.
Very little of that is true. You’ve either made it up ( as per usual) or taken data out of context.
Your dishonesty is legend.
By the way, did you know that Cullen posted nine consecutive surpluses as well – as paying down most of the debt National incurred in the 1990s?
Did you know that unemployment was down to 3.4% – as opposed to 6% now?
And did you know that economic growth – according to Treasury – averaged 3.5% during Labour’s term in office?
Did you know that the highest growth GDP growth rate under Labour was 5.5% in 2004/05 , whilst National has only achieved 3.3%?
And did you know that Bill English has never posted a budget surplus since becoming Finance Minister in late 2008?
No?
Well, I’m happy to advise you.
“By the way, did you know that Cullen posted nine consecutive surpluses as well – as paying down most of the debt National incurred in the 1990s? ”
Actually Cullen inherited 5 years of surpluses from the previous National Govt. Frank.
Surplus the Gnats can only envy, but never deliver.
And English inherited 9 years of surpluses from the previous Labour Govt. IV.
Something your precious Nat/ACT government has yet to achieve. And won’t achieve if Key goes agead with another idiotic tax cut.
And English also inherited a decade of deficits Frank. He’s turned that around in half that time.
Those reading this blog know that Cullen posted only surpluses and that English has posted nothing but deficits since 2008 – compounded by two unsustainable tax cuts.
So, the question is, why would you post an outright lie like that? Who would you be trying to convince?
Is it because you really are stark raving mad?
Or trolling for amusement?
Both?
Irrespective of your motives, you’re becoming somewhat tedious…
Still hiding behind the moderators Frank? I’m keeping track.
Again.
Those reading this blog now know that Cullen inherited 6 years of surpluses from national, and bequeathed then back a decade of deficits.
They will know that under Cullen the economy in 2008 had high inflation, high interest rates and no growth. That’s what is now called the ‘Cullen economy’, a seeming impossibility for all but the most incompetent.
Good. I’m happy you’re making productive use of your time.
Twat.
“No growth”?
Treasury disagrees with you.
And you’re still a twat.
No, Treasury agrees with me.
And I notice that after I posted the GDP growth from two sources you have toned back your rhetoric somewhat. Embarrasing was it?
“And did you know that Bill English has never posted a budget surplus since becoming Finance Minister in late 2008?”
He inherited 10 years of deficits Frank. 10 Years. And here’s turned that into a surplus inside 6. You’re entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own acts.
Picking a set of not so great figures from a tiny time frame in the last year of the last Labour led government, and trying to imply the otherwise generally sound and good economic situation of years before then was never there, that is just mischievous again.
Have you ever considered what Cullen and Labour would have done if they had got a 4th term in government, and how they may have dealt with the GFC? I think you are just cherry picking statistics and other info or propaganda, when it comes to your beloved leader Key and his lot, and otherwise selecting the worst data, when you want to discredit Labour and the left.
IV, go and get your daily recharge, it is overdue, load the battery, so you as trolling robot can try again tomorrow.
@ Stuart and Marc – spot on.
Both IV and Gosman are well known for misrepresentaton, cherry-picking, and outright lies.
Gosman’s most recent example of dishonesty was claiming that Treasury’s 2008 PREFU document slammed Labour for creating a “structural decade of deficits”.
Well, I followed his link (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2008/027.htm#sthash.4O4luAjO.dpuf) and their was no such reference.
So I followed up by doing a google search with the parameters “Treasury structural decade of deficits” and there was no such report.
Gosman made it up.
More ACT-inspired bullshit from you, IV.
Your figures have no citation, and, as an example, you statement above is untrue and conflicts with your April 4, 2014 at 12:02 pm post above (https://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/04/03/inequality-denial/#comment-211521).
The rest of your “facts” are cherry-picked and you’ve omitted all reference to the Global Financial Crisis.
For example,
As Brian Fallow wrote on 7 October 2008,
Source*: http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10536181
So once again you’ve taken cherry-picked data out of context. Once again you’ve shown your talent for dishonesty in presenting information.
Debt was down. Because of the GFC. Not because of anything National did (except maybe suppress wage-growth by attacking Unions).
By the way, if the Nats had implemented a capital gains tax, that might have addressed the unsustainable rise in private debt – much of which is directed at speculative property investments, funded by overseas borrowings.
But you right wing nuts aren’t very good at such long-term planning, are you?
* By the way, thanks for that link!
Now you’re ranting with just outright lies. Everything you’re saying has been shown to be wrong.
You just keep repeating it. You’re either trying to convince us with your juvenile lies – or you really are sick in the head.
Nope, all factual. It’s Michael Cullens inconvenient truth.
Your notion of ‘fact’ is not remotely credible.
Why don’t you peddle your piffle on kiwiblog with the rest of your ‘almost economists’?
Not “overspending” at all. Clark and Cullen rebuilt the health and education system (http://fmacskasy.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/1-5b-injection-for-health-9-december-2001.jpg) that had been severely gutted by Bolger and Shipley in the 1990s. http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2013/01/11/childrens-health-not-a-high-priority-for-health-minister-tony-ryall/
The health budget was so severely cut that the waiting lists were increasing in length and people were dying (google Colin Morrison, Southland farmer) whilst waiting for life-saving surgery.
In the meantime, your precious National Party government was considering spending over $100 million to tear down or move the Beehive so the original Parliament House could be extended.
That is the insane profligacy that your National/ACT party stands guilty of.
Here are a few more, from this current government;
* $1,400 spent on a limousine hire for two days
* $2,000 per day spent on a “Special advisor” to Bill English
* $453,450 (conservative estimate) spent on parties, welcomes, farewells, and other booze-ups
* $500,000 from this Government’s Major Events Development Fund spent on a NZPGA Pro-Am Championship tournament held earlier this year
* $3.1 million spent by members of Parliament on airfare and accomodation in just three months,
* $4 million spent by Tourism New Zealand to attract China Southern Airlines to New Zealand (Source)
* $20 million spent on advertising by the NZ Defence Force
* $21.9 million spent by Treasury on consultants in 2012-13 (compared to $2 million in 2007-08), including $20,000 paid to Cato Partners NZ to redesign the Treasury website and $37,000 paid to Bill Ralston and Janet Wilson for media training
* $54 million spent by state owned enterprises on “performance bonuses” to their employees
* $75 million spent from 2009-11 to movie studios in taxpayer funded subsidies
* $120 million in subsidies paid to Warner Bros to produce “The Hobbit” in NZ
* $220 million spent on the Rugby World Cup
* $300 million subsidies spent on the Lord of the Rings trilogy
* $910.5 million spent from 2008 to September 2012, on consultants
http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/12/18/health-minister-circumvents-law-to-fulfill-2008-election-bribe/
Of course, now we can add $30 million splashed at Rio Tinto and a tax-payer funded/subsidised irrigation system in Canterbury and subsidies for Charter School private companies.
If ever anyone could stuff up an economy and lavish corporate welfare all over the place – cue the National Party and ACT.
Carry on, IV. I have more information to present, in response to your lying bullshit.
Have you seen the figures on the Hobbit, TLoTR plus the AC etc? These have brought huge benefits to NZ. What has NZ Rail brought Frank? At a billion dollars and counting?
1. Jeez. You really are a foolish little man, aren’t you?
It seems that those who know better are in disagreement with you about the so-called benefits of these movies;
Bernard Hickey
http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/67864/bernard-hickey-agrees-treasurys-objections-increased-rebates-win-avatar-movies-theyre-
Gareth Morgan
http://garethsworld.com/blog/economics/film-industry-benefits-smoke-mirrors/
And that socialist satrap, Treasury
http://www.3news.co.nz/Govt-wins-praise-for-Avatar-deal/tabid/1607/articleID/325397/Default.aspx
Anyway, I thought you ACT types were opposed to subsidies?! Oh, wait, not. It’s only a subsidy if Labour does it.
If the Nats subsidies Hollywood or Charter schools, then it’s “buying a service” or “job creation”, right?
Goddamn hypocrites. Another great success from the Nil Percent Party.
2. NZ Rail
Considering that the rail system is an integral part of our economic and social infra-structure, Labour took the only prudent step possible, as one private owner after another ran NZ Rail into the ground.
Christ, man, even things as basic as Station signage was missing from nearly every single station in the Wellington region. Do you know the joke of what was the most overheard conversation on a train?
“Do you know what stop this is?”
Thank you, Private Enterprise for running a rail system so far down that lives were at risk. In 2002, the LTSA had to force TranzRail not to lay off track de-stressing staff as summer heat buckled train-tracks in Wellington!!
http://fmacskasy2.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/keep-laid-off-track-staff-tranz-rail-told-27-3-02.jpg
http://fmacskasy2.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/heat-buckled-rails-looked-like-plasticine-23-12-02.jpg
http://fmacskasy2.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/tempers-fray-as-rail-services-cut-8-1-03.jpg
http://fmacskasy2.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/commuters-vow-to-ditch-rail-for-road-8-1-03.jpg
That is the legacy of fifteen years of private ownership.
Is that what you’re proud of IV?! Fifteen years of incompetance?!
Idiot.
1. The Hobbits
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/apr/04/hobbit-boosts-new-zealand-film-industry
“Film contributed over $2.4bn to New Zealand’s economy in 2011…”
2. NZ Rail
Rail is vital, paying 1bn for it was sheer incompetence. It made NZ a n international laughing stock.
And Frank I’m not the slightest bit interested in your opinion pieces. You have proven time and again to be very loose with the truth, and to misquote people at will.
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/screen-industry/benefits-of-screen-industry
Lesson for Frank…don’t rely on Bernard Hickey or Gareth Morgan.
“It seems that those who know better…”
Hahahaha. Gareth Morgan and Bernard Hickey!!! Is that the best you have!
I note that you dismiss Morgan and Hickey and ignore Treasury’s comment altogether.
http://www.3news.co.nz/Govt-wins-praise-for-Avatar-deal/tabid/1607/articleID/325397/Default.aspx
So you dismiss a capitalist who has been more successful than you, and an economics commentator who is vastly more knowledgeable and experienced than you. If they agreed with you, would you be using them as a source?> (Cherry picked, of course.)
Yet you offer no countering voice?
Surely there must be someone to back up your somewhat-dubious position? Someone? Anyone?
Previously posted…did you miss these Frank?
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/apr/04/hobbit-boosts-new-zealand-film-industry#sthash.4U5IfjZU.dpuf
http://www.med.govt.nz/sectors-industries/screen-industry/benefits-of-screen-industry#sthash.4U5IfjZU.dpuf
And all you have is a known left leaning economist and a cat hater.
http://www.nzfact.co.nz/press_releases/PwCReport-ECNZ.pdf
What has NZ Rail brought?
Fewer trucks on our narrow, slip-prone roads?
More efficient haulage of big loads – one train to dozens of log wagons?
More efficient use of imported fuel?
I thought all that obvious efficiency would have delighted your wee bean counter’s spirit. Will nothing please you?
Perhaps. But when a Govt pays a sum of money for an asset that is multiple times above it’s value, then it becomes a laughing stock. That one deal alone showed Cullen was little more than a history professor.
No doubt you alone are privy to information to what NZ Rail was really worth?! Why not share that revelation with us?!
Don’t keep us waiting… 😉
No. But as an historian, Cullen should have known NZ Rail had been a financial basket case for decades, long before privatisation. To allow 1bn of taxpayers money to go towards this was stupidity, at best.
.
So, you have no idea as to it’s value but you still feel justified in banging on that“too much was paid for it” ?!
Don’t you feel just a wee bit stupid?!
No, not at all. Do you feel alone in thinking it was a good deal?
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/2850079/KiwiRail-mired-in-Labour-ideology
“The purchase is not grounded in economic reality, strategic thinking or environmental concerns. Instead, it is an ideological Trojan horse and an expensive vote winner.”
“Consider the following facts: KiwiRail was bought for $665 million. That figure then turned out to be $690m, plus other spending commitments, and ongoing preferential treatment for Toll’s trucking business at the expense of New Zealand- owned competitors (so much for supporting local business). This failed policy has already cost the taxpayer about a billion dollars.
KiwiRail has been subsequently valued at $369m. This was an upfront loss to the taxpayer of $321m – a loss of almost a million dollars a day for a year after the purchase. Put another way, $320m of taxpayers’ money was spent for value that never existed.
Further, this valuation is an optimised depreciation valuation, a public service entity costing. In other words, KiwiRail is worthless as a business.
In order for rail to come close to commercial equilibrium (to break even), the network has to shrink from 4000 kilometres to 2300km. The government was repeatedly advised of this by the Treasury before the purchase.
The rail system required a subsidy under private ownership to operate a network of the present size. This policy will continue under public ownership – except the subsidy will get larger.”
“The difficulty with this jingoistic approach, however, is that organisations such as the World Bank say “privatisation is now so widespread that it is hard to find countries not using this approach. North Korea, Cuba and perhaps Myanmar make up the shrunken universe of the resistant”.”
“The OECD considers that, in New Zealand, “there is no fundamental economic rationale for government ownership in these sectors [such as rail] beyond perhaps a transitory phase”.”
So Frank, here are the facts:
1. Cullen committed 1 billion dollars of taxpayers money for a business that had zero value.
2. Cullen admitted that the purchase Kiwi Rail was an “ideological burp”.
3. That ‘burp’ put NZ in the same club as North Korea, Cuba and Myanmar.
Enough proof for you Frank?
“I have more information to present,”
Well you’ll have to do better than your own opinion pieces Frank, because for the most part I’ve already destroyed your delusion over Michael Cullen.
You have proved nothing except the extraodinary density of your skull.
In the next three terms that English spends in opposition will you claim the growth bounce-back that results from the relief of his austerity policies? I rather think you will.
You quoted the low inflation rate with approval – it is a function of this government’s sustained – and shameful – lack of growth.
“You quoted the low inflation rate with approval – it is a function of this government’s sustained – and shameful – lack of growth. ”
Are you serious? You don’t think inflation harms an economy? Depletes the value of savings? Makes it harder for working families to purchase the basic essentials? Sigh.
Cullen ran a high spending economy economy, that is why inflation and interest rates were simultaneously high with stagnating GDP, ballooning debt and a forecast decade of deficits.
English, on the other hand, has remarkably reversed all of those trends. We now have growth, low inflation, low interest rates a balanced budget and lower debt to GDP.
“high interest rates are indicative of a badly managed economy”.
I didn’t say that Frank. What I said is they CAN be. When an economy is growing on the back of sound economic policy (not spend and tax), then IR’s will rise because the RB needs to achieve price stability. But when an economy has a concoction of high interest rates, high inflation and low growth (as the NZ economy did in 2008), trouble is brewing.
By the way, most of your April 3, 2014 at 6:56 pm post is not just misinformation – but a repost from previous blogposts.
You’re recycling your garbage?!
Nothing new to add to your lies?
Sad.
You claim ‘ Current economic growth is being fuelled by Govt. policies, including letting business get on with their own business.’
Given the numbers of enterprises downsizing and off-shoring, might you be able to clearly and succinctly state the nature of these policies? And directly connect them to real growth?
And, if businesses are now, miraculously, getting on with their businesses – can they now stand alone, without government subsidies, and pay their workers sufficient for them to be customers and buyers of something more than the skint basics and cheap overseas-made tat?
Or do we still need that ‘stimulus’? (Hoping that Soon, before the Election, it will possibly work…mwahahaa.)
How exactly did English ‘munt’ the economy when the PREFU in 2008 predicted a decade of deficits and we are likely to get back in to surplus a number of years before this?
Well, if we’re going to use Treasury forecasts as a starting point, them we should just start smoking crack and pretend economics doesn’t even exist.
You may as well compare John Key to Peter Pan, and compare NZ to the Never Never Land
You’ll find the PREFU has been used many times by the top trollers here, including Frank.
The difference is, IV, that I use the data correctly, as intended.
You tell lies.
And each time you lie, I’ll repost the correct data.
Carry on. 🙂
So you’re repeating your lies as well, Gosman?
You know that’s untrue.
As with IV, above, I have repeatedly posted what Treasury actually said on the matter – not what you and IV keep misrepresenting (ie; lying).
“Recent Economic Performance and Outlook”
– http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2012/09.htm
There was no “PREFU in 2008 predict[ing] a decade of deficits” . No Treasury report ever stated that.
You’ve made it up. (But feel free to re-post the actual quote from Treasury, if you can find it. You won’t though. It doesn’t exist.)
In short, you and IV – both committed National/ACT members/supporters – keep posting your lies because you have nothing else to throw against Labour.
Desperation on you part, I guess.
But, as I posted elsewhere; keep posting your lies, Gosman and IV; I’ll just keep posting the corrections. And more people will pick up on it, and in turn throw it back at you.
You’re actually doing us a favour.
You have constantly been directed to the section in the 2008 Prefu where this prediction was made. You choose to ignore this and instead keep bringing up a 2011 Treasury update instead. I was thinking you might be using this as a tactic to avoid dealing with unpleasant facts but now I suspect you don’t really understand the data people have shown you. Truly bizarre.
Because the report you linked to does not mention a “decade of deficits”.
It simply does not exist. If it did – you would have posted it here by now.
I challenge you to C&P it, and post it here, along with the correct link.
It does Frank. I have provided a link to it below but will do so again here.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2008/027.htm#sthash.7JV2f5aG.dpuf
Figure 2.12 in the medium term outlook is the one you are interested in. Read it and then address it. Do not refer to subsequent documents because all they do is confirm the prediction made here in 2008.
“Building on the deterioration since the Budget Update in the fiscal outlook in the forecast period discussed earlier in this chapter, the medium-term projections show that this deterioration continues throughout the 10-year projection period”
Here is the quote you asked for. What do you think this taken with the data in graph 2.12 mean?
Is that the same as a “structural decade of deficits”?And how does that relate to Labour instead of the global financial crisis?? Goosey, you’ve been caught out telling porkies!
Yes, yes it is. I take it you don’t understand the difference between Structural and Cyclical deficits. For your information you don’t predict ten years out based on the cyclical type but you do for structural.
WTF?!
That’s your “decade of structural deficits”?!
Gosman, your dishonesty is abundantly apparent when you’ve taken a statement and assigned a meaning to it that exists only in your mind.
A “decade of structural deficits” is not the same as “deterioration continues throughout the 10-year projection period”.
That Treasury statement;
1. Does not refer to “structural”,
2. Does not refer to “deficits”
3. “Deterioration” refers to any number of things and in this case, it referred to the Global Financial Crisis.
You really are pathetic. You’ve made an assertion and you’ve failed to back it up.
Only a total numbnuts like you could take a statement and assign an entirely new meaning to it.
PLEASE ADDRESS THE DATA IN FIGURE 2.12!!!!
The OBEGAL graph. What does it show Frank?
You keep avoiding this for some reason.
Never mind that fucking graph, Gosman. Enough of your pathetic deflections.
You took the 2008 PREFU statement from Treasury and assigned comments to it that do not exist.
Treasury never referred to a “decade of structural deficits” – you’ve made it up.
In other words, you have lied.
Admit it or piss of.
WHAT DOES THE GRAPH SHOW?
I recall Labour ran continual surpluses and were derided by National for not having a spend up on tax cuts amongst other things, remember the sarcastically named chewing gum budget, accusing Cullen of being tight-fisted when he was being careful? Especially as he knew of the effects of the drought at that time. To quote ” Agriculture Minister David Carter has revealed that the nationwide drought between spring 2007 and autumn 2008 cost the New Zealand economy $2.8 billion”.
The US housing market bubble peaks in about 2006, and by 2008 well before the general election everyone knew the worlds finances were in melt down. But National chose to cut taxes nevertheless.
This myth about National inheriting a tanking economy doesn’t get any more truthful because its repeated multiple times. They knew exactly what was going on as much as Labour. Had Cullen not been cautious and had the tax spend up then yes the economy would have tanked well and truly.
And I would argue that the ugly truth about poverty isn’t that it’s not real but rather because is no one who is in the poverty situation cares, its NZ after all. Don’t judge, don’t hold an opinion, worry about my own little corner of the world, don’t rock the boat. Kiwi’s are by nature apathetic, let someone else get involved, do something about it.
This subject is like the special needs relative who one sees every couple of years, you know they’re there, you know you should do something to help every now and then but its best not to think about it, don’t make eye contact. The important thing is as long as I’m alright.
So it wont be an election issue, not yet anyway, rather it will be one of those uncomfortable silences for now.
Labour ran surpluses until they didn’t. They left the country with at least 10 years of deficits, structural deficits at that, because of spending bribes. They also ‘munted’ economic growth by taxing innovation and hard work.
Intrinsicvalue says:
April 3, 2014 at 6:58 pm
Labour ran surpluses until they didn’t. They left the country with at least 10 years of deficits, structural deficits at that, because of spending bribes. They also ‘munted’ economic growth by taxing innovation and hard work.
What does that even mean?!
Labour ran surpluses for nine years.
If he was so useless, it’s unbelievable that the Nats appointed him the chair of the New Zealand Post Group!
Funny that, eh?
Now you’re just spewing stupid ACT rhetoric. Oh well, I guess it’s either that or incest…
What “spending bribes”?
Are you referring to Working for Families?
If so, you’ll know that WFF was introduced in 2004, when the New Zealand economy was performing superbly under Labour. Labour committed to funding WFF – and still posted surpluses!
Meanwhile, English tried his hand at “spending bribes” through two tax cuts in 2009 and 2010, and plunged the country into a $55 billion fiscal debt-hole!
So, my little mindless Tory sycophant… you were saying? 😉
By the way, you’re not as ‘sharp’ as you think you are, IV. You can parrot ACT bullshit and lies until the moo-cows come home. But it’s all easily dismissed and shown as the lies that they are.
You really are showing members of the public reading this that ACT and National are totally discredited as “fiscal managers”.
Oh really, IV?!
Funny… that’s not what your glorious Dear Leader asserted on 9 December 2013;
Source: http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/mind-gap-key-tackles-child-poverty-video-5766147
Gosh, one of you has f****d up on that score and one of you is lying. Let’s see… who’s the biggest liar from the Right, these days?!
(PS: I have plenty more like this where they came from…
I can either “drip feed” Key’s (and other’s Nat’s) quotes, or do a single blogpost. Which should I do, IV?)
Prove it Intrinic Act Supporter. You haven’t been abe to prove ay of your bs! Why is tax cuts not a bribe in our books? Especially hen the Nats had to borrow to make up for tax shortfalls? why is that ‘sustainable’ but Labour’s policies weren’t?? After all, the economy grew very well under Labour and we had the lowest unemployment in decades. English left us with a decade of deficits from what Gooseman has been writing. Even you’ve had to admit that Cullen ran he economy so well that Labour had 9 surpluses during their run. In contrast all you’ve given us is lies. Is that the best you can do??
Cullen did indeed post nine consecutive surpluses, X-Ray – http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/nats-lies-and-videotape/
By contrast, Bill English has posted no surpluses – only deficits.
Cullen paid down most of New Zealand’s sovereign debt.
Bill English increased that debt from around $8 billion to over $55 billion. As reported,
“The level of public debt in New Zealand was $8 billion when National came into office in 2008. It’s now $53 billion, and it’s forecast to rise to $72 billion in 2016. ”
Unemployment was around 3.4% in 2007.
It is now around 6% – with under-employment rising. (If you work at least one hour, paid or unpaid, NZ Stats considers you as “employed”. Howzat for “jiggery-pokery”?!)
Cullen cut taxes in October 2008 before the worst of the GFC/Recession impacted on our economy. (Though it’s still questionable if he should have proceeded with that tax cut, applying the same ruler to him as I’ve done to English.)
English cut taxes in 2009 and 2010, and subsequently had to borrow billions to make up for the revenue shortfall. Even English understood that it was irresponsible in the extreme,
“Govt borrowing $380m a week”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10724665
So despite ” the Government’s financial position had deteriorated “significantly” since late 2008″, English still cut taxes; which resulted in a drop in revenue; resulting in National having to borrow to make up the shortfall.
If this isn’t fiscal mis-management on a grand scale, I don’t know what is.
And the irony? Supposedly “fiscal conservatives” like Gosman and Intrinsicvalue think this is all acceptable.
But what’s the bet that if Cullen had borrowed $47 billion, that both Gosman and IV would be shrieking hysterically about it! Of course they would.
They’re right-wingers and live in their own world, divorced from reality.
Cutting taxes in a recession is sound economics Frank. It stimulates growth, and is one of the reasons NZ is performing so well at present. Do you really not understand this stuff?
Piffle – Krugman has a swathe of studies that consistently demonstrate tax cuts have little or no stimulatory effect.
You really need to learn something about economics instead of blindly repeating the superstitious cant of your fellow charlatans.
There’s not much hope for your economics – you don’t seem to understand the concept of evidence, but if you really work at it you have an outside chance of being an effective troll. Try this link: http://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Troll
Are you serious? This is economics 101. Here’s some really simplestuff for you to read.
http://www.scmp.com/business/economy/article/1463420/beijing-moves-stimulate-economy-tax-cuts-rail-projects
http://www.moneychimp.com/articles/econ/tax_cuts.htm
Ha ha ha ha ha ha!
Where do the Gnats get them!
You so funny IV.
Also completely wrong.
Moneychimp is right – why would you think anyone would pay any heed to a rubbish link like that? No evidence, no studies, just the raw opinion of someone no smarter than a Gnat MP…
Aren’t you ashamed to be fooled by such trash?
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2012/10/do-tax-cuts-stimulate-the-economy.html
Evidence based research you thicko – no more of your inbred hillbillygnomics thank you very much.
How come it didn’t work then, Intrinsic Act supporter?
You keep ignoring this Frank.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2008/027.htm
Figure 2.12
Can you actually address that rather than referring to some later document?
Righto. I asked for the quote as well as the link.
Nowhere in your linked item is there a reference to a “structural decade of deficits”.
If it existed, you would have posted it.
You’ve been caught out fibbing, Gosman. Man up, own it.
The decade of deficits projected is right there in the charts Gosman cited, Frank. Look it up.
I did.
Treasury never made the statement “structural decade of deficits”.
Gosman lied. Again.
Do you know what a structural deficit is versus a cyclical one don’t you Frank? I’ll give you a clue. You don’t predict ten years in the future based on cyclical reasons.
As an aside, anyone can find out for themselves that Treasury never made the statement by simply entering “Treasury structural decade of deficits nz” into a Google search field.
The result will show several possible variants – but no such statement attributed to Treasury.
You and Gosman are guilty of falsifying statements.
See above. You need to understand what a structural deficit is before you state Treasury didn’t predict it.
Now I am someone who rapidly glides over indigestible clumps of numbers.
But I can manage words.
At a certain point in 2008 the Entrail Readers at the Treasury made ‘forecasts’. As best they could, they presented what they deemed true and likely AT THAT POINT. ‘If nothing changes – this is likely.’
To keep banging on about a set of computer-generated maybe ifs and it’s possible thats is, is, Silly.
Things have changed – and not in a nice way. If Treasury could actually improve its forecasting – sort of within cooee of what the Met Office produces week in and out for the use of businesses and the public – they could be taken with a grain of salt.
But.
They’re so often wildly wrong.
Unfortunately.
But they were pretty much spot on.
“The country is moving into surplus on it’s internal accounts…”
There is no apostrophe in its. Its is a possessive pronoun.
It takes the place of a noun. Shows ownership.
It’s = it is.
Thought you may want to know.
Don’t you just love all the minuses you collect?
Thanks for the grammar check, I do appreciate it. And yes I love the minus’s. It makes me laugh that people actually click the down thumb sometimes when I’m just posting a link!
IV – in accountancy terms you are the greatest debtor on this blog, that is, perhaps after Gosman.
Oh I hope so!
“And yes I love the minus’s” (sic)
I think you’ve done it again ,IV, or is the above quote a sic(k) apostrophe joke?
I believe “minus” is a preposition, or short for the phrase “minus sign”, so ” Lane” was also on the wrong road with his/her “minuses”.
I think to be grammatically correct one would have to say, “And*, yes, I love the many minus signs”; however, I would welcome any correction from anyone who** has a superior command of the English language than poor, dyslexic me.
N.B.* Many pedantic people frown of starting a sentence with a conjunction.
**was tempted to go with a “for whom”!
Bomber may wish to note that New Zealand was today ranked #1 for social progress by an independant international body. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11231593
He may also wish to note that our Beneficiaries have so much money they can afford International Flights.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11231545
These don’t exactly add up with his opinion piece.
Excellent. Yes both pieces should be compulsory reading for Martyn, Frank et al.
You are both clearly very fiscally aware!
I was thinking that these types of deliberately mischievous misrepresentations are as relevant and truthful as those other stories that sought to shock us. Those describing that households of 6 adults and 10 or so children were collecting more than $2000 dollars per week in benefits, or $100,000pa. I thought they just typified the nastiness that is Paula Bennett and National.
Clearly not, but why don’t either of you detail a budget that could defend your implied claim that the benefit could have funded sufficient savings to take such a trip. Just because you can.
How do you explain the fact that thousands of people in receipt of benefits are taking overseas trips then?
Based on what? Unsubstantiated claims by Paula Bennett?
Nah, you’ll have to do better than that, sunshine.
“deliberately mischievous misrepresentations”?? Really?
IV – sheer desperation! After draconian benefit reforms (extreme pre benefit activity expectations, drug testing regime, “social obligations” for beneficiary parents – but not “normal” parents, stops on benefits when any kind of warrant for arrest may be out on a client, extremely harsh medical regime for sick and disabled) were introduced in July last year, that will have driven many, especially younger ones, to try all to get the hell out of this nutty place.
The benefit regime here can perhaps be matched by the one in the UK, but in most of Europe, people would not put up with the constant harassment that so many suffer at the hands of WINZ and that nasty Minister at the very top, constantly brining more nasty bits of law changes to make life more miserable for tens of thousands.
.
It would make a welcomed change from your constant lies, IV… You’ve run out of mis-information and started repeating your bullshit…
DO you think the # 1 social progress thing is like it is because of this government? The way this government is going we won’t be like that for long. According to the think tank, we’re in the top for…….
1. personal rights and freedoms. We also hit the world news for the way this govt spies on its people. They get away with it because there is no accountability to the people. More revelations to come with Edward Snowden.
2.water and sanitation. Not in my neighbourhood. The river that was a district icon, part of the passages of rites for local children, is no longer swimmable. And we are 32nd for ecosystem sustainability. Is the govt. doing anything about long term preservation of our ecosystem? Or do they just want to frack, build damns to encourage more dairy farms in a place where it is just stupid to do establish such a thing? I could go on. mines etc etc.
3. Access to schooling and tertiary education. And how long will access to quality schooling and tertiary education continue? Only the rich will be able to access high quality education soon.
4.tolerance and inclusion of minority groups…..riiight? Ok. Only because the minority groups have fought for it. Thank the activists for this one.
However:
low 28th on nutrition and basic medical care partly because of a relatively high death rate for women in childbirth,
35th for health and wellbeing partly because of high obesity and suicide rates, and as was said eco sustainability.
The long term future of our supposedly pristine environment is at risk if we don’t do so something about it now. We can’t afford to be complacent. We’re heading down that long slippery slope, the same way as our education system is going unless we do something about it now. Really I don’t think people can crow and say it is because of this government we came out at #1.
Intrinsic, your a idiot. You have no idea how much the dole is, never mind all your other bigottry!
So, Matthew, care to tell us what a beneficiary recieves on the dole?
Because I don’t, for one moment, believe Bennett’s assertions here. This is another round of bene-bashing, as National is facing real challenges by Opposition parties. Their internal polling must be revealing some disturbing trends?!
So tell us, Matthew; what is the unemployment benefit for a person, per week?
I doubt you know the correct figure.
Well, for most beneficiaries they can only manage a year on the benefit before the government cuts it, unless you are a family. The benefit is barely enough to cover accommodation, potentially you could earn $50 a week* on the benefit if you go to their courses (but only if you have low accommodation costs); she seems to be bashing the unemployed that have savings and are looking for work. Outside their rhetoric though, the government makes sure to hide the rising rate of homelessness which has resulted from forcing people off the benefit – in fact we don’t know the true numbers because the census doesn’t interview the homeless as it does households (a big mistake to be sure).
*Though this would be eaten up on healthcare and other living costs, so you wouldn’t really be earning anything,
It’s interesting that the Rockefeller Foundation, who established Chicago School economics, should wish to create an alternative to Amartya Sen’s HDI, that tended to highlight NZ’s rather steep decline against our global neighbours.
But no particular surprise we rank highly in social progress, the tragedy is that new measures like this cannot follow the history of our decline – so much ground has been lost under this ignorant corrupt and benighted government.
The Rockefeller Foundation did not found the Chicago School of Economics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Foundation
Nowhere in that is there a mention of the Chicago school of economics.
http://economics.uchicago.edu/about/history.shtml
Nowhere in there is there mention of the Rockefeller Foundation.
This is just another wacky left wing conspiracy theory.
Geez Gosman – you don’t even know about the Rockefeller gift? Google it you ignorant prat.
J D Rockefeller gave a grant to help set up the University of Chicago. It was not to set up the Chicago school of economics nor did the Rockefeller foundation provide funds for it. They are different things.
Like Key’s investments and his blind trust?
Ummm… no. The Rockefeller Foundation is not the same as J D Rockefeller. It certainly used to have a major connection to him but as he has been dead for a while it really is not doing his bidding anymore.
International flights, yeah sounds expensive, but where to? A cheap budget fare over the ditch most likely in the majority of cases I suspect, as well as staying with friends or family.
Where’s the evidence generous benefit payments are responsible for the fares? What about the reasons for their travel? How long was their stay overseas? How many were aware of the newly introduced criteria for travel when receiving a benefit?
Perhaps many indebted themselves for the fare? Family overseas provided the fare? Why travel? Scout out job opportunities overseas? Short get-together with family over Christmas?
All this story provides is more questions than any real insight. Sensationalist material to further fuel prejudice rather than understanding.
I know many unemployed having extreme difficulty finding work and many workers desperately holding on to their jobs, because they know if they’re lost they will be hard pressed finding another. Stories from above of how wonderful life is in this country maybe true for them, but is definitely not the reality I witness on a daily basis for many.
These welfare reforms, nothing more than indignant measures to deny many a safety net while they fall below. Looks like this is how the asset selling, squeeze hard, “rockstar economy” will deliver a precious surplus.
This country the world’s most socially advanced? More to be ashamed of then proud. I pity the poor folks elsewhere.
From the same “independent international body” report on NZ quoted in the right wing rag’s article….
“It scores a low 28th on nutrition and basic medical care partly because of a relatively high death rate for women in childbirth, 35th for health and wellbeing partly because of high obesity and suicide rates, and 32nd for ecosystem sustainability.”
Get “Real Matthew” our low population figures account for some of our “social progress” stats. Wondering how we can be ranked “32nd for ecosystem sustainability”, while having such low population figures, would be a better use of your time.
There are other nations on that list with both smaller populations and lower population density. You are just gutted that the report destroys the leftist meme that we have turned in to some right wing dystopia.
Gosman,
Some have smaller populations, granted, but surely you do realise that virtually all of them have much smaller land areas and therefore much lower population densities. I would have thought this fact was oblivious and didn’t need to be pointed out; I was forgetting how pedantic you can be.
The only outlier I picked from the list was the Republic of Congo, but Wikipedia tells me it’s one of the most urbanised counties in Africa due to its extensive forested areas. No doubt you’ll let me know if you find some more. Iceland and Liberia have similar population numbers but only half our land area.
Why haven’t you addressed the point I made about economical sustainability?
I feel very privileged to be living in this country which is far from a dystopia, however, I believe it could be improved by voting out this self-serving government. It would also help if we could develop a more compassionate, alteristic, community and learn to respect nature.
“Why haven’t you addressed the point I made about economical (sic) sustainability?”
Correction: economical should read ecosystem.
What a dumbass, oh well, at least I get to ask Gosman the question again.
I feel like Estrogen, in Samuel Beckett’s absurdist play, “Waiting for Godet”. Gosman also never turns up to answer awkward questions or face irrefutable facts.
Ask the question again please as I am not sure what it is you are asking..
Original quote…”Wondering how we can be ranked “32nd for ecosystem sustainability”, while having such low population figures, would be a better use of your time.” This ranking seems quite low when we have promoted ourselves as being clean, green and 100% pure. I was asking you to address that fact; apologies if I didn’t state it explicitly enough for you.
Found any more outlier countries yet from the report? I could only find the Republic of Congo but there may be more?
Did you watch the video link I posted so you could understand the implications of exponential growth? If not the chess board analogy I also posted works quite well.
Estrogen is now taking off his boots ,Godet/Gossman
Heard on Rado NZ from Marilyn Waring that he so-called “ranking” is dubious and created by some outfit no one has ever heard from before. So who are they and how credible are they? Not much accordng to Ms Waring.
By the way Matthew, don’t believe everything you hear from politicians, didn’t your mother ever tell you that??
I doubt beneficiaries can afford to fly overseas on $210 a week!
Harvard Business School. Haha. Social progress according to them would be CEO salaries.
As someone else here has done, I challenge you to prepare a budget based on a beneficiary income which can include an international flight. If you want to know the costs, try the checkin counter at a flight to Apia. Ask loudly about any beneficiaries who may be catching a flight. Then tell them they have no right to use a ticket paid for by a friend or relative to attend a family funeral. Put your money where your stupid mouth is. Paula will be so proud of you.
Social progress measured on a set of values that were randomly set, and vastly different to other surveys, so no wonder you get different results. It is a bit like the frequent claim this country is the least corrupt in the world, as Transparency International like to claim, but who actually gives them the data to base their assessments on?
http://www.transparency.net.nz/2013/05/
Look that up, and it gives you some clues. With so many fraud and other peculiar cases before the courts, and with government agencies covering each other, and with the Commissioners for health and disability, privacy and other areas simply being there to bump off complaints, this country is not as pure and innocent as you try to claim.
I bet the same applies to that survey on social aspects.
It just happens to be so, that NZ media and governments always cherry pick the surveys that make them feel best, and that make people pat each other on shoulders, whether justified or not.
As for beneficiaries traveling, the data published does say less than it seems. Some get money to travel from relatives, others may save a bit over time by sharing flats and houses of relatives and friends, or live in caravans or sheds, or garages, to get the money together to get out of the country that offers them little prospects.
Many will have tried to go to Australia and try and get work there, and returned if they failed. Telling WiNZ that they would do that, and having their benefit cut right away, that would leave them in situation unable to earn anything, to pay power, and other bills that may need paying. Transits are not easy to finance. And many others will simply have flown to Samoa, Sydney or Melbourne, to catch up with family or friends.
That says little about too high benefits, it says more about desperately managing with little, and desperately trying to get out of a country with comparatively low wages and few jobs that pay a living.
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10536181
Quote:
“After 14 years of surpluses, we now face nine years of deficits.
After a sustained reduction in public debt – under Governments of both stripes – it is now set to rise relentlessly over the next 10 years, well before the worst of the fiscal pressure from retiring baby-boomers hits.
Michael Cullen is right to point out that even after the forecast deterioration, which he suggested no finance minister should be comfortable with, New Zealand’s Government accounts would still look good by international standards.
Unfortunately our external accounts – large trade and current account deficits and net international liabilities of nearly 90 per cent of GDP – are really bad by international standards.”
Thankyou for finally admitting that Labour posted nine consecutive surpluses, IV.
English, by comparison, has posted nothing but deficits.
Cullens remarks were made in October 2008 – before National sabotaged government revenue by implemented two tax cuts that were unsustainable and grossly irresponsible.
Who in their right mind (right wingers excepted) cuts revenue at a time when there is an economic downturn looming?!
If Labour had done that, you National/ACT supporters would be frothing at the mouth!
IV – I don ‘t know if you’re conscious of what you’re doing, but almost everything you post actually undermines your argument and backs up the points I’ve been making.
“Thankyou for finally admitting that Labour posted nine consecutive surpluses, IV. ”
Finally? It’s published data Frank. Note though that the Labour Govt. inherited 5 years of surplus’s from National!
“English, by comparison, has posted nothing but deficits. ”
Which were forecast to last for 10 years under Labour’s policies, and which English has turned into surplus within 6. He’s a good man that.
Took you long enough Intrinsic-sycophant! LOL!
More ACT lies?
Because really, IV, you and Gosman haven’t presented any evidence for that rubbish. Just your usual made-up ACT bullshit and lies.
The fact is simple; Treasury never said anything about a “decade of structural deficits”.
You and Gosman made it up.
And when challenged, Gosman could not present any examples of Treasury ever making such a statement.
You are both liars.
And you lie because the facts do not back up your position.
It’s tragic when you have to resort to falsities to try to prove your case.
Because here’s the nub of the matter – what is the point of trying to prove the validity of your ideological position when you have to use mis-quotes, distortions, cherry-picked data, and outright lies to do it?
What is the point?
Now Frank I want you to read that very carefully and tell me which part of it you don’t understand.
Just for fun – what did the PREFU for the incoming Labour government predict after far too many years of National? (1999)
It would be useful to have the comparison, no?
Labour inherited fairly high unemployment and some unpleasant labour laws. What did the books look like?
@ Andrea – I’ve had a brief look, and it certainly is interesting;
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/1999
From the Economic Outlook, page 1;
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/budget/1999/pdfs/prefu99-1.pdf
Treasury’s final assessment of the 2000-08 period was an averaged 3.5% annual growth.
“Recent Economic Performance and Outlook”
– http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2012/09.htm
And this bit,
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/budget/1999/pdfs/prefu99-3.pdf
There is, however, much more to the 1999 PREFU, and I’ve only had a quick glance…
The government gets away with what it is doing, largely because too many of the New Zealand public are themselves in denial. Of course the ones at the coal face of poverty and underemployment cannot avoid seeing what is going on in socio economic terms.
But the rest cling to what they have, and fear losing that, so they rather stick with the status quo, as the political alternative (opposition) has not got their plans in order, at least they do not present a convincing enough alternative.
People are living in deluded condition though, as the sudden drop in dairy commodity prices shows, and as the slowdown in Mainland China shows. New Zealanders do in their majority not see and heed the warning signals. Housing is in crisis, now I hear that there are many cases where people had their leaky homes “fixed”, only to find that the workmanship of the repairs was as shoddy as the original structures and fittings.
Most cling to their individual motorised transport, to saving and borrowing to pay for exorbitant house prices and rents, rather eat low quality food and risk their health, to keep up with paying off debts they incurred for all they drive in and live in.
The government just announced plans to free up massive marine areas for explorative drilling for oil and gas, which is bordering on insanity. Yet there is almost no protest to be heard. Cutting the branch off that you sit on, that seems a close enough comparison, but nobody seems to care about global climate change and the consequences, affecting their kids and grandchildren (if they have any).
The media has done a thorough job is misinforming, in basically not informing about things that matter at all, so most are conditioned and drilled into working, earning, shopping and paying, and that has become the sole purpose of life for most.
Welcome to the hamster wheel existence, dear fellow citizens, it is a great life, running and running, and getting nowhere, really.
So only few can think ahead, challenge the status quo and dare to consider alternatives.
The challenge lies in getting more shaken out of their indifference or brainwashed conditions, and if that does not happen, many will indeed believe, hey, we live in a “rock-star economy”, which in reality can hit rock bottom much faster than many would dread to imagine.
In summary: A sad state of affairs, maintained by liars, manipulators, who have nothing on their mind, but serving their own interests, and those of a selected few that support them doing what they do.
“The government just announced plans to free up massive marine areas for explorative drilling for oil and gas, which is bordering on insanity.”
No, it isn’t. This Govt. is looking at ways of ensuring the country’s long term economic prosperity, and energy independence is a sound platform to move towards.
The only thing this government is looking for is excuses for its consistent non-performance. That’s what the bene-bashing is all about, and the media siege of Cunliffe.
None of these neo-lib fantasies can actually work without scrupulous honesty and a great deal of entrepreneurship and energy. NZinc simply does not have, and never has had the talent. They are sneaky little creeps who can’t make a buck except off the government, but they all think they’re John Galt.
IV – Energy independence would be best achieved by getting independent from fossil fuels, but for fossil minded persons that is too hard, yes impossible to grasp.
As for exploring oil and gas, I think the government is desperate to extend areas for exploration. They had hoped that by now some new oil and gas fields would have been found, but they have not. So they desperately hand over more sea area for explorers to drill in, hoping they will strike some.
All the potential earnings from perhaps existing, not yet found fields, would not be that great, as royalties will be limited, and as the fields in this part of the world will only be of minor sizes. It is a waste of time, and will only delay the change over to sustainable, and alternative energy use, which means missing the train, while others in other countries are jumping onto the train.
New Zealand will continue heading to the cliff, and only will people wake up, when they hit the bottom of it, when it is too late to make the change in an affordable, and gradual manner. But that is sadly how most seem to think, too short sighted, and not getting it (yet).
Good luck, have you tried drilling in your back yard yet, as you sound desperate and opportunistic enough to do this?
Quite right.
Algal biodiesel is the technology to perfect – we have superior UV levels, and the waste product is vegetable matter suitable for cattle feed or paper.
Growth rates of over 100% a day are quite feasible, (it grows 100% in twenty minutes in ideal conditions) the limiting factors are:
1 high yield strains – a matter readily solved by selective breeding, something NZ scientists understand rather well.
2 a robust and easy to operate culture system – no-one has a great one yet but it’s light engineering – NZ tends to be good at that.
The country that perfects algal biodiesel won’t have balance of payments problems for a while. It’s carbon neutral. Algae (including blue-green bacteria) are probably responsible for petroleum deposits in the first place.
It used to be in New Zealand that however much you hated or distrusted the government, at least you had confidence in the integrity of official statistics. This National government has destroyed this integrity. It is on a par with the Asian “democracies” Cambodia, Malaysia, Indonesia, Shri Lanka where you can’t believe a word they say or write and the only information they give is information that makes them look good. This is corruption, pure and simple.
The following are the recorded GDP growth rates for NZ:
1999 Last year of National Govt. 5.1%
2000 2.3%
2001 3.6%
2002 4.9%
Now here’s where it get’s interesting…
2003 3.9%
2004 3.5%
2005 3.2%
2006 1.7%
2007 3.6%
2008 -1.9%
So, aside from the year before election year(!), the GDP rate was tanking, and before the GFC.
Now…
2009 0.9%
2010 0.2%
2011 1.1%
2012 3.0%
2013 3.1%
So what this shows is that under Labour growth was shrinking well before the GFC, under National growth has been increasing DURING the GFC.
IV, re your April 4, 2014 at 12:02 pm post above. It’s bullshit.
I don’t know how many times I’ve posted this for you, but here it is again;
“Recent Economic Performance and Outlook”
– http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2012/09.htm
If you have a problem with that reality, take it up with the marxist-leninists at Treasury. Don’t waste our time with trying to disprove the truth.
Treasury also reported that the economy grew by an average of 3.5% during Labour’s tenure.
Your misinformation is a sad attempt to smear Cullen’s administration of the economy – but that’s only because you’re a dishonest little ACT supporter than can’t rely on the truth to support his own pathetic little Nil-Percent Party.
You and Gosman are tragic little Tory figures, grasping at straws to try to discredit the previous government – simply because National/ACT have mismanaged the economy since 2008.
By the way, I note you don’t provide a link to your stats. That makes your figures dubious, as you are well known for mis-information and lying.
Why would I disagree with your cite from Treasury? They provide some background to why Cullen’s economy was tanking. Some. Not all. But even they allude to Cullen’s self inflicted foot injury (High food inflation, high interest rates)..
You still haven’t explained how in a shrinking economy Cullen managed to achieve high interest rates and inflation. It’s going to take some explaining.
That’s because there’s nothing to “explain”. Once again, you are lying.
The economy did not “shrink” under Labour (but it did shrink under National – which your bullshit figures above fail to show. Hence why no citation?)
In fact, according to treasury, it grew at an average 3.5% “Recent Economic Performance and Outlook”
– http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2012/09.htm
So that’s what ACT ideological position is predicated on, IV? Lies?
No wonder you’re the Nil Percent Party.
Sad. And laughable.
IV – have you ever heard of economics 101?
One lesson is that economic growth usually comes in cycles and goes in cycles, on average it has mostly been about 4 to 5 year cycles of boom to recession and back up again.
As I see the figures, under Labour there was economic growth for 7 to 8 years, until a slow down occurred. That shows that under Labour economic growth lasted unusually long. So a downturn of sorts was overdue.
It may also have to do with housing slow down and with commodity prices, may it not?
Compare that to National, and when have they had growth for 7 to 8 years, please? As for that miniscule “growth” under National from 2008 on, it is more a stand still that occurred. Of course this country benefited from quantitative easing and infrastructure and other projects financed by cash injections in places like China, who counter acted the world wide downturn.
It had damned little to do with the NZ government’s actions that they saw themselves through the GFC as they did. Had it not been for China importing from NZ and increasing that recently, things would look rather differently here.
Again it was the quantitative easing and loose credit in China, that assisted NZ. Policies the Nats frown upon, if considered for NZ!?
You are exposing yourself to ridicule with that list of figures.
Yep, they are called Kondratiev cycles. And it is economics 101 that the upswings are shortened by high Government (and unproductive) spending and high taxation. The problem for those of you who defend Cullen’s economics is that he left the country’s economy with high interest rates, high inflation and negative growth, which defies any level of incompetence, because the three normally don’t go together. High interest rates normally lower inflation, but Cullen’s profligate spending mitigated against that impact. And an economy normally only has high inflation when growth is high.
I met Michael Cullen a couple of times, he was a lovely guy. Intelligent and witty. His academic career was as an historian. History will, unfortunately, judge him an economic illiterate.
Except, IV, none of that is true. You obviously are mad-as-a-hattrer and are simply repeating ad nauseum your ACT garbage.
Do you really think that repetition will somehow convince anyone?! Yup – mad as a hatter.
What you should have said is; The problem for those of you who defend Cullen’s economics is that he left the country’s economy with most sovereign debt paid off;’ 3.5% average annual growth; a tax cut; low unemployment; Working for Families; Kiwibank; rescuing Air New Zealand from bankruptcy; re-nationalising and rebuilding Kiwirail; and good social services.
Even Treasury confirmed that annual growth was averaging 3.5%.
So you continued tirades are nothing more than tiresome as well as dishonest.
I expect nothing more from ACT supporters like you.
“Except, IV, none of that is true.”
Show me one part that isn’t Frank.
“most sovereign debt paid off; 3.5% average annual growth;”
He damn well ought to have, considering the economic cycle the country was going through, but let’s not forget the economy was tanking from early 2006.
“a tax cut;”
Which you disagree with.
“low unemployment;”
Mostly because of the bloated public service.
” Working for Families”
Yep. Take billions from working people, cycle it through a bureacracy and give it back to some of the same people less the admin costs.
“Kiwibank”
Yep, hundreds of millions of cost, not a cent in dividends.
“rescuing Air New Zealand from bankruptcy”
Well let’s just say we can agree on that one.
“re-nationalising and rebuilding Kiwirail;”
You actually agree with the taxpaying investing one b$ in this white elephant?
“and good social services.”
No, bloated bureacracies, not delivering value for money and that the country couldn’t afford.
Labour stand for little more than high taxes, and inefficient social sending these days.
Finally someone on the left shows an understanding of Cyclical economic patterns.
Yes, Gosman, you two should be very happy together… 😀
One of us (Gos or I) would not survive being put in the same cage!
No doubt the coroner would find a diary on the body full of statistical proofs that he won conclusively.
Just a shame it isn’t Frank.
Yet no one is asking what the PM is spending his $1.4 million security overspend on. Seeing as we are such a socially progressive country with a decreasing reported crime rate. What is he worried about? Or more to the point what is he spending the money on so it won’t go through the ‘books?’ And this happens year after year after year.
Frank, Marc, Stuart
I want you to show me which parts of this data are incorrect:
When National took office inflation was a shade over 5%. It is now running at a shade over 1%.
Mortgage interest rates were around 11%. They are now under 6%.
GDP growth was (0.8%). GDP growth is currently running at over 3%.
The Current Account deficit as a % of GDP was 8.8%. It is now running at around 4.3%.
Household Debt as a % of disposable income was 151.9%, now it is 147.6%.
“Not “overspending” at all.”
Really?
Total Govt spending increased from around 4.5b to almost 6.5b under Clark/Cullen. The way they paid for that was running a high tax regime, and using up surplus’ earned by the private sector. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/government-spending)
Govt spending as a % of GDP went from 20.5% in 2001 to almost 25% in 2009, and that was during an economic upturn! National inherited an economy with ballooning Govt spending, structural deficits, high BoP deficits to GDP, and negative growth. Fact.
The following are the recorded GDP growth rates for NZ:
1999 Last year of National Govt. 5.1%
2000 2.3%
2001 3.6%
2002 4.9%
Now here’s where it get’s interesting…
2003 3.9%
2004 3.5%
2005 3.2%
2006 1.7%
2007 3.6%
2008 -1.9%
So, aside from the year before election year(!), the GDP rate was tanking, and before the GFC.
Now…
2009 0.9%
2010 0.2%
2011 1.1%
2012 3.0%
2013 3.1%
So what this shows is that under Labour growth was shrinking well before the GFC, under National growth has been increasing DURING the GFC.
Cites for data: World Bank.
Or, if you like, we could use http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=66&c=nz&l=en (similar, but actually show up Labour as even worse!)
1999 Last year of National Govt. 3.1%
2000 3.6%
2001 3.1%
2002 4.4%
2003 3.3%
2004 4.8%
2005 2.3%
2006 1.5%
2007 3.1%
2008 0.2%
2009 -1.7%
2010 1.5%
2011 1.4%
Two cites, both show growth in NZ in sharp decline from 2004. So not only did Cullen leave a decade of deficits, there is absolute proof that he also left a stagnating economy.
If we are to continue unpicking IV’s delusions, the failures of hard Freidmanite views and of Bill English’s great leap backward, it might be helpful to have a new thread – this one is becoming hard to follow – large distances between comments and replies.
I concur, Stuart…
The comments section was a fascinating read. I remember something about a rising clamour for tax cuts when Michael Cullen was Finance Minister. The fact that Labour did so well with surpluses was new to me. I guess as a swing voter that will be a factor to consider when I vote this year.
Stuart and Frank: thank you for the effort you’ve put into your thoughtful posts. I think I know more about the economy than I ever did or wanted to. I needed a couple of aspirin after digesting all those figures.
Intrinsicvalue and Gosman: sorry, you two are not very convincing, but each to their own opinion I say.
I think I have a better idea who I’ll be voting for this year, and it won’t be for Key this time.
Did you read the 2008 PREFU and in particular the Medium term outlook figure 2.12? If you did what are your thoughts on it from a swing voter point of view?
You might want to read this Frank, along with your socialist economist and cat hater.
http://www.nzfact.co.nz/press_releases/PwCReport-ECNZ.pdf
It shows that NZ Film industry has a value-add GDP of $1.3bn, almost 3 times that of the wine industry.
It seems your support of ‘value add’ is limited only to dreamed up Labour Party ‘crises’.
Lol.
the right cant hide it every time you pay rent ,travel ,pay a power bill,or years with out a pay rise you know theres some thing wrong a full weeks work no longer covers the bills 2+2=3 on planet key
a lot people forget private Dept. in new Zealand is a basket case any interest rises will wipe out a lot of people to many people have paid way to much for homes they are vulnerable to any shift in interest rates
Comments are closed.