What critics of Government Covid spending always refuse to acknowledge
The Government’s borrowing requirement is set to dwarf pre-Covid levels. Over the five-year forecast period, Westpac sees the Government raising $140b in bonds, $12b higher than the previous forecast of $128b.
Westpac is now pointing to 6% OCR because of huge immigration pressures, that’s the umpteenth time in a row the economists have been wrong about an OCR peak.
Yes our economy has been malformed and warped by the Covid response, but all those screaming at those ramifications ignore why we had to take on that debt in the first place!
COVID!
We faced a once in a century novel pandemic. We had to make decisions that hurt and damaged many lives.
We all sacrificed for the greater good because that was the best means of dealing with a novel virus.
Were there mistakes?
Of course and there were consequences, and those consequences were worth the alternative which was tens of thousands of dead in a mass death event altho would have mutilated this nation.
Critics pointing at the lack of a mass death event as proof that there never was one ignores what we had to do to ensure that didn’t happen!
It’s the most idiotic argument!
The ease with which we rewrite the recent past, to determine with the luxury of hindsight that Covid was just a cold when it has killed tens of millions around the globe is sophistry.
As climate change rapidly distorts weather and human density and animal populations are crammed together cheek to jowl, the possibility of a future pandemic with a far higher mortality rate is greater than ever before.
This level of national emergency event is always a possibility in this new environment.
That’s the new reality.
Increasingly having independent opinion in a mainstream media environment which mostly echo one another has become more important than ever, so if you value having an independent voice – please donate here.
If you can’t contribute but want to help, please always feel free to share our blogs on social media
Right on. The perpetual complainers, the ‘Never Happy unless I’m Unhappy’ horde, had it made.
If Covid deaths had swept the country heaps of them would’ve died and we wouldn’t have heard from those particular ones. They didn’t die because of measures taken and we have to put up with their bitching about the wrong things being done or too much being done.
And if David Seymour had been in charge, or Chris Bishop, everything would’ve been better. Would Michael Woodhouse still looked for mystery a mystery man in Queen Street?
Yes Peter the coalition of cuts(Nact) would have cut the health,education and police force budgets like previously and the models and the graphs wouldn’t have had enough numbers and pens to show the amount of deaths that would have occurred.
“Critics pointing at the lack of a mass death event as proof that there never was one ignores what we had to do to ensure that didn’t happen!”
The same argument is used by climate deniers. And this misguided argument can be shown as wrong so easily. For example…
So, if someone suggests parachutes aren’t necessary. Then 100s jump (with parachutes) and no-one dies. By the logic above, the lack of a mass death event is proof that parachutes aren’t necessary. Hmm, not sure I buy that.
yes, once again your right Queeny and we still have groups with their hands out the very ones that run down the current government and will vote for National and Act who have shown they care mostly about the rich and well-heeled peoples of this country. And these groups are never happy with there lot they want workers right now and it is alright for them to put their hands out when there is a flood, drought or disease outbreak but not others. And this privilege group who are very outspoken don’t care about the impact on our countries buckling infrastructure as long as they get what they want.
Personally I feel that the covid overspend by the labour government was a mistake and that the prime minister at the time, Jacinda Ardern, didn’t really know how else to deal with the economic fallout. I would have preferred the austerity measures toured as an option by the national party; however the thing about austerity measures is that timing is crucial, you only rarely get the timing exactly right, and so it would have spurred on an unnecessary deep recession.
Don’t remember the right critical of the handouts. In fact they admitted they would have done the same in hindsight.
There was know way they would have allowed mass deaths, unemployment and business failure.
The ones who are suffering now and making the most noise are those that jumped on the gravy train due to their inherently greedy nature.
I don’t think that the right would ever have decided to raise that much money in bonds. Not do I think that the right would have borrowed that much in order to spend. Rather, they would have reduced budgets across the board as it is the sensible thing to do in such a situation.
The labour overspend has been a contributing factor to our inflationary pressures, as well as the supply and demand issue. I think they waited too long to reopen the borders as well. They have no-one else to blame, therefore, but themselves for the inflation.
No, I would have preferred the economic plan touted by the National Party as a viable option for this country as we would now have less debt and less inflation. The downside here is that they would have reopened the borders way too early.
I understand that the inflation issue isn’t merely limited to New Zealand. This is because other countries have had higher rates of covid infections and thus it has been absolutely necessary for those countries to retain closed borders for such a long time.
If Roberston’s is out of his depth as you say Shona that must mean the National leader is out of his as he keeps saying he is not a career politician if so, why does he want to be our PM, isn’t it to have a political career.
I think it was on Luxons bucket list like his bro JK.
Forget ruining the country to the point Labour are in catch up mode, my bucket list will be complete.