ANZG: The Trans-Tasman Thread

[New Rogernomics]

If I leave National will be out of power in two years, if I stay it will be out in two years.

According to you.

According to the poll data, which has been showing declining popularity for two months now:

October 2012
NATIONAL (41.5%) LEAD OVER LABOUR (33.5%) REDUCES AGAIN.
LABOUR/GREENS/ NZ FIRST WOULD WIN AN ELECTION HELD NOW

September 2012
NATIONAL (43.5%) LEAD OVER LABOUR (33%) REDUCES
GOVERNMENT CONFIDENCE FALLS TO 110 (LOWEST SINCE ELECTION OF JOHN KEY)

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/federal-polls.cfm

[Jafas United]

Never said they were creationists, and they hate them by refusing them benefits and otherwise underfunding education, removing teachers aids and such.

That does not equate to hating them. Please show me where John Key, Bill English or any other National Party member has said, verbatim, that they hate the poor and disabled.

It's just your sensationalist nonsense which is all to evident.

Look at your own national standards.

Higher decile kids generally do better and lower decile kids generally do worse. Does this come as a shock to you?

And yes, national standards are flawed. Most of the data is subjective.

At least $10 billion, and increased pay for teachers; so probably $11-12 billion. Universities need a lot more, though that depends on whether the student loan system remains in place; if it remains in place then likely the govt will have to find billions more each year, slap on interest and it will just encourage even more professionals to leave the country for better pay to pay back their loans.

A sparkling idea. But where will all this money be coming from?

Really? I don't vote Labour, so I wouldn't know; if my choice was constrained to those two parties I would vote National over Labour. I vote Green instead.

What am I reading?

Just a few posts ago, you were revelling in your claim that National was about to lose power and Labour would increasing funding on all areas. Do you change your mind with every post, or what?

Depends, Labour has been unpopular for many years; and both NZ FIrst and the Greens, alongside the Conservatives are doing well in the polls. If the Greens overtake Labour then it won't lead them by much.

Thankfully, they won't overtake Labour. They don't even have a broad support base like Labour has.

The unemployment is going up, and is still going up;

And as I've pointed out it's up to business to create jobs, and it's up to us, the consumers to stop jobs from going overseas. You seem to think government jobs are the be all and end all.

what more needs to be said?

Retracting your absurd rants would be a start.

Do I have to say that the economic growth is mediocre as well?

No. Because it isn't. As I've fucking pointed out to you already.

Now I'm starting to worry for you. New Zealand is forecast to grow at 2.2% this year and over 3% next year, almost double that of most advanced economies. The US on the other hand, is forecast to barely make 2% next year.

If you compare NZ's economic indicators with all other OECD countries, we doing better than most. Our performance is positive and our outlook even better.

Should I start communicating to you in Finnish or Swedish, because clearly, English is not working?

[New Rogernomics]

That is so fucking unrealistic it is not funny. It is stupid. The government, even in times of low unemployment and high economic growth, has never had more than $10-12 billion in surplus for all funding allocations. The government doesn't have that kind of money and never really had, even in they hey-day money days before 2008.

Really? If NZ hadn't spent large sums of money on infrastructure in it's early days and gone into recession as a result; it would have never gained a higher GDP per capita than Australia. National and Labour mucked up, and let NZ fall behind; then responded with Muldoon's projects, Rogernomics, Ruthanasia then the Helen era; and now the Key era. It is far more loopy to believe that hundreds of billions (within this decade and the next) wouldn't be needed to clean up that mess.

You said National was promoting creationism by allowing a private Christian school to teach Christian beliefs. That seems a little illogical.

Not at all, if you want to preach that the Earth was created in 7 days fine; but don't put it alongside evolution and claim creationism is a credible theory. Why allow it to be taught at all, besides some absurd notion of religious freedom (to be stupid); as it has been put many times, if private/public schools are allowed to teach creationism, then why not that the Earth is flat; which is just as credible (if not more so) than creationism.

[New Rogernomics]

That does not equate to hating them. Please show me where John Key, Bill English or any other National Party member has said, verbatim, that they hate the poor and disabled. It's just your sensationalist nonsense which is all to evident.

Just as sensationalist as John Key blaming Labour for random people jumping into the parliamentary gallery.

A sparkling idea. But where will all this money be coming from?

National's money comes from foreign countries obviously, especially Australia through Westpac. But it will pay itself, once the kids leave Education and start paying tax. Not to mention increased infrastructure (especially broadband) would reduce business costs; and with children [turned adults] in the country to take up jobs without crippling student debt. I would say it would be paid off fairly quickly.

Just a few posts ago, you were revelling in your claim that National was about to lose power and Labour would increasing funding on all areas. Do you change your mind with every post, or what?

Reveling would imply partying, and I don't drink or take drugs. Better to have National turn NZ second world, and clean up the mess; than have Labour create more mess and never leave the system.

And as I've pointed out it's up to business to create jobs, and it's up to us, the consumers to stop jobs from going overseas. You seem to think government jobs are the be all and end all.

Why? Businesses have no incentive to create jobs, why should they pay workers more or employ more when it doesn't improve their profits. Businesses are not charities, and certainly without tax cuts, business loans and subsidies they aren't going to create a single job. That is how business works, consumers can buy what they like; and most likely they will buy cheap goods from overseas. Unemployment should reach 10-12%, and go up for a while. Wages will decline as a result, people will have less money to spend on luxuries (like NZ made goods); and it will just get worse from there.

[Moving Forward Inc]

That's great. It still doesn't prove your wild claims how National are creationists, hate the disabled etc.

Never said they were creationists, and they hate them by refusing them benefits and otherwise underfunding education, removing teachers aids and such. Edit: If you want a look at what the National ideal is, then if this libertarianz merges with Act; here it is: http://www.libertarianz.org.nz/policies/disability/

...We are not entitled to disability services...

National is a party for people who hate the disabled and view them as refuse (they cut the funding for disabled in schools), hate the unemployed with more venom that Romney is capable of, hate kids (closes their schools and cuts cooking and skills classes), want to destroy the environment (mining national parks for 1% royalty while foreign corporates take 99%), support creationism (charter schools) and believe in the free market myth.

Nice job avoiding the facts.

One question, if I don't give you something because it's mine, does that mean I hate you?
No.
There is no such thing as a right or entitlement to something that someone else owns, and therefore the idea that the disabled own anything that they didn't produce themselves is ridiculous.

MFI - Proud NZ citizen and Libertarianz party supporter.

[Jafas United]

Just as sensationalist as John Key blaming Labour for random people jumping into the parliamentary gallery.

Did you know that Robert Edwin Peary was the first person to reach the North Pole?

I only brought that up because that was just as relevant to what you posted.

National's money comes from foreign countries obviously, especially Australia through Westpac. But it will pay itself, once the kids leave Education and start paying tax. Not to mention increased infrastructure (especially broadband) would reduce business costs; and with children [turned adults] in the country to take up jobs without crippling student debt. I would say it would be paid off fairly quickly.

Do you even understand how simple economics works? What else has that so-called economist friend of yours been telling you?

Honestly, we are in deficit right now. You're expecting me to buy your claim that $11 billion can be easily paid off because people will be paying tax?

You're also ignoring the fact that surplus money will be spent in other areas, not just education. How much money do think the government has?

Reveling would imply partying, and I don't drink or take drugs.

It can also mean to take great pleasure from. Which is what I was implying. Learn your definitions, please.

Better to have National turn NZ second world, and clean up the mess; than have Labour create more mess and never leave the system.

National will not turn NZ into a second world country, nor are we heading down that path. No matter how much you seem to believe otherwise.

Not only are you confusing me, but you're confusing yourself. One minute you're saying Labour will fix the mess now you're saying National will do a better job. Am I on candid camera?

Why? Businesses have no incentive to create jobs,

Yes they do. John Key lowered the business tax rate, is that not incentive enough?

why should they pay workers more or employ more when it doesn't improve their profits. Businesses are not charities, and certainly without tax cuts, business loans and subsidies they aren't going to create a single job.

It improves their profits when businesses are doing well, thus they employ more people, thus production is increased, thus profits are increased. They lay off people when their business is not doing well, production is low and their profit margins are declining.

Besides why would any overseas employer want to set up in NZ with the threat of possible wahi tapu claims and overzealous green nuts?

That is how business works, consumers can buy what they like; and most likely they will buy cheap goods from overseas.

You're proving my point. So why, exactly, are you surprised and complaining about job losses?

Unemployment should reach 10-12%, and go up for a while. Wages will decline as a result, people will have less money to spend on luxuries (like NZ made goods); and it will just get worse from there.

Yeah. Says you.

And anyway, your argument still maintains the curious NZ obsession with minimum wage jobs. Does no one aspire to more than minimum wage any more? Everyone seems content to just sit back on minimum wage, put in minimum effort, and then complain about the government because the minimum wage is too low. But in that situation, it doesn't matter what they ever raise it to, it will never be enough.

[Costa Alegria]

Really? If NZ hadn't spent large sums of money on infrastructure in it's early days and gone into recession as a result; it would have never gained a higher GDP per capita than Australia.

Our maybe it's because our country is small and doesn't have that many resources and that much money in the first place. Australia has become insanely rich because they are bigge and have more resources.

Not because of policies. They haven't helped, but they aren't the sole cause.

It is far more loopy to believe that hundreds of billions (within this decade and the next) wouldn't be needed to clean up that mess.

It's even far more loopy to suggest that the government had hundreds of billions of dollars to spend in the first place. This is the problem. You want the government to spend money it doesn't have. How did you think we entered this crisis in the first place?

Not at all, if you want to preach that the Earth was created in 7 days fine; but don't put it alongside evolution and claim creationism is a credible theory.

And who says it was? If a Christian school wants to teach Christian values, it is well within its rights to do so despite what people like you think. I'm agnostic and I have no problem with Christian schools teaching Christian values. If that's what the school's PTA wants, that's what they want. Neither you or I could change that.

Why allow it to be taught at all?

If you want that logic then, why should we teach evolution? After all, it is, like creationism, only theory is it not? People teaching creationism in schools isn't degrading society but is part of the freedom that makes New Zealand what it is. Sorry you missed the memo when you moved here, but, as I have always said, the door's open. You are free to leave whenever you wish.

This absurd idea that people and governments are bad because they don't conform what you don't consider to be acceptable is absolutely pathetic. I'd have expected more from a grown man.

[Dread Lady Nathicana]

Fuck off then.

National is the devil.

You've lost your mind completely.

I really need lunch.

A brain wouldn't go amiss. Failing that, a gun.

Your learning curve seems to well ... not. *** 3-day ban *** - the baiting was bad enough, but suggesting your debate opponent is mentally deficient, and then topping it off with a 'why don't you go kill yourself' is right out of bounds.

If you can't learn to express yourself without crossing the line into rules-breaking territory, your stay here will be decidedly short. Ponder that, and read the rules while you're on this short vacation from the forums. Hopefully it will help.

[Radiatia]

Hi guys, hope you're all doing well. I'm just passing through here because, frankly, I have better things to do on Nationstates than spend the time flogging dead horses on NSG.

However a few points which may have already been mentioned by others but I'm just gonna touch upon them here, while they're on my mind:

Sorry but the high dollar is to do with government policies or rather economic inaction.

Explain.

It's not the government's fault that companies are set up in such a way that high exchange rates makes them less viable. If there was a method that would lower the value of the dollar without seriously destabilising the economy, it would have been used years ago. But there isn't.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, Jafas. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying but the implication here is that you oppose an exports based economy, or methods which would ensure that we retain our trade surplus?

Either way I partially agree with you. I cannot at this stage see any sense in Quantitative Easing.

Also @New Rogernomics - the high dollar is actually more to do with the decisions made by the Reserve Bank who, since the 1980s, have been more or less independent of the government and given the single task of controlling inflation. Now I would personally argue that the Reserve Bank needs to worry about factors other than inflation, seeing as controlling inflation is a means to an end rather than an end in and of itself but that is another matter entirely

The government's role is to make the environment friendly for businesses, this is a state capitalist system

State capitalism? Are you saying we should become like Singapore or China? What on earth are you talking about?

You also realise that New Zealand is ranked third in the world for ease of doing business, right?

New Zealand is among the only countries in the world that taxes businesses before they've even had a chance to make a profit. I'm not sure I would call this particularly business friendly.

And I can think of worse countries to emulate economically than China or Singapore.

However I can't see what you two are arguing here... I think we should all agree that the government does need to take measures to support the growth of the wealth generating private sector.

You can't grow an economy by allowing unemployment to spiral out of control

And which major party actually wants to see unemployment to increase? Enlighten my silly neoliberal mind. Please.

National and Act are the two parties who want to see unemployment increase, as both parties were as various times led by former Reserve Bank Governor Donald T Brash.

Brash, during his time as Reserve Bank governor, along with his predecessor, argued that unemployment should never fall below around 6%, because otherwise the workers (and unions) would have too much influence, no one would accept lower wage costs, wage costs would rise and, according to the theory he was following, so would inflation.

There has never been an official policy, by the way, but the Reserve Bank will always raise interest rates if unemployment falls to a level they consider too low in order to prevent full employment which they believe would cause inflation to rise.

you cannot grow an economy by cutting education spending and sacking tens of thousands of people (they spend money, which in turn stimulates the economy; and generates tax revenue).

And just where do you expect all these jobs to be? Where? What industries? We are all putting people out of work everyday. You shop online - there goes the retail sector. You bank online - there go the clerks. You want cheaper televisions, fridges, computers etc, jobs are outsourced to cheaper parts of the world. Where do you think these jobs are going to come from?

Call me old fashioned but if a certain person whose name rhymes with "Codger Shrugless" hadn't removed trade barriers, we probably wouldn't be seeing as many job losses in these fields.

Again this is where the government does need to step in and create incentives to employ more people - I'm talking real incentives, not "let's cut unemployment benefits so people accept lower wages" - and this is where they do need to take measures to encourage outsourcing - and yes, place a tax on buying online from overseas.

I am as guilty as everyone on this, but God, get some perspective and stop blaming the party you hate just because it's the trendy thing to do.

Calm down.

Government jobs aren't the answer to everything. In most cases, they're not. It's just people being paid for by other people's taxes. it makes no difference.

I agree, although having this indirect transfer of consumer capital from a government employer, to a producer, which would increase demand and therefore supply is not a bad idea in the short term. It's unsustainable in the long term however which I will assume you are referring to.

That is why the stimulus has saved the US economy and created jobs, whereas NZ austerity has done nothing

Now I'm starting to worry for you. New Zealand is forecast to grow at 2.2% this year and over 3% next year, almost double that of most advanced economies. The US on the other hand, is forecast to barely make 2% next year.

The US stimulus was a step in the right direction, but their problem is that the stimulus money didn't go towards American jobs and companies, because they failed to tackle the problem of low production, and simply assumed that increasing consumption would solve this.

NZ and the US are not comparable in this regards.

Again comments like "Now I'm starting to worry for you" are ad hominems which add little to the debate, and don't paint you in a very good light. Calm down mate we're all friends here.

Our credit rating is AA+ and is constantly confirmed for a positive outlook.

This is irrelevant if we are discussing whether or not we need a US style stimulus package.

You keep saying "austerity" as we're in some severe economic situation where the government has to take deep cuts. We're not. Kindly stop with the misleading exaggeration.

Partially agree. NZ's economic situation was never particularly bad compared to the rest of the western world.

However under Labour there was a budget surplus where we were able to continue relatively high spending.

National decided in 2008, in all its infinite wisdom, that the country could somehow afford populist tax cuts and not have to cut spending.

In 2011 and onwards, suddenly National realised they needed to cut spending. While I wouldn't call their budget "austerity" it certainly isn't helping anyone.

the effect being that any recovery is too slow and cannot keep pace with mounting debt. The debt is at such levels that only a change of government could hope to fix it,

Oh for Christ's sake, it's one of the lowest in the developed world. Enough with the hyperbole.

If you compare NZ's economic indicators with all other OECD countries, we doing better than most. Our performance is positive and our outlook even better.

Bro, calm down.

I agree with Rogernomics that NACTional's "hands off" economic plan isn't causing the rapid post-recession economic recovery that I would like to see. However Jafas, you are also correct that our economic indicators are not as bad as many on the left are making them out to be.

fortunately 'the left' as you call it is rising in the polls.

It is? National is comfortably ahead of Labour and John Key is miles ahead of David Shearer as preferred PM.

We live in an MMP country. FPP ended in the '80s and last year people overwhelming voted to keep it. (Personally I prefer FPP but that's a side issue).

The centre-left bloc is currently polling above the centre-right bloc. Labour's popularity and John Key's popularity don't come into it.

I will be glad to see John Key pack his bags back to Auckland, he can share a home with Ruthanasia

I'd hate to remind you that Ruthanasia was merely a continuation of your beloved Rogernomics.

Break it up.

and when Labour, NZ First and the Greens pour billions into the economy and education to create jobs; that is when the true recovery will began

So you want another Clark/Cullen style government with reckless spending to the extent that it cannot be politically unwound without severe economic repercussions?

Of course not, we need someone sensible like Key/English who will cut taxes to win votes, borrow so as not to cut spending and then complain three years later that the country is in a terrible debt and try to pin the blame on Labour.

Earlier in this thread you were hoping that eventually Labour would die out. Now you're hailing them as saviours from the wicked John Key. Why the change of heart?

By the way, we are already undertaking significant infrastructure projects which most developed economies can only dream of doing.

You mean like the Auckland Rail Loop that we never got because the money went towards a highway from the middle of nowhere to the middle of nowhere?

Or that bicycle track? THAT'S gotta be pouring tonnes of money into the economy!

An economist friend of mine believes that the NZ banks are set to collapse, because the profits are too high and that reveals massive flaws in the NZ economy.

Except for the fact that NZ banks have a positive outlook, as confirmed by credit agencies?

NZ banks? We still have NZ banks? I thought Australia owned the majority of our banks.

And the reason why banks are taking in large profits is because the banking sector is relatively stable. What kind of a pseudo-economist is your friend?

I don't agree or disagree, although again this snarkiness is why I don't even bother with NSG anymore. You may be right, Jafas but I'll have to look at the facts before passing judgement.

National is a party for people who hate the disabled and view them as refuse (they cut the funding for disabled in schools), hate the unemployed with more venom that Romney is capable of, hate kids (closes their schools and cuts cooking and skills classes), want to destroy the environment (mining national parks for 1% royalty while foreign corporates take 99%), support creationism (charter schools) and believe in the free market myth.

Here we go. I knew it wouldn't be long before you'd spurt some sensationalist tosh. Cutting funding does not equal to hating children and the disabled. Allowing charter schools does not equal to being a creationist. How on earth did you come to that?

Cutting funding for children and the disabled and presumably hoping that the market will somehow take care of them certainly isn't a good idea.

Likewise, Charter Schools will inevitably result in an agenda'd curriculum being set, which will likely involve the creationists, etc. So it's a fair point.

God, the above post is no different to the people who say Obama is a Communist or Merkel a Nazi. Do you realise how much credibility your argument has lost due to that?

I'm an outsider and I think his argument was pretty credible, Jafas.

Your schools funding claim is utter crap.

Calm down.

You completely ignore the extra $1 billion that will be pumped into schools. You ignore the new schools to be built. You probably think class sizes will increase due to schools mergers, which is again is crap because the schools that will merge will get more classes and teachers.

Spending more money won't necessarily solve the problem. The argument is that because we have things like Charter schools being set up, different schools will have different standards and offer different standards of education. Utimately the poor will be victim to this.

As a result people will no longer have an equal platform on which to start their lives this eroding social mobility, which is precisely why I abhor the government's education policies.

But, who am I to tell you that. John Campbell has told you everything you need to know about school closures and how John Key is the spawn of Satan, didn't he?

See, now your argument has lost all credibility.

I am close to packing my bags,

Out of curiosity, where are you thinking of moving to?

National is the devil.

And Labour and Green are the Second Coming?

Rogernomics, Jafas... you know I love you guys but I feel like banging your heads together when I read exchanges like these.

[New Rogernomics]

We could chill and restart the thread, dont take me too seriously or it begins the rile up effect i.e. x says a, y gets offended by a and says b; x is offended by b and says c, and so on. I took the piss I admit, especially after the f'off comments. I actually plan to vote United Future, and I over inflated the arguments from the nzherald and green party website.

Sorry if I pissed you off, but telling me to f'off,etc was pretty low (even if I did an over the top generalization of the National support base); certainly it turned what was a light hearted rebuke of the National party into a drawn out riling up session.

[New Rogernomics]

In terms of the New Zealand and US economy, from the assessment of a few books I have read:

The US economy is not really any more indebted in terms of GDP than the UK and other countries; in the US a combination of budget cuts, stimilus and bailouts has revived the US economy. The US economy would have recovered sooner had the stimilus been much bigger. In the great deppression US debt was high alongside unemployment. With the entry of the US into world war two the manufacturing sector and associated businesses took on the unemployed, as well as the military. By the end of the war the US was a economic superpower with a thriving economy. Manufacturing is returning to the US and tarrifs (and incentives), and the lower dollar are helping the sector recover.

The NZ economy could have done with some targetted stimilus (to small businesses and manufactuers) and some tarriffs, the idea of NZ adopting the Australian dollar is an alternative to monetary easing and would be far less damaging. Right now NZ is an export and services driven economy, and manufacturing is struggling because of lack of capital, declining markets in Europe, lack of skilled workers and high taxes; and a failure to adjust. Really NZ has to decide to whether it wants to follow US economic policy, European economic policy or try to push for greater market intergration into Australia.

NZ debt levels will decline, when the economy picks up more. In the long term though, unemployment, rising inequality, alongside poor incentives and public sector salaries that are argued to be too high; hold the NZ economy back. Certainly the call for free education is getting larger as student debt mounts.

National knows it cant take interest off loans because it needs to keep medical graduates and such in the country. The alternative being tried is factoring the loan scheme around students paying off debt quicker by staying in the country. But clearly incentives for students are not high enough i.e. thus the 'brain drain'.

[Jafas United]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, Jafas. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying but the implication here is that you oppose an exports based economy, or methods which would ensure that we retain our trade surplus?

Not quite. All I'm saying is that the high dollar is more to blame for job losses than the failures of successive governments. And you cannot blame John Key or Bill English for something which is largely out of their control. Unless of course you want to go the Chinese way and keep our currency artificially low, which in itself has its problems.

New Zealand is among the only countries in the world that taxes businesses before they've even had a chance to make a profit. I'm not sure I would call this particularly business friendly.

Eh, I'm only going by what the statistics say. Though now that you mention it, yes, there is reason to be skeptical of that data. Wahi tapu claims, for instance, are also not so business friendly.

And I can think of worse countries to emulate economically than China or Singapore.

Indeed there are. My point is that New Zealand is not a state capitalist economy and why should we go down that path?

However I can't see what you two are arguing here... I think we should all agree that the government does need to take measures to support the growth of the wealth generating private sector.

I don't think either of us disagree with that. How we get there and who is at fault is what really caused the argument, I think.

National and Act are the two parties who want to see unemployment increase, as both parties were as various times led by former Reserve Bank Governor Donald T Brash.

A flimsy claim at best. You can't judge a party's policies in 2012 on the words of former leader. Hell, by your own admission you said it was never official policy, so what Don Brash said is quite meaningless when discussing whether National wants to see unemployment rise.

Brash, during his time as Reserve Bank governor, along with his predecessor, argued that unemployment should never fall below around 6%, because otherwise the workers (and unions) would have too much influence, no one would accept lower wage costs, wage costs would rise and, according to the theory he was following, so would inflation.

He does have a case there. But obviously, the consequences of high unemployment are far worse than the consequences of low unemployment.

Call me old fashioned but if a certain person whose name rhymes with "Codger Shrugless" hadn't removed trade barriers, we probably wouldn't be seeing as many job losses in these fields.

But outsourcing and the replacement of workers with technology and robotics was bound to happen anyway, no? Protectionism is a flawed and outdated concept. Trade barriers are worthless now.

Again this is where the government does need to step in and create incentives to employ more people - I'm talking real incentives, not "let's cut unemployment benefits so people accept lower wages" - and this is where they do need to take measures to encourage outsourcing - and yes, place a tax on buying online from overseas.

Your idea is fair, though ultimately, it is up to businesses themselves to decide whether or not they want to employ or lay off people. Government can throw around as much money as they want but it won't make a difference if business is doing poorly.

Besides, New Zealand has moved to a service economy. The days of manufacturing are gone. Barring that we don't lower our wages to third world standards we cannot compete with nations which pay their workers little.

Perhaps placing a tax would save a few jobs in the retail sector.

It's unsustainable in the long term however which I will assume you are referring to.

Correct. Short term solutions are inherently stupid.

This is irrelevant if we are discussing whether or not we need a US style stimulus package

I don't think either of us were discussing that. Or I wasn't, at least.

But now that you mention it, no I don't think NZ needs an American style stimulus package. We're in two different situations, it isn't really comparable.

National decided in 2008, in all its infinite wisdom, that the country could somehow afford populist tax cuts and not have to cut spending.

In 2011 and onwards, suddenly National realised they needed to cut spending. While I wouldn't call their budget "austerity" it certainly isn't helping anyone.

Pointed conceded. The tax cuts were hardly noticeable anyway.

And yes, it was unwise for National to ignore the poor state Labour left the economy in 2008 and wait until the problem got worse

I agree with Rogernomics that NACTional's "hands off" economic plan isn't causing the rapid post-recession economic recovery that I would like to see.

My point is that our growth rate is remarkably high for an advanced economy. No matter how much you hate John Key and National, you can't deny that we are in a relatively stable and solid position.

We live in an MMP country. FPP ended in the '80s and last year people overwhelming voted to keep it. (Personally I prefer FPP but that's a side issue).

I'm not a fan of it either. On face value, preferential voting is probably the best there is.

The centre-left bloc is currently polling above the centre-right bloc. Labour's popularity and John Key's popularity don't come into it.

Perhaps. Bear in mind the election is still another two years away, and there is a slight chance that maybe NZ First could join National's bloc. But let's save that for another time.

Of course not, we need someone sensible like Key/English who will cut taxes to win votes, borrow so as not to cut spending and then complain three years later that the country is in a terrible debt and try to pin the blame on Labour.

Pot calling the kettle black. Labour doesn't have a great record with managing our money.

And at least National didn't put us in recession before the GFC. I know this is the third time I've said this. It's a dead horse I like to flog.

You mean like the Auckland Rail Loop that we never got because the money went towards a highway from the middle of nowhere to the middle of nowhere?

Or that bicycle track? THAT'S gotta be pouring tonnes of money into the economy!

I was referring to RoNS. I don't know about you, but I'm satisfied that we can finally have a decent road between Auckland and Hamilton.

NZ banks? We still have NZ banks? I thought Australia owned the majority of our banks.

TSB and Kiwibank come to mind.

Besides, that's irrelevant to the point I was making.

Cutting funding for children and the disabled and presumably hoping that the market will somehow take care of them certainly isn't a good idea.

And who has ever presumed that the market will take care of them? I am not denying that funding has been cut and many children and the disabled are worse off as a result, but to say the cuts were made out of hate for these groups is foolish.

Likewise, Charter Schools will inevitably result in an agenda'd curriculum being set, which will likely involve the creationists, etc. So it's a fair point.

No it is not. Not all charter schools will teach creationism. Most probably won't, it was only one case which NR brought up.

Further, the schools is a private Christian school, why can't it teach its values? If parents do not want their students to be indoctrinated with creationism, then all they need to do is move their kids to another schools. As long as creationism isn't being taught as sole fact in state schools, then I see no problem with this.

NR's claim that a Christian school wanting to teach creationism alongisde evolution is proof that National endorses the theory is quite beyond me.

I'm an outsider and I think his argument was pretty credible, Jafas.

I don't think saying National supports creationism, hates the unemployed, hates the disabled etc is all that credible.

The argument is that because we have things like Charter schools being set up, different schools will have different standards and offer different standards of education.

And that isn't always a bad thing.

Utimately the poor will be victim to this.

How so? Admittedly, I am not an expert on charter schools but as far as I am aware nobody is being forced to attend them, and I cannot see how the poor (or anyone for that matter) will be worse off because of it.

Calm down.

Bro, calm down.

Break it up.

See, now your argument has lost all credibility.

Rogernomics, Jafas... you know I love you guys but I feel like banging your heads together when I read exchanges like these.

Again comments like "Now I'm starting to worry for you" are ad hominems which add little to the debate, and don't paint you in a very good light. Calm down mate we're all friends here.

I don't agree or disagree, although again this snarkiness is why I don't even bother with NSG anymore. You may be right, Jafas but I'll have to look at the facts before passing judgement.

Uh, my arrogance and perhaps, immaturity in debate is quite noticeable now that you've corrected me on it. In retrospect, it was a fault on my part to constantly throw rude side comments at NR.

Perhaps it's my Nordic rage.

Apologies if I have offended anyone.

[Jafas United]

We could chill and restart the thread, dont take me too seriously or it begins the rile up effect i.e. x says a, y gets offended by a and says b; x is offended by b and says c, and so on. I took the piss I admit, especially after the f'off comments. I actually plan to vote United Future, and I over inflated the arguments from the nzherald and green party website.

Sorry if I pissed you off, but telling me to f'off,etc was pretty low (even if I did an over the top generalization of the National support base); certainly it turned what was a light hearted rebuke of the National party into a drawn out riling up session.

Don't worry, you have no harsh feelings from me.

As I've said already - me getting so riled up on an internet debate reflects poorly on my character, if anything. Something which happens frequently to many on NSG, I may point out.

But yeah, we're fine now.

[Forster Keys]

*emerges from underneath rock*

Phew. All good now.

[Forsher]

Was hating on John Key before it was cool...

I don't hate him. Not the most useful of politicians but I don't hate him.

Was hating on John Key before it was cool...

I never liked him, but most of his supporters are even worse. In other things the government seems to sack more people every week than any other employer in New Zealand and claims to be 'creating job's' what a joke, and it isn't even funny. NZ unemployment keeps rising and rising, and their solution is 'more austerity', 'leave everything to the market'. They call austerity 'returning to surplus'. Fortunately National will be out in two years (that is if I am still here); certainly I intend in election year to hold a sign protesting his austerity measures, that have left NZ debt ridden* and 200,000 children in poverty.

* Labour/Greens/NZ First vs National/Act/Maori Party: John Key plans to return to surplus by bankrupting the country? What is after quadrupling the national debt in two years?

While losing jobs is undoubtedly not a good thing, sometimes it is useful to downsize. Sometimes there are too many people doing too little work. Ultimately this is a bad thing, it'd be better for them doing the right amount of work.

Actually, unemployment has been falling relatively steadily and it was only the September quarter that saw a, admittedly unexpected, rise.

That graphic, it's important to note that that graphic is in relation to GDP. In other words if GDP declines then the debt in relation to it would increase even if it stayed the same. GDP has decreased since 2008.

In other things the government seems to sack more people every week than any other employer in New Zealand and claims to be 'creating job's' what a joke, and it isn't even funny. NZ unemployment keeps rising and rising,

The Household Labour Force Survey is crap. I'd say the real unemployment rate is slightly higher. Not to mention if all those Kiwis hadn't migrated to Australia, it'd be even higher.

There are a number of ways of measuring unemployment and there are some different definitions of what it is. That said, the movement is for the best. They seek jobs and if they were unemployed then they don't go on the dole. If they were employed they free up jobs for those who stay. Geographic mobility is something to be prized in a workforce.

That being said, I'm loving how the left is always quick to jump of Key whenever the economy is doing shit. Businesses for the most part, create jobs. It's up to business to grow and employ people. Key doesn't run people's businesses. If business owners cannot employ people, how is that Key's responsibility? We can't all be civil servants, economies don't function like that. That's why business needs to be allowed to do business, because that is how jobs get created.

Well, the argument goes that it is the Government's job is to foster the correct environment for business. In fact, the government tries to even out the fluctuations in the business cycle, try to bring it to a straight line.

Besides, most of these job losses are due to a high dollar, and not because of government policies.

Ah, the high dollar. Let it stay high, it's better this way, in the end. Sounds harsh but it is better. The exchange rate is keeping inflation down and it would be up more with the OCR at such a low rate (2.5%). The general idea is that we want inflation to remain between 1 and 3%... this maintains price stability. Unstable prices foster an environment that is very unpredictable which is worse than a high exchange rate as at least fuel and imports remain fairly cheap. More exports also lead to a higher exchange rate as well... more demand for the dollar, you see, which means the exchange rate goes up.

Now, the dollar will not remain so high forever. The OCR will come down for other reasons later, foreign equivalents will go up (Australia's is already higher and has been for some time at 3.25%, checked today, and it's our largest export market) and their economies will begin to perform more strongly. Both of which will bring the dollar back down to where we are more used to it. In fact, the exporters are better off getting used to the higher dollar now because it will help them later when it comes back down.

and their solution is 'more austerity', 'leave everything to the market'. They call austerity 'returning to surplus'. Fortunately National will be out in two years (that is if I am still here); certainly I intend in election year to hold a sign protesting his austerity measures, that have left NZ debt ridden* and 200,000 children in poverty.

Let's not forget that it the Labour party who put New Zealand into recession before the GFC.

I am not so sure about that.

The government has lowered business tax rates to help create an environment for business. NZ is managing the economic shitstorm better than many other countries. We're even undertaking infrastructure projects (i.e. RoNS)

China and Australia have largely shielded New Zealand from the economic downturn. Europe, the worst hit area in many ways, doesn't really register that much these days in terms of what matters. In that respect the EEC helped us in the long term despite what it did to the UK and NZ's trade. The effects have had to roll through a number of other countries to get to us.

Our "austerity measures" (if you can even call them that) are fairly mild compared to what is going on in Spain and Greece. English says we'll be in surplus by 2015, that obviously remains to be seen.

I would like National to get a third term, purely because I think a change... even if it's the right change... will not start working fast enough to matter which would lead to another change. It's self defeating.

* Labour/Greens/NZ First vs National/Act/Maori Party: John Key plans to return to surplus by bankrupting the country? What is after quadrupling the national debt in two years?

(Image)

Bankrupting the country? Do you realise how relatively low that is? Compare that to 102% of GDP in the US, 82% in Britain and Germany, 50% in Finland etc etc.

Our public debt is remarkably low in the current economic conditions, it may have swelled in wake of the Canterbury earthquakes, but it still is fairly low and it definitely isn't bankrupting us.

Debt is only too much when the interest gets to high and that's why credit ratings help... downgrading may just make things worse when it's retrospective.

Unless the economies of China and Australia suddenly collapse, New Zealand is standing in a strong position, and this is coming from someone who is typically a pessimist.

The IMF fancies our chances.

Now, I've been away from NS for a bit so I won't respond to many of the posts after these if any but I'll read them.

[Forsher]

*emerges from underneath rock*

Phew. All good now.

Thanks to the idiot who posted just after your post quoted here, you may have spoken too soon.

[New Rogernomics]

Government debt reached above 200% in the great depression, then gradually declined, which was accelerated by ww2. So I am not really concerned about government debt reaching 100% (which could occur due to inflation of debt and increased borrowing costs).

[Blouman Empire]

*emerges from underneath rock*

Phew. All good now.

When's your first exam mate?

[Forster Keys]

*emerges from underneath rock*

Phew. All good now.

When's your first exam mate?

Couple of hours ago. Gah. :/

[Blouman Empire]

When's your first exam mate?

Couple of hours ago. Gah. :/

Was it English?

How do you reckon you went? 4 more to go?

[Forster Keys]

Couple of hours ago. Gah. :/

Was it English?

How do you reckon you went? 4 more to go?

Yeah English paper one. Great short story, dismal essay, acceptable short answer I reckon. And five to go, since English is bifurcated.

[Cestyr]

Was it English?

How do you reckon you went? 4 more to go?

Yeah English paper one. Great short story, dismal essay, acceptable short answer I reckon. And five to go, since English is bifurcated.

HSC I presume? I did VCE last year, was certainly happy you guys started ahead of us.

[Forster Keys]

Yeah English paper one. Great short story, dismal essay, acceptable short answer I reckon. And five to go, since English is bifurcated.

HSC I presume? I did VCE last year, was certainly happy you guys started ahead of us.

Yeah, and why so?

[Blouman Empire]

Was it English?

How do you reckon you went? 4 more to go?

Yeah English paper one. Great short story, dismal essay, acceptable short answer I reckon. And five to go, since English is bifurcated.

Oh that's no good, well good luck and try not to waste too much study time on NSG

[Cestyr]

HSC I presume? I did VCE last year, was certainly happy you guys started ahead of us.

Yeah, and why so?

It always seemed like we had extra time to study, I suppose

Yeah English paper one. Great short story, dismal essay, acceptable short answer I reckon. And five to go, since English is bifurcated.

Oh that's no good, well good luck and try not to waste too much study time on NSG

I could never study. I'd try to and succeed for half an hour or so before I'd get hopelessly distracted. I consider ample "down time" as much a key to success in study as it is in professional sport.