Compare two situations:
People put money into a finance company after dozens have collapsed. They know that high interest equals high risk. They know SCF is shaky as hell. It goes belly up and…. government pay-outs for all of them. Including the interest! Including non-residents who aren’t covered by the rules! No questions of whether SCF met the terms of its guarantee. No worries about ‘moral dilemma’ of letting people gamble with all the risk on the taxpayer.
People whose houses and property were damaged in Christchurch but don’t have insurance get the cold shoulder from the government. Key says “Ultimately if you don’t have insurance and you don’t fit in the category of real hardship, then there’s no question there will be a cost,” Reckons he’s worried about “moral dilemma”. Doesn’t want to make not having insurance risk-free for home owners. But risk-free investing underwritten by the taxpayer is fine, eh?
Rich investor and you put your money in a dodgy finance company? Did the company collapse? You get your money back. No questions.
Lost your job thanks to this endless recession? Couldn’t afford insurance? Property damaged in the quake? Key says you can get stuffed.
The rich get taxpayer-backed insurance for their savings. The workers don’t for their houses.
It’s called class war.
One more thing. Key reckons the rebuilding will be a “be tremendous stimulus”. Says it’s a “great irony” that jobless workers in Christchurch might get work in the rebuilding. Nah, you pillock, it’s called the broken windows fallacy. Working to rebuild what you lost is no gain. Not a substitute for real stimulus.