Don Brash, Rogernomics, and Huljich

20 comments on “Don Brash, Rogernomics, and Huljich ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Cnr Joe 1

   16 March 2010 at 8:34 am

   I hear he has a killer smile and his wave is to die for
   • mickysavage 1.1

     16 March 2010 at 9:23 am

     No you are mixing Don up with side show John : )
   • toad 1.2

     16 March 2010 at 9:27 am

     It is rumoured that he has a big dick too.
     • toad 1.2.1

       16 March 2010 at 9:42 am

       Maybe that should have read “…is a big dick…”
2. john 2

   16 March 2010 at 8:59 am

   Don believes he has a divine right to pontificate on how Kiwis should order their affairs. Tragically apathetic Kiwis suck on it and for that reason they must take most of the blame for the divided society we have become. People like Don know how to appeal to sectional greed and like the Mafia Don he’s quite willing to flog off the Public treasury and share the hard worked for gains with you abdicating Government responsibility for overall wellbeing other than being a funnel for money flow. Him and Roger are a disaster.
3. ghostwhowalksnz 3

   16 March 2010 at 9:26 am

   Huljich the largest provider ?
4. Bored 4

   16 March 2010 at 9:39 am

   JUDGE (not Bruce). “Don Brash, you have been found guilty by way of association with scurillous ideas and people. You have loaned your name to self serving schemes at the expense of the whole community. You will be taken from this court to…..
   BRASH.” “Its a fair cop m’lud”.
5. Thomas Beagle 5

   16 March 2010 at 9:48 am

   “Given Brash’s failure to resign from Huljich, his muted public response to the serious allegations made against Huljich, and his intemperate outbursts against his fellow citizens, why does anyone still listen to him?”

   I didn’t think anyone did still listen to him.

   Even National basically laughed off his taskforce’s report.
6. randal 6

   16 March 2010 at 10:54 am

   looks very much like he is awalking accident wherever he goes.
7. Peter 7

   16 March 2010 at 11:25 am

   I am dissapointed that the media is not skewering Banks over his part in this, considering he is one of the contenders for the Mayorl race here in Auckland.

   Ethics, accountability and ability…would be useful quantities in such a position …
8. Nick C 8

   16 March 2010 at 1:36 pm

   Which of Roger Douglas’ policies do you object to spesifically?

   Abolition of agricultural subsidies
   Abolition of import licencing and other protectionist measures
   Deregulation of currency exchange
   Removal of 66% top tax rate
   Changing government departments into SOEs

   If so, which of those would you bring back?
   • Bored 8.1

     16 March 2010 at 5:03 pm

     Some answers Nick

     Abolition of agricultural subsidies: Fine idea if we could only persuade those paragons of the free market, the Yanks to do so, or perhaps the Europeans. They make us uncompetitve, if they did not subsidise so heavily we would be wealthier.

     Abolition of import licencing and other protectionist measures. If you compete against economies of scale on an open market you lose. Sometimes what you do locally deserves protection because the total cost to the economy and community could be a lot higher. Good example is the cost of unemployment where “globalised” production and labour undercut us but leave us with sunk capital and ongoing social costs. As a policy its again a good principle but needs rigorous real costing and should not be applied in the revolutionary way Roger did it. rich economies have all begun as protectionist, look at the Asian tigers.

     Deregulation of currency exchange. With this you lose sovereignty, and control of your destiny to financial centres. Its a dumb policy the world has followed and the result was last years crash, which has not yet fully played out. Think Great Depression before you go here, its full of dragons.

     Removal of 66% top tax rate. May be a bit high but Douglas’ tax policies basically move the tax to the poor and low income earners, they represent a massive flow up to those who have from those who dont. Its unfair and economically ruinous, unsustainable and quite frankly socially criminal.

     Changing government departments into SOEs. A stupid idea when applied to pure public services destroying the ethos of “service ” and replacing the public with customers / clients…subtle but destructive of democratic institutions. With utilities for power, phones etc, (all necessities we municipalized or government built as part of the integrated economy) we have only pushed up price and wrecked infrastructure through lack of investment / privatisation.

     Need I go on, Roger is a bit like Karl Marx, fine in theory, not much cop in practice.
     • Nick C 8.1.1

       16 March 2010 at 10:52 pm

       Lets assume that its true that evil foriegners with their heavily subsidised, economies of scale driven businesses make our farmers uncompetitive, make us lose all our jobs and sell us all their goods. When we buy their goods with our NZ dollars, what do you think they do with those dollars?

       If you’re bored perhaps you should read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparitive_advantage
       • Bored 8.1.1.1

         17 March 2010 at 12:07 pm

         I have now read it, very dull, positively “economisty”, its a sort of tedious ennui that turns you into a wrinkled Saharan date…very dry. Its neo classical economics that got me bored in the first instance.

         Perhaps its more pertinent to read Schummaker, “Small is beautiful”, makes much more sense.
         • Nick C 8.1.1.1.1

           17 March 2010 at 4:28 pm

           The point is that everyone benefits from free trade, not just the countries with economies of scale

           We can simply view agricultural subsidies as another form of absolute advantage; i.e. we view the subsidy as a legitimate means to produce something at a lower cost even thought the lower cost only comes about because of free government money. From this perspective we apply the theory of comparitive advantage and see that New Zealand benefits from trading with countries with subsidised agriculture.

           In fact we win even more than if they weren’t subsidising their food. The subsidy is effectivly foriegn tax payers paying for us to eat food cheaper.
           • Bored 8.1.1.1.1.1

             17 March 2010 at 4:38 pm

             Try adopting the term and practice fair trade. In the real untheoritical world free trade comes with real baggage. Its can be another term for imperialism.
9. Zak Creedo 9

   16 March 2010 at 2:13 pm

   why does anyone still listen to him? you ask mister guest blogger.

   Lemme try answer:

   1. Because where there’s brash there’s money.. or should that be..
   2. Because where there’s trash there’s money… or.. waitta mo I think I’ve gottit..
   3. Where there’s muck there’s money.

   Whatever, my multi-answer frames this thing pretty well… hah
10. Raoul 10

    16 March 2010 at 6:37 pm

    Do all of you really suck up to Garth Morgan that much…the guy has no idea, he spouts absolute dribble as fact and jumps on any bandwagon to give himself more mileage as the Champion of the underdog. He is no different to the wizard of Christchurch. Oh…there is one difference he has a huge KiwiSaver Scheme and he is using you and the regulators to damage his biggest competitor, Brash and Huljich. You are being used wake up!
    • Pascal's bookie 10.1

      16 March 2010 at 6:54 pm

      So whaddya reckon about Huljich’s management there Raoul?

      How about Brash’s oversight?

      Got any substantive issues with Morgan’s criticism, or are you just going to play the ad hom card?

      If the latter, do you have anything to declare that might be relevant to explaining your frankly weird defence of Huljich?

Links to post

1. Banks’ brand is buggered « The Standard: posted on 22 March 2010 at 9:46 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS