Ironically, nothing ever goes right for Roger

62 comments on “Ironically, nothing ever goes right for Roger ”

• Comments are now closed

1. barnsleybill 1

   9 February 2009 at 5:40 pm

   Which particular facts are wrong?
2. sweeetdisorder 2

   9 February 2009 at 6:14 pm

   With out even reading the speech…..

   Firstly, Who broke the embargo? and why?

   Secondly, a Roger speaking on TV makes a much better story than a print version in scoop. This will play on all the TV news tomorrow night (assume Roger speaks before 6pm to allow the TV crews time to record and make comment)

   Thirdly, Scoop, Schmoop, only for poli geeks, not mainstream.
3. the sprout 3

   9 February 2009 at 6:24 pm

   hilarious.

   “This will play on all the TV news tomorrow night”

   ah… yeah… right mate. 25 year old speech, delivered by our most boring political speaker of all time, and broken a day before it’s delivered.

   can’t see tv news editors going near it with a barge poll.

   who’s the gimp paid to be his press sec?
4. Felix 4

   9 February 2009 at 6:32 pm

   Thirdly, Scoop, Schmoop, only for poli geeks, not mainstream.

   And Roger is for the “mainstream”? Yeah right.
5. Kelsey 5

   9 February 2009 at 6:54 pm

   Wow, reading this reminds me how disappointing Sir Rog isn’t in government. I agree with Dr. Brash – he’s our greatest living NZer. Finally, someone that actually wants to improve the conditions of everyone.

   Was IrishBill planning on actually indicating which facts were incorrect?
6. Kerry 6

   9 February 2009 at 7:01 pm

   Why isnt he sedated and locked up in an Old Peoples Home?? Cause thats where he should be…..rambling on to the other oldies who cant escape or who are skipping through a field of poppies in their heads.
7. Felix 7

   9 February 2009 at 7:14 pm

   reading this reminds me how disappointing Sir Rog isn’t in government.

   ????

   In what sense is he not?
8. IrishBill 8

   9 February 2009 at 7:20 pm

   BB, Facts like “Any increase that workers receive beyond productivity increases will merely exacerbate unemployment.”

   Productivity was (slightly) decreased in the last ten years compared to the ten before that. And yet unemployment shrunk in the 2000’s and grew in the 90’s. does that mean the real world is wrong or is Roger? Hint: it’s not the real world.

   “Labour increased the costs to hire and employ workers, and told us these policies were employee benefits. They were benefits for people in jobs, but hurdles for those out of work. They will now act as a major barrier to re-employment for those who lose their jobs.”

   Yes of course, Roger. That’s why we’ve had low unemployment throughout the ERA years. Even now, heading into a recession, the unemployment rate is much lower than it was for most of the 90’s (when we had Roger’s mates making it “cheaper” to employ workers).

   There are plenty more errors here but I can’t be bothered listing them. Maybe I’ll do a post on them tomorrow. After all, I’ve got nearly 23 hours before it hits the news.
9. Mr Magoo 9

   9 February 2009 at 7:25 pm

   I heard him on sunday radio. Him and fran osullivan teamed up to say that privatisation worked and that SOEs underperformed against their state sector counterparts. Fran lept in with saying that National should revoke their promise not to privatise because of “exeptional times”.

   Telecom was mentioned. Rodger simply said it was the government’s fault for changing the rules etc.

   It was pathetic. The only reason he is still here is a lame attempt at justifying his ridiculous and wrong headed point of view of the past.
10. BLiP 10

    9 February 2009 at 7:26 pm

    That speech is an almost direct lift from his 1980 masterpiece “There Has To Be A Better Way”.

    Douglas has not shifted his thinking in 30 years – despite reams and reams and reams of hard data that show he was wrong and we are still suffering as a result.

    Greatest Living New Zealander? Douglas should be strung up at No 1 The Terrace and his rotting corpse hanged in the foyer as a reminder to those trolls who inhabit that evil place of what becomes of those who seek to make the rich richer and poor poorer. Then there will be justice.
11. Kelsey 11

    9 February 2009 at 7:32 pm

    Felix – I mean not in cabinet. ACT is in government but he’s on the periphery.

    If his policies are failures – then please, name a single policy of his that has been repealed by 9 years of Labour. Just one.

    IrishBill: the three tier tax system, total deregulation of the dollar, privatisation of rail. There’s three to start with. Most of his policies were asset sales that couldn’t be reversed. Plenty of the policy he influenced (as a mentor of Richardson) in the 1990’s has been turned back.
12. IrishBill 12

    9 February 2009 at 7:33 pm

    SD, scoop broke the embargo. Probably done by a non-journo content loader by mistake. But it’s not their fault because nobody in their right mind sends scoop embargoed media releases. Here’s a tip for Roger’s intern media advisor: when you send embargoed copies, send them to your list of trusted journos not your main list. If you must send an embargoed copy to scoop then do so by contacting Alister or Kevin directly.

    I guess this show that we can’t expect a hasbeen dinosaur like Rog to be able to function in a modern political environment.
13. BLiP 13

    9 February 2009 at 7:44 pm

    Kelsey said:

    ” . . . If his policies are failures – then please, name a single policy of his that has been repealed by 9 years of Labour. Just one. . . . ”

    How about the sale of state assets that had to be repurchased by the government after the private sector bilked them?
14. Felix 14

    9 February 2009 at 7:45 pm

    Kelsey, of course he’s on the periphery. He’s barking fucking mad. But he is in government.

    Is the question about his policies directed to me? Why?
15. vto 15

    9 February 2009 at 7:51 pm

    Well from the part that I read it seemed to make sense. Which is perhaps why labour never really did it for me over the past nine years. So much of their policy action just seemed, well, pretty dumb really. Driven by ideology and arrogant politics rather than reality on the ground.

    He is easy to dismiss with abuse (old age, dinosaur, etc a-la kiwiblog style you hypocrites) but try prising those welded ideology blinkers off and think / observe objectively for a change.

    Last labour govt – biggest waste in NZ’s history.
16. Dean 16

    9 February 2009 at 7:53 pm

    “Greatest Living New Zealander? Douglas should be strung up at No 1 The Terrace and his rotting corpse hanged in the foyer as a reminder to those trolls who inhabit that evil place of what becomes of those who seek to make the rich richer and poor poorer. Then there will be justice.”

    Another quote to add to the pile when people on here pretend to be morally superior to the “kiwiblog right”.
17. IrishBill 17

    9 February 2009 at 7:56 pm

    vto, he makes at least a half a dozen statements that are tangibly, empirically wrong. That’s delusional. Plain and simple.
18. Dean 18

    9 February 2009 at 8:11 pm

    “vto, he makes at least a half a dozen statements that are tangibly, empirically wrong. That’s delusional. Plain and simple.”

    Need we quote Helen or Michael on tax cuts – which they later seemed to forget – to embarass you IB?
19. TghtyRighty 19

    9 February 2009 at 8:13 pm

    so funny to come here and watch hypocrisy at work as the left slay the character of only two of the sensible people to ever appear on that side of the spectrum. you all can’t stand it when someone has a crack at dear leader, but you ruthlessly mock and assassinate the character of Mr Douglas. This man bravely managed this country to the point that the fourth labour government could then lie around on easy street and suck the fat out. Roger Douglas did more good for this country than Helen, Michael, Mike, H2 and all the rest of them ever did, or could have dreamed of doing.
20. IrishBill 20

    9 February 2009 at 8:17 pm

    Dean, for a start I’m not embarrassed by the comments of politicians I have never voted for. Beyond that I don’t recall either of them making statements about New Zealand’s economy that were directly and materially refutable.
21. vto 21

    9 February 2009 at 8:17 pm

    IB I heard him on national radio in the w.e. too and he did sound a bit like Prebble I have to admit. Thing is – these old codgers do often make more sense than anyone else, but they just dither with spitting it out. Which doesn’t come across too well.

    And I pull back (a little) on my waste of time re labour – they weren’t quite that bad. The common sense of previous times needed a little restraint to prevent excessive actions. And to make people remember other parts of the community. Which has now happened so its back to sensible policies.

    out (to watch a luv story hee hee)
22. Dean 22

    9 February 2009 at 8:21 pm

    “Dean, for a start I’m not embarrassed by the comments of politicians I have never voted for. Beyond that I don’t recall either of them making statements about New Zealand’s economy that were directly and materially refutable.”

    You have absolutely got to be joking.

    Not about the not voting for them part, because I can believe that.

    Are you honestly saying you’ve never heard Helen or Michael talk about tax cuts being bad?

    Really?
23. Fran O'Sullivan 23

    9 February 2009 at 8:21 pm

    Get a grip – He sounded like Prebble – because he was Prebble. Not Roger.
24. IrishBill 24

    9 February 2009 at 8:23 pm

    vto, I’m the last one to cast stones regarding old codgerness, it’s Douglas’ absolute denial of reality not his age that I’m criticising. Have a good time at the flicks.

    Hey, Fran, welcome back. Are you going to cover Roger’s speech? Any sneak previews of your analysis? I’ve been liking your call for concrete action lately although I doubt it would be the action I’d like.
25. Quoth the Raven 25

    9 February 2009 at 8:27 pm

    vto – Roger’s record is one of inequality, of the rich getting richer and everyone else, middle – lower classes getting poorer. I/S sums it up here. Some of the points:

    New Zealand’s gini coefficient (a common statistical measure of income inequality) rose significantly between 1986 and 1996, indicating greater inequality. This happened no matter how you slice it, whether you look at individuals or households, market, gross or disposable income.

    But it’s worse than that, because the same trend is evident in people’s actual disposable incomes. Only the top three deciles of personal income earners earned more in real terms than they did in 1986. Everybody else got poorer, and in some cases remarkably so (Fig 4.7 – though I should note that this is market income and doesn’t take transfers into account. The actual interpretation of those low deciles halving their market income is more people driven onto benefits)

    Poverty has increased – in 1986, only 16% of families fell below the 1996 lower quintile benchmark. In 1996, it’s by definition 20%.

    That outcome of rogernomics was the bulk of people being relatively worse off whilst the rich made off like bandits. That was not only the outcome of those policies but the intention of those policies.
26. IrishBill 26

    9 February 2009 at 8:30 pm

    Dean, tax cuts were bad in 2005 and 2006 and most of 2007. You don’t cut taxes at the peak of a cycle where there is no productive capacity left and a massive skills shortage because they only increase inflation. There’s nowhere else for them to go.
27. bobo 27

    9 February 2009 at 8:45 pm

    I’m still looking forward to those awkward 1980s white board sessions Roger was so good at. The whole Private vs Public is as dated as the trickle down theory, does Roger have any predictions on when the US dollar will fall over? this time next year maybe?
28. Dancer 28

    9 February 2009 at 8:49 pm

    I wonder if John Ansell was assisting (given the “guts to do what’s right” line in the speech). Remember that it reflects his previous work…
29. Rex Widerstrom 29

    9 February 2009 at 9:23 pm

    Not so sure this is just a snafu… otherwise what’s with all the truncated paras like:

    New Zealanders who opt in will be guaranteed that they will not receive less in the new system than they would ha

    Looks like a draft to me. Which suggests a leak.

    An interesting take on things, and I think it’s a little unfair to call it outdated… the solutions he’s offering could be applied to today’s problems (which is not to say they should) just as other economic theorems far older than his are being debated as potentially offering some answers.

    Plus, dismissing them as outdated or even debating them point by point distracts from what’s really wrong with them, at least IMHO. Because while I’m all for some things to which he refers (the truncated passage about individual superannuation accounts, for one), and disgaree equally as strongly with him in other parts (where he disses R&D tax credits, for instance) something else concerns me much more.

    Nowhere does Douglas talk about the need to share the burden for getting us out of this recession. In fact he takes the exactly the same attitude for which he criticises the EPMU and others – except in Roger’s view it’s the workers who should pay the entire cost of resuscitating the economy.

    To quote Steve Pierson quoting Fran O’Sullivan:

    …there is no suggestion that boards of directors presented with ‘restructuring plans’ should ensure management does its bit. No sign either of any proposal to ask shareholders to take reduced dividends to help secure the long-term viability of their enterprise and its employees.

    I’m not concerned from any ideological perspective but rather because I fear that if the burden isn’t shared amongst executives, shareholders and workers then many enterprises which could survive and recover will collapse, causing irreparable economic harm.

    I’d have hoped Douglas could have taken off the blinkers sufficiently to see what’s happening around him. Clearly not… unless the final speech is very different.
30. ieuan 30

    9 February 2009 at 9:44 pm

    To save people the trouble of reading the speech he basically says slash tax and move health and ACC costs on to individuals.

    Nice if you can afford it, stuffed if you can’t.

    And just to show that he doesn’t want to throw the low paid on the scrap heap he is proposing a guaranteed minimum income for families. This after criticising working for families.

    His policies are guaranteed to do one thing, make the rich richer and the poor poorer, nice guy, why does anyone listen to him?
31. Bill 31

    9 February 2009 at 9:56 pm

    “…..I fear that if the burden isn’t shared amongst executives, shareholders and workers then many enterprises which could survive and recover will collapse, causing irreparable economic harm.”

    And an indication of the possibility of that happening just might be the fact that the Labour government in Britain has given 500 billion pounds to the banks,

    40 million pounds to bail out charities http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/feb/09/charities-recession

    and is still trying to privatise Social Welfare http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2009/feb/08/labour-welfare-jobs-plan.

    Which all points to the obvious; that capital ( in cahoots with government) will protect profits at the expense of flushing everything and everyone else down the drain.

    Irreparable economic damage? Yes, But irreparable economic damage visited upon on our oh so important masters and their interests? Absolutely not! In fact, it’s unthinkable.

    It’s just us expendables that are expected cop it.
32. Pascal's bookie 32

    9 February 2009 at 10:03 pm

    ieuan,

    His policies are guaranteed to do one thing, make the rich richer and the poor poorer, nice guy, why does anyone listen to him?

    Roger sees that the problems we are having with the global economy have been caused by the fact that the richest people don’t have enough money.

    From the scoop version of the speech:

    A problem:

    1) Labour started in 1999 with one of the most simple tax systems in the world with a broad tax base. It destroyed this simplicity by introducing complex Working for Families tax credits, re-introducing failed subsidy programs like the Research and Development tax credits, and making the taxation department responsible for transfer programmes like KiwiSaver.

    The solution to which is : create and administer an entirely new tax system that will run in parallel with the existing system:

    Individuals should have the ability to opt in to the new system. Individuals who like high tax rates and monopoly-run health, welfare, education, and superannuation services can stick with the old system. But if you want to opt out of that failing system, then you should be able to have a lower tax burden in exchange for taking personal responsibility over your life.

    What we do with those inevitable ones of us that opt for the low tax option, but don’t get themselves enough insurance? Watch their kids starve I suppose, as an encouragement to the others!
33. The Fox 33

    9 February 2009 at 11:00 pm

    O’Sullivan’s collumns in the Herald are usually beyond parody. She’s still having a Mills and Boon style romance with Chicago School economics while conspicuously ignoring the fact whole morally bankrupt philosophy is totally shagged out after one cluster fuck orgy too many. Well they say love is blind eh?
34. mattyroo 34

    10 February 2009 at 2:09 am

    Pretty bloody good speech by the great Roger Douglas, only thing he has missed, is a CGT. We need to create more liquidity in the economy and have that money invested in businesses. If some in the middle class get burnt, so what, they should’ve understood risk when they rushed into the housing bubble, although if they went to the same economics school as Clinton Smith, then one can understand why a lot of them are losing their shirts right now.

    Even you thick lefties cannot argue against this most simple of statements:

    “Any increase that workers receive beyond productivity increases will merely exacerbate unemployment.”

    IrishBill: it doesn’t need to be argued. The last ten years in real world NZ have proved it wrong. And you’re on warning for needlessly insulting the blog owners.
35. Rex Widerstrom 35

    10 February 2009 at 4:02 am

    Bill:

    Which all points to the obvious; that capital ( in cahoots with government) will protect profits at the expense of flushing everything and everyone else down the drain.

    That seems to be the misguided approach of much of capital but by no means all. In Australia at least one union and one business realise that radical solutions are needed and have jointly approached the government to pay wages and training costs for workers on days the company is forced to halt production.

    That’s only feasible when you have a surplus the size of Australia’s of course (which Rudd seems determined to waste on handouts to consumers to buy plasma TVs) but at least it points to a willingness of (some) capital and (some) workers to strive for solutions outside the class war.

    It’s disappointing that (some of) our political leaders can’t set aside the traditional playbook and come to terms with the fact that if anyone loses too much, we could all end up losing everything. And that includes capital. Skills shortages constrain growth (and thus profits) during booms – assuming companies can even survive, considering masses of unemployed people can’t consume.
36. vto 36

    10 February 2009 at 8:26 am

    I seriously struggle with the idea that health and education are too important to leave to the private sector. If that is so then how come two even more important aspects of life on earth are quite happily left to the private sector – the provision of food and shelter?

    Imagine if the govt was responsible for the provision of food and shelter. How much would a loaf of bread cost? How long would it take to get a house built? Ha ha, doesn’t even bear thinking about.

    So, apply the same logic to health and education… which I’m sure will not be possible … quelle horreur …

    (with a safety net for those who cannot look after themselves of course)
37. ieuan 37

    10 February 2009 at 9:03 am

    VTO – Peoples requirements for food and shelter are predictable and the costs generally reasonable and manageable.

    The cost of health is totally the opposite, the vast majority need very little in health care but for some extremely expensive and necessary health care is needed. Really I wonder why anyone would debate that an all private system for health care is better for this country, just look at the mess that is health care in the US!

    As for education, this is the great leveler in society and access to a cheap, quality education system is one of the things that gives everyone a fair chance in life.

    As I said earlier Roger Douglas is all about making the rich richer and the poor poorer and that is something we definitely don’t need.
38. Mr Magoo 38

    10 February 2009 at 9:53 am

    The Fox: here here!

    It is complete and utter drivel. That Sunday radio show was as delusional as it was embarassing. Just because you can parrot out a tired old dogma, it does not make you an expert.
    The failure of that mentality is playing out on a world wide scale. It originated in the richest country in world and thus the country that had the best chance by a long margin of making it work.
    It did not and even greenspan is saying it was all a big, hairy mistake.

    And after all this they STILL parrot out the same old trash. Saying how their ideas are different because of X and blah blah blah.
    Take the telecom example on the radio interview. They just finished saying how SOEs should all be sold off because they were “underperforming” compared to the private ones and when telecom is mentioned it is a case of “well that was different”. What about power? What about water? All different also I suppose?
    All this also ignores the job layoffs, money going overseas and al the other great things that HAVE COME from privatising such companies. Great for the Phillipines, not so great for NZ at the moment.

    Total. Crap.

    Then they go on to attack the cullen fund and how we should gut the country’s retirement fund for unexplained reasons. Because of course we want to have the social security mess that the US has right now?
    Oh wait…there will be no super of course.

    It is tired, it is wrong. In the end all one can assume is that this is just pandering to an out of touch audience who likes what is being said for purely self indulgent reasons.
    Gets votes, sells articles I guess. Some one has to fill the gap, right?
39. lukas 39

    10 February 2009 at 10:07 am

    IB, how is it relevant to the discussion that the parliamentary library was used to prepare the speech? Are you saying that ACT MP’s should not be allowed to use it? Or maybe only MP’s from parties who you agree with can use it?
40. Stephen 40

    10 February 2009 at 10:12 am

    And just to show that he doesn’t want to throw the low paid on the scrap heap he is proposing a guaranteed minimum income for families. This after criticising working for families.

    Er yeah, anyone in the know want to point out the difference between the two?
41. Jum 41

    10 February 2009 at 10:20 am

    vto
    February 10, 2009 at 8:26 am

    That’s what I liked about our democracy under Clark. Enough individual responsibility and freedom for everyone without the Douglas’ and Richardson’s trying to turn it into the black hole of freemarket thinking, where the only people with freedom are the rich and the only people with responsibility are the powerless.

    Food and shelter left to the market… Didn’t you spot the wee comparison in the paper about the income for the grower and the strangely disparate huge income for the supermarkets? I’m not into communism which you are so obvious about hinting at which wasn’t what Labour is about, but if the Government did look after food the growers would get more than they are now and the supermarkets/shareholders/businessroundtable would get less which is what they deserve as parasites on the back of the growers/transporters.
42. vto 42

    10 February 2009 at 10:34 am

    Jum and ieuan, big topic which I shouldn’t have started as I have no time today to continue it. I do think tho that Douglas et al ideas have great merit but lacked in their initial implementation leading to the known problems with parts of it. A case of devil in the detail etc. And now of course those ideas struggle for traction becuase of that poor, and probably excessive, implementation.

    Things work better when the people involved have responsibility. Transfer that responsibility to someone else and things fall apart.
43. burt 43

    10 February 2009 at 10:48 am

    Jum

    I think you missed two words, I have inserted them in bold for you.

    That’s what I liked about our retrospectively validated democracy under Clark.
44. BLiP 44

    10 February 2009 at 10:52 am

    Lukas said:

    ” . . . how is it relevant to the discussion that the parliamentary library was used to prepare the speech? Are you saying that ACT MP’s should not be allowed to use it? Or maybe only MP’s from parties who you agree with can use it? . . . ”

    Can’t you see the irony? What about the sheer hypocrisy? A politician spouting private enterprise, market-driven, individual responsibility yet sucking at the state’s tit to gather supporting data for the elimination of the state? The other point is that Douglas used his experience of the system to swamp the library with his demands before any other politician could have a go, thus ensuring his work was given priority while the actual government ministers had to sit and wait.

    Douglas clearly belongs in a home for the bewildered yet retains his reptilian cunning.
45. @ work 45

    10 February 2009 at 10:59 am

    “burt:
    Jum
    I think you missed two words, I have inserted them in bold for you.
    That’s what I liked about our retrospectively validated democracy under Clark.”

    Sorry Burt, throw away mispreresentations get no traction here
46. @ work 46

    10 February 2009 at 11:06 am

    Strange, it said my first post didn’t work.
47. Stephen 47

    10 February 2009 at 11:23 am

    Can’t you see the irony? What about the sheer hypocrisy? A politician spouting private enterprise, market-driven, individual responsibility yet sucking at the state’s tit to gather supporting data for the elimination of the state?

    Considering the Guaranteed Minimum Family Income, and school choice (taxpayer funded) and the fact he still wants the state to have a role in health, it’s not total hypocrisy, I would’ve thought. Those are the main reason the Libertarianz consider him a socialist of sorts (yes i know they think everyone is, but still). He doesn’t advocate the MPs paying for their own research/transport/office electricity either, does he?
48. northpaw 48

    10 February 2009 at 11:50 am

    PB.

    Interesting, thank you.

    Re “taking responsibility over their lives” we have a wonderful example of exactly that in macroeconomic terms for what global financiers today have termed the hedge fund of the North Atlantic..

    In terms if one of its forerunners, what we might term Douglas’s entrancing hedge fund of the South Pacific, there is genuine learning (from experience) and instruction at the link.

    Yet again.

    My point is simply that blind prejudice can only remain so. And that intending or even still committed followers retain a choice over “responsibility for their lives”.
49. burt 49

    10 February 2009 at 11:51 am

    @work

    Sorry Burt, throw away mispreresentations get no traction here

    You are right, I’m the only one who picked up on Jum’s inaccurate association of Clark and democracy and challenged it reminding people that democracy is not democracy when parliament needs to pass laws under urgency to validate an election.
50. Jum 50

    10 February 2009 at 11:51 am

    Dean
    February 9, 2009 at 8:21 pm said “Are you honestly saying you’ve never heard Helen or Michael talk about tax cuts being bad?”

    In 2000, Helen Clark said tax cuts were not appropriate in this time of underdevelopment and were the promises of visionless and ?bankrupt people.

    John Key changed the entire meaning of her words. He left out the ‘in this time of underdevelopment’ and added ‘a’ before ‘visionless’ to make it sound like she accused NZers of being visionless, etc.

    Then on 1 October 2008 English started ‘In 2000 Helen Clark was saying ‘tax cuts are the promises of a visionless and bankrupt people’. More misinformation from National; more lies to make Helen Clark look bad, just before an election.

    That doesn’t say much for the people who support National, who suck up this disgraceful lying propaganda.
51. Jum 51

    10 February 2009 at 12:03 pm

    Burt
    Passing laws under urgency to take away the working rights of people (90 day) is bad.

    Businesses not even having to give a reason for firing workers, even though they can still fire them regardless is pure authoritarianism.

    NAct is not about democracy, unless you call democracy the freedom of the powerful and wealthy with the workers just trying to survive, without the energy to fight for their personal democratic rights.

    Refer to my 11.51 post. Lying about Helen Clark’s comments is libelous. Nice people you support Burt.
52. BLiP 52

    10 February 2009 at 12:07 pm

    Stephen said:

    ” . . . Guaranteed Minimum Family Income, and school choice (taxpayer funded) and the fact he still wants the state to have a role in health, it’s not total hypocrisy, I would’ve thought . . . ”

    Well, fair enough, I suppose, kind of, yeah – still, ironic all the same.

    And, as we all know, the measures you mention are the lube and the policy the anal dildo; once the public gets used to the policy, those measures will evaporate into whatever universe would have a planet so daft as to adopt such idiocy.
53. lprent 53

    10 February 2009 at 12:17 pm

    vto: Things work better when the people involved have responsibility. Transfer that responsibility to someone else and things fall apart.

    You missed something out. When you transfer responsibility then you also have to transfer authority.

    For instance and just off the top of my head (and as a stir) on education. Give the students the authority to shoot bad providers. I’ve seen a number of people who have had bad experiences of coughing up large amounts of money to receive an inadequate private tertiary level education. Trying to get a redress on that without coughing up even more major amounts of money is not effective.

    I think that simply removing those unrequired layers of justice would fit with the general right philosophy. Just allow the students a clear shot at their teachers and educational institution owners. The would put both the responsibility and authority directly with the owners of their own education – the students.

    Of course there wouldn’t be many teachers or educational institutions (left)..
54. Michael 54

    10 February 2009 at 12:17 pm

    The productivity thing needs to be blown out of the water.

    If a worker digs a hole with a pick and shovel the worker has a lower productivity than if dug with a digger. The productivity looks like 1/2 a day as opposed to 1/2 an hour.

    It is not the worker who is less productive but the tools by which the under capitalised industry chooses to work with.

    It is the high invester returns that have crippled industry through taking profit out of the industry as investments in plant and training are diverting it to their holiday homes.

    A model of increased productivity requires further investment in the industry, not in extravagant excesses.
55. Draco T Bastard 55

    10 February 2009 at 12:18 pm

    His policies are guaranteed to do one thing, make the rich richer and the poor poorer, nice guy, why does anyone listen to him?

    Because the non-productive rich like having government backing.

    We need to create more liquidity in the economy and have that money invested in businesses.

    I agree – increasing wages is a bloody good idea. (In a free-market everyone is a business not just the rich)

    And that includes capital.

    We started losing capital the day we started selling our assets and businesses to foreign owners.

    I seriously struggle with the idea that health and education are too important to leave to the private sector. If that is so then how come two even more important aspects of life on earth are quite happily left to the private sector – the provision of food and shelter?

    Actually, that comes down to competition. Food can be easily transported to any market meaning that food will be supplied @ near cost (in theory). Build two schools next to each other to compete for the same pupils and you’ve just doubled your expenses without any increase in benefits. Same applies to hospitals which helps explain why the US health service is the most expensive in the world. Housing – well, you may not have noticed but the government does have its hand in providing housing because the market generally fails there as well.
56. Jum 56

    10 February 2009 at 12:22 pm

    I remember now; I think it was ‘visionless and morally bankrupt people’ meaning the National opposition who sought to give tax cuts to the rich at that time and at the expense of weakened infrastructure and support both financially and community-wise for the poor and vulnerable.

    Now Douglas is trying it on again.

    The speech is relevant again today with the failure of the Finance Coys.
    ‘(Unequal) Tax cuts are not appropriate in a time of underdevelopment (change to ‘unemployment’) and are the promises of visionless and morally bankrupt people’ (National – no change there!).
57. burt 57

    10 February 2009 at 12:59 pm

    Jum

    Burt
    Passing laws under urgency to take away the working rights of people (90 day) is bad.

    They did it too…. I need to remind my kids that “He/She did it too” is not an excuse for bad behaviour. I don’t expect it from intelligent adults. You on the other hand…. Yes Jum – National did it too… Whatever.
58. Clint Heine 58

    11 February 2009 at 1:58 am

    Oh yes, Sir Roger is wrong because you on the left say so. I suspect you suffer from a form of “living so far away from the real world” syndrome. Funnily enough, other countries are embracing much of what you call this out of touch policy, and if I recall, Canada recently honoured Sir Roger for his ability and skill.

    I love it that you get on your high horse about the nasty behaviour on Kiwiblog, only to descend into ageist abuse of a guy almost the same age as Anderton. I am sure you speak to your grandparents the same way too right?
59. Ag 59

    11 February 2009 at 2:48 am

    Funnily enough, other countries are embracing much of what you call this out of touch policy, and if I recall, Canada recently honoured Sir Roger for his ability and skill.

    Was that the Fraser Institute, or some other Canadian wackos? Or was it the widely detested Harper?

    It’s funny that Douglas would give this speech right at the point where neoliberalism has been completely discredited. At least he’ll die knowing he’s been a complete failure.
60. Felix 60

    11 February 2009 at 8:32 am

    Clint – it’s not his age, it’s his zombieness and wretchedness that people make fun of. The man is a wretched zombie.

Links to post

1. Sockpuppet of the right at The Standard 2.02: posted on 10 February 2009 at 1:15 pm
2. First as tragedy, second as farce at The Standard 2.02: posted on 11 February 2009 at 5:00 pm

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS