Comments on: It’s official – Key wants Rogernomics!

By: Pascal's bookie

Pascal's bookie — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 01:31:14 +0000

Robin, if you want to try and blame the current global economic meltdown on Cullen, be my guest, but I’m going to ask you to show your work.

If instead you want to argue that the global economic meltdown is irrelevant to our situation, I’ll ask the same thing.

What is undisputed by you so far is that the economic theology of Douglas, that was halted in this country post Richardson, and slightly reversed under Cullen, was continued in the states under Bush. Tell me how that’s worked out for the US taxpayer and the global economy.

By: Killinginthenameof

Killinginthenameof — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 00:54:08 +0000

Ari
October 25, 2008 at 9:50 pm

KitNo: What’s his actual middle name, (is it Jewish or Austrian or something?) and do you have a reference?

I don’t mind correcting it. That said, I don’t think he should be at all ashamed of such a middle name. There’s nothing wrong with Jewish or Austrian heritage “

Sorry, sources are conflicting, I may be wrong on this one, no big deal. As you were!
.

By: Greg

Greg — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:29:49 +0000

If Roger Douglas has been so bad for New Zealand why has Helen Clark not reversed all his policies? In fact I struggle to think of many that have been.

By: Draco T Bastard

Draco T Bastard — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 23:12:22 +0000

Robin Grieve:
It’s you with the distorted view. Some of what RD did in the 1980s was good but that doesn’t mean that they were all good which is the view you seem to be taking. Yes, the reforms did bring down inflation but they also brought in higher poverty and a stagnating economy. This is why the Labour led government of the last few years haven’t dropped everything he (and National in the 1990s) did but have made changes to increase R&D, improve the power of workers in their relationship with employers and a few other changes that will allow the economy to become more dynamic. These changes take time to bed in and actually make a difference.

By: MikeE

MikeE — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 20:25:31 +0000

How ironic that MMP could see Roger Douglas in parliament watching Helen Clarks validectory speech!

By: Robin Grieve

Robin Grieve — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 19:43:25 +0000

You got a relly distorted view Pascal’s Bookie. We have just had a decade of tremendous economics, government coffers awash with cash, public servants employed to try and spend all the money, That was all down to reforms by Douglas. Do you have any idea what keeping all those subsidised jobs would have done to this country. How expensive clothes and cars would be now had it not beem for those reforms.
So now after 9 years of a Labour govt the economy is in the toilet and you blame a Labour guy from the 80′s. Try looking a litle closer at the absolute mismanagement by Clark/ Cullen. He will have to be the absolute worst Finance Minister in History.

And before you whip up Ruth Richardson remember the state the Labour Govt left the country in before she took over to fix it up. Made worse by the fact that Labour lied about the countries finances. Sounds like it’s all happening again.

By: Pascal's bookie

Pascal's bookie — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:47:55 +0000

Yeah that’s the guy Robin. He left the Labour party and started a little glee club called ACT.

The Labour party spent the better part of a decade in the wilderness for his sins, and the National party adopted a watered down version of his economic policies, which are modeled on those of the Republicans in the US. The results of those policies can be seen by watching all those economic indicators head south.

If the National party wants to govern, they will be doing so with his Roger’s glee club. That’ll be ok, Tim Ellis reckons, because there is little difference between Douglas’ glee club and National. (policy wise anyway, clearly the National party are shabbier dressers and fewer honest)

By: Robin Grieve

Robin Grieve — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 09:24:45 +0000

Roger Douglas was that Labour guy from way way back sometime in the 80′s wasn’t he? Did he leave the economy in as much mess as Helen Clark and Michael Cullen are?

By: Ari

Ari — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:50:02 +0000

KitNo: What’s his actual middle name, (is it Jewish or Austrian or something?) and do you have a reference?

I don’t mind correcting it. That said, I don’t think he should be at all ashamed of such a middle name. There’s nothing wrong with Jewish or Austrian heritage

By: Killinginthenameof

Killinginthenameof — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 08:05:32 +0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key

Does Mr Key think his middle name wont go down well with his standard constituents, especially while Lockwood busy courting the racist vote?

(id correct it myself but I don’t have an account and wouldn’t be able to correct a semi protected article right away either)

By: NeillR

NeillR — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 06:36:31 +0000

Oops, can you delete that – i posted in the wrong thread. Cheers.

By: NeillR

NeillR — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 06:27:03 +0000

Lynn, what do you have to say about Labour’s downward trend?

By: appleboy

appleboy — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:15:07 +0000

interestng how the right twist things so bizarrely. National would be a 4 headed monster and Labour would have 4 or 5. Big deal. How stupid is Key. How does one additioanl party if needed make a difference? He wants the public to believe that National , ACT, United Future and the Maori party are 4 closely aligned parties?? I seriously think Key has lost the plot..maybe the stress is showing as this is seriously warped thinking..

By: DeeDub

DeeDub — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 04:13:27 +0000

What did Douglas actually INVENT? Rogernomics is just standard Friedmanite sh*te with a Kiwi axesunt…. sdtop giving the creep credit he doesn’t deserve!

Captcha: vittles plenty

That’s southern fired trickle down economics!

By: StephenR

StephenR — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 01:24:48 +0000

Beat up. ACT means Rogernomics with or without Roger Douglas.