My bad.

The real data that we should be looking at is GDP per hour. A country could have a good face value GDP trend; but until you break it down to actual productivity ratios it has no real meaning as a long term trend.

If for instance it was showing that along with overall GDP shrinking, the GDP per hour was dropping, we should have some serious concerns. That would indicate that the effort required for producing the GDP was becoming less efficient. That is a bad trend.

If however it was a slight shrinkage; but GDP per hour was improving, then we could consider that to be a correction due to outside influences, but overall we were becoming more productive as a nation. That is a good trend.

Our focus should be on productivity per hour. That requires streamlining and up-skilling the workforce. Nothing else is really going to make a difference. No government in recent times has any real policy around this, and they should have.

Reliance on a single industry to boost GDP has been done before and nearly bankrupted the country. Amusing that it is pretty much the same industry bolstering NZ’s GDP again.

Regardless of which government takes us through the next 3-9 years, New Zealand needs to bring itself from the bottom 1/3 GDP per hour into the top 1/3 GDP per hour.

The only way we can do that is through innovation and R & D. We can’t compete with the likes of China and Mexico from the perspective of relatively low skilled labour.

But by focusing on innovation and education, New Zealand can generate patentable initiatives that will see this country become wealthy again.

Until then we will always be struggling to ride out global economic trends.

From Q2’92 till Labour took over I make inflation at 1.85%, Labour’s average is 2.63%.

National grew the economy 32%, Labour 28% over that time – so about the same. That’s my point: Labour’s growth is the same, so that’s nothing to boast over

But when I take off inflation each quarter and accumulate that I get 23% real growth for National and 5% for Labour.

Is that the facts you wanted?

Like I said, Labour went up the same hill, but used a heck of a lot more gas to get there.

I might explain this in a bit more detail over at halfdone.

(Just realised: National got that growth in shorter time, so Labour’s 5% is actually much worse)

You need to back up your ranting with “facts” and/or “rationale” if you want to convince anyone here. It isn’t kiwiblog you know.

That graph is absolutely nothing to boast over – it shows Labour not screwing up at best.

At worst, add the inflation to it and you find (to use a car analogy) that Labour’s used far more gas to get up the same hill.

You guys are loosing the public – keep up the good work!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10518834

There’s nobody left except devotees of the union movement.

That’s the price of Cullen’s recession we didn’t have to have. If he had released tax cuts six years ago, restrained growth of gummint bureaucracy, resisted the temptation to spend billions on bribes, we would have been a prosperous nation where people could afford to pay high prices for food and petrol.

Why, you blokes might even have had a show of winning this election.

I thought you were banned from posting here?

Surely relaxing control on inflation would hurt most the elderly constituents Winston relies on for support ? Their retirement savings would be eaten away if the RBNZ gets any looser with inflation control. Some would agure the RBNZ is already too relaxed regarding inflation.