National’s litany of economic failure

132 comments on “National’s litany of economic failure ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tamati 1

   10 November 2013 at 1:44 pm

   December 2008 wasn’t the deepest point in the GFC for New Zealand. The severity of the crises wasn’t truly felt and recognised until early 2010.
   • Draco T Bastard 1.1

     10 November 2013 at 3:13 pm

     [citation needed]
     • tamati 1.1.1

       10 November 2013 at 4:36 pm

       Seriously?

       Do I need to reference if I think the sun will rise tomorrow too? It’s common knowledge that the depth and breadth of the GFC wasn’t fully understood until late 2009/ early 2010. For the record

       -GDP contraction peaked in Q2, 2009 at -3.4%
       -We remained in recession until Q2, 2010
       • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.1

         10 November 2013 at 4:46 pm

         When you go round making assertions like that, yes. The GFC was in 2007/8 and the world was, supposedly, coming out of it by late 2009 and we should have been as well especially considering how well the 5th Labour government left the books in.

         In fact, we’ve had RWNJs on here telling us the we entered recession before the rest of the world.
   • infused 1.2

     10 November 2013 at 4:05 pm

     Pretty much.
     • aerobubble 1.2.1

       11 November 2013 at 3:54 pm

       I disagree, obvious tarp mattered, and had the immediate effect on boards who are paid large salaries to look forward at the consequences. So sure in the media and public there is a lag, from lazy financial journalists, but your keen eyed forecaster would be factoring tarp into their outlooks immediately or be flushed out with the large exodus of financial workers globally.

       Its also one of the reasons I don’t trust Key, he could never get ahead of the GFC, and is unwilling to get ahead of the China slow down. We need our leaders to be held to account, yet the financial and other press just buys shit and so serves it up.
2. QoT 2

   10 November 2013 at 1:47 pm

   With statistics like these I feel that a party (no, not Labour) could do very well campaigning on a platform of defunding Treasury. Or at least forcing them to register as a third party promoter for the purposes of election advertising.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.1

     10 November 2013 at 3:14 pm

     Treasury has become the most powerful of the government departments and it really does need to be declawed.
   • Dumrse 2.2

     10 November 2013 at 5:43 pm

     You need to careful what you wish for, the Govt is more likely to change the rules re party funding. And, make union subscription collection a job of the union, not the employer.
     • QoT 2.2.1

       10 November 2013 at 9:28 pm

       … I don’t know what the hell your comment has to do with mine, but that’s not really a rare occurrence with you, misspelled dumbass.
       • Hanswurst 2.2.1.1

         11 November 2013 at 2:01 am

         Dumbarse, surely?
3. Tat Loo (CV) 3

   10 November 2013 at 1:48 pm

   It’s not entirely clear whether this is a criticism of National, or of Treasury. Or of the rest of us who take Treasury forecasts seriously, when a dart board is just as good.

   edit QoT beat me to it.
4. Ad 4

   10 November 2013 at 2:10 pm

   If unemployment dips below 6% Labour will not be able to run a credible attack about “economic mismanagement”. Labour will need a whole new attack approach.

   Labour tried appeals to economic nationalism re the asset sales and it was nowhere near enough in 2008.

   No one particularly the media should feel obliged to give John Key his due. But he wins. So they back him with money and votes.

   What Labour strategy will beat John Key? A presumption of a coalition simply isn’t enough.
   • Chocolate 4.1

     10 November 2013 at 2:35 pm

     That is a good question.
     National is already looking at handing out some election bribes to those not naturally of their voting constituency.
     Labour needs be ready and to think strategically, while being prepared to move tactically.
   • Naturesong 4.2

     10 November 2013 at 3:04 pm

     Given that Labour was MIA last election, and the last term and a half the Greens have been the only party performing their parliamentary role as “loyal opposition”, the next election looks like it will be properly contested.

     Over the past 18 months I’ve seen more and more people that I know to be apathetic to politics express a strong desire to get rid of “that slimy bastard” (my Mum, who never normally swears, calls him that!!).

     The election will be won on the ground, engaging with all the folks who have suffered under the current government’s legislation.
     Other things that opposition parties can run on are:
     – The not corrupt party – Chorus, Ruataniwha dam, Tiwai Point, Sky City
     – Education – National has done serious damage to our education system
     – New Zealand as an independant country, with it’s own foriegn policy
     – Housing – Restrict non-residents from buying existing stock, CGT, and building low cost housing
     – We’re not big brother, and we’ll stop spying on New Zealanders
     – Fixing the Police force – A strong Minister to force the police to enact the recommendations in the Bazley report. And refocus the Police on supporting communities. Changing the culture there might involve firing a fair amount of long serving members. Funding them properly. Reporting crime properly.
     – Regional Development – What if, instead of giving 30M of tacpayers money to Rio Tinto, they had invested that in Invercargill itself, promoting small business startups etc
     – Being able to swim in New Zealand rivers without getting sick, like when I was growing up
     – Being able collect shellfish from the coastline without having to check for algal bloom every time
     – Fixing the Health system – Not made news yet, but there’s trouble brewing there. There’s a siege mentality in DHB’s, staff are stretched past breaking.
     – Commitment to evidence based policy – that’d be a massive change
     – Revisiting the tax system, reducing GST, higher tax for top earners
     – Transport – Fix up existing roads that are in disrepair instead of pouring money into holiday highways. Commitment to Public Trasnport.
     – Reversing the massive power grab by Central Government and returning appropriate decision making back to elected councils.

     There’s more than enough to go on.

     However, since Cunliffe has become leader, there has been a constant refrain from the press that he’s arrogant, making stuff up as he goes along, doesn’t have the support of his collougues or is unable to lead them etc. Expect to see the press to get even more shrill over the next year.
     • MrSmith 4.2.1

       11 November 2013 at 8:27 am

       All this “it will be won on the ground” repetition is old hat, yes there is a place for it but really Labour need to campaign through the screen you are looking at right now and I think Cunliffe is young enough and smart enough to realize that.

       And Treasury need a complete overhaul or maybe it might be better to crush them and start from scratch.
       • Francis 4.2.1.1

         11 November 2013 at 12:01 pm

         The two certainly aren’t mutually exclusive. I doubt that David Cunliffe will simply decide not to attend the media debates, not to comment on issues when asked by the media, or not to utilise election advertising. But the fact is that the media is no friend of the Left. This is shown by the fact that John Key is still under the so-called “honeymoon” period, while David Cunliffe has been under attack by the media since the first time he contested the Labour Party leadership.

         That’s where I would argue strongly for delivering the Labour Party message in person, where it cannot be warped and pulled apart by the media (while National gains no such criticism, or to a much lesser extent). That’s why there is a real strong focus on energising the Labour Party membership, who will be the ones delivering this message in-person.

         I agree also that there needs to be much more involvement by the Labour Party via online means, since it is a really good way of portraying direct messages, without being manipulated by the MSM, and without needing the time and resources to undertake them in person. However, many New Zealanders either do not have internet access, or do not use it very often at all. Those people will need to have the in-person communication, unfortunately.
       • Draco T Bastard 4.2.1.2

         11 November 2013 at 2:00 pm

         really Labour need to campaign through the screen you are looking at right now

         Presently sitting in my in box:
         Annette King
         Shane Jones
         Jacinda Adern
         Moana Mackey
         Grant Robertson
         Phil Twyford
     • Rogue Trooper 4.2.2

       11 November 2013 at 11:41 am

       a comprehensive tune-up Naturesong
   • Tat Loo (CV) 4.3

     10 November 2013 at 3:27 pm

     What Labour strategy will beat John Key?

     A government in waiting with a vision of the future, one with a willingness to deal with economic and environmental megatrends that National doesn’t have.

     If unemployment dips below 6% Labour will not be able to run a credible attack about “economic mismanagement”. Labour will need a whole new attack approach.

     You are right Labour needs to be prepared for this. The short answer is: it’s not just the quantity of jobs which National has failed at. It’s the poor quality of those jobs – including the low rates of pay given to workers.
     • Foreign Waka 4.3.1

       10 November 2013 at 7:45 pm

       Labour need to do its own findings, i.e. how many of those additional jobs are positioned in Christchurch with the rebuild? This has nothing to do with economic growth and even the international commentators know that. In fact without Christchurch NZ is pretty much stagnant as it has no new revenue streams other than selling the family silver.
       How many of these “new” jobs are temporary, contract based and/or part time (zero hour?)
       How much of the wealth generated in NZ stays with the wage earners in NZ? How does this bode with other countries – and please don’t add third world economies with human rights records. We are not stupid.
       What are the plans for future alignment of education and economic growth? Is there a measure what work needs to be done, what services offered, how many people will enter the country, the education system, the workforce and what the connected need for a functioning infrastructure is? How does this bode with environmental issues and sustainability?
       I hear a lot of rhetoric and political attacks but what about the “get on with it” attitude? So many highly paid “professionals” so little to show for it.
       • Tat Loo (CV) 4.3.1.1

         10 November 2013 at 7:53 pm

         So many highly paid “professionals” so little to show for it.

         Yep. Look at what the First Labour Government achieved by, as you say, simply getting on with it.
     • David H 4.3.2

       11 November 2013 at 8:19 am

       “What Labour strategy will beat John Key?”

       Solid Policy properly costed.
       Good social Policy.
       A ready to win party, that shows it’s a credible alternative to the Status Quo.
       A party that communicates with it’s voters and the non voters.
       An engaging leader.
       The ability to win over the swing voter.

       And then if you win. Don’t backtrack on promises you made, don’t screw over the little man who is looking at you to try to repair some of that, which was taken away, under this Government
     • JonL 4.3.3

       11 November 2013 at 11:56 am

       “If unemployment dips below 6% Labour will not be able to run a credible attack about “economic mismanagement”. Labour will need a whole new attack approach. ”

       So look out for some “inventive” approaches to unemployment measuring from the Nats…..as has happened in the USA…….
5. Tigger 5

   10 November 2013 at 2:12 pm

   To me, the information is less interesting than how it was presented. Dumped at the bottom of a long piece that looks like it was pulled from various different articles – it can only be described as a ‘grab-bag’ (I’m surprised no one thought to add a recipe for their aunt’s chicken quiche). It is easy to miss this. I certainly did the first time I read this.

   And it is buried below that cloying piece that trumpets Key is ‘living the dream’.

   Why present ‘analysis’ like this? To further your own delusion that you are doing a great job of being thorough and unbiased in political reporting.
   • Ad 5.1

     10 November 2013 at 3:18 pm

     What Key is doing well that Cunliffe is completely missing is soft media profile. It’s what leadership feels like to most citizens. Cunliffe may possibly win just by pursuing the 800,000 that did not vote last time. Big maybe.

     But IMHO that is exceedingly risky if he does not get his picture on Women’s Weekly, Fish and Game magazine, New Idea, 1ZB, Sky sports commentaries etc.

     Political Man cannot live by policy alone. Key’s team get this. Cunliffe feels like the suit and tie guy trying to win off political set pieces that preach largely to the converted.

     So Key has seduced Tracey Watkins and a bunch of the others. Figure it out Labour team and start seducing. You won’t win hearts and minds feeding us dry policy weetbix every morning.
     • Tat Loo (CV) 5.1.1

       10 November 2013 at 5:15 pm

       +1

       Political Man cannot live by policy alone.

       Yep a classic Labour trap thinking that policy is the most important tool in winning elections. National with their corporate PR/marketing resources know better. It’s not the sausage which makes the sale, it is the sizzle.

       Makes me worry about this report saying that Cunliffe turned down a regular spot on the Farming Show and instead, Russel Norman will be on.

       http://homepaddock.wordpress.com/2013/11/06/cunliffe-chickens-out-norman-steps-in/
     • Zorr 5.1.2

       10 November 2013 at 5:33 pm

       I actually find this to be completely incorrect for our current situation.

       It is nice if your morning cereal comes all frosted and sweet but all too often you have a bowl or two and then you’re over it. Without any substance it doesn’t last

       As much as Cunliffe might be more policy focused than John Key, he is no Phil Goff and it definitely sounds like he’s trying to be the political leader that we need.

       The big *if* is only *if* the economy improves… on what fucking planet? Planet Key? Because that’s the only place their current economic strategies would actually work. If the status quo remains for the next year, I’m expecting a very merry red 2014 Xmas
       • Ad 5.1.2.1

         10 November 2013 at 6:07 pm

         The “fucking planet” that the economy described is on is called the media. Pop up to the actual post and read the actual point of it: the media are letting John Key off the economic reality. This is supposed to be news after 5 years?

         Expect all you like. We will get reams of this wall to wall happy John Key coverage unless Labour do something even more persuasive than he is being. At the moment they are not.
         • Zorr 5.1.2.1.1

           10 November 2013 at 6:15 pm

           The thing that I actually see happening is that what the media produces is becoming less and less representative of the reality that people spend their daily lives in and, therefore, they are becoming turned off to it. Puff pieces like this one are self-reinforcing for all readers currently because those who like John Key get to feel good about him for a bit and those who dislike him get a further example of how disconnected he is from reality.

           No matter what economic planet the media lives on, if unemployment remains where it is (or worsens) in our economic reality, I would put money on the Nats not surviving. It is a long road to the election but the discontent is very high and becoming very vocal.

           I read the piece yesterday and posted it to Open Mike Ad. It can be safely assumed I read large swathes of it in between vomiting sessions.
           • Ad 5.1.2.1.1.1

             10 November 2013 at 6:59 pm

             Try the 3 News poll tonight.

             MSM reality is still the predominant reality.
             Cunliffe owned the conference, and his Preferred Prime Minister stakes versus Key have not moved one iota. Key has slipped a little, but Cunliffe is not yet within even 30 points.

             Re the unemployment numbers: Labour better have another strategy other than attacking that, because if that slips, on the current strategy Labour are toast.
             • Zorr …

               10 November 2013 at 8:25 pm

               “Preferred PM” is possibly the worst polling metric ever invented

               ’nuff said

               And Labour aren’t just attacking on employment. They are attacking on asset sales, “trickle down” economics, anti-democratic actions by Nact, housing shortages… etc

               Those are just from the top of my head and I’m pretty sure there are many more that others can add
             • David H …

               11 November 2013 at 8:26 am

               Yeah we had the love fest between Key and English on Sunday morning. Really had to look for a bucket on that one.

               Key on TV one this morning
               Norman on TV one this Morning’
               Labour still asleep?
         • Foreign Waka 5.1.2.1.2

           10 November 2013 at 7:55 pm

           https://www.alliancebernstein.com/Perspectives/Economic-Weeklies/Global/2013/GlobalEconomicOutlook_JAN2013.pdf
           Not everybody, thanks to the internet.
     • Saarbo 5.1.3

       10 November 2013 at 8:16 pm

       I think you are probably right Ad…unfortunately.
6. Chooky 6

   10 November 2013 at 3:31 pm

   Ad +1…good comments
7. infused 7

   10 November 2013 at 4:07 pm

   List of failures? Maybe if Labour was in power.

   Watch next year (economy, not the election), it’s going to be a cracker.
8. red blooded 8

   10 November 2013 at 6:09 pm

   Cunliffe definitely needs to try to up his media profile. Plenty of radio time (including guest spots not related to politics, like picking songs for the Saturday morning nat rad show, or live talkback), “Family man” stuff, spots on 7 Days, Backbenchers…etc). He can’t afford to leave it too close to the election or it will look desperate. Plus, I haven’t seen much of him on shows like “The Nation” or “Q&A”. He needs to follow on from the “new boy in town” early stuff and get his identity cemented in people’s minds as a man at ease with the leadership role.

   He’s bloody good on policy and in formal interview situations; it would just be good to have a more rounded view of him established so that he’s ready to go next year and people have a warm view of him.
   • David H 8.1

     11 November 2013 at 8:28 am

     That means he needs a media secretary that gets all forms of the media. Labour have to get up on technology.
9. Philgwellington Wellington 9

   10 November 2013 at 7:03 pm

   Xox
   Is this what we have come to? Weetbix and soft sell, in the vacuous media. What I take from this is the media is king, regardless of who is in Government. Sure big business supports the Nats, but Labour has to smooch the crap media, just the same. Ironic, but it is in a Labour’s self interest to establish a, truly independent quality public broadcaster. It had the opportunity and failed. Get it together, learn to speak out of both sides of your mouth, win the election and do the right thing all New Zealanders, especially those at the bottom.
   Labour, are you up to it?
10. Chooky 10

    10 November 2013 at 7:42 pm

    What is needed is …a table thumping , soap box stumping Socialist John A Lee who speaks to the people via every form of media….Cunliffe can do it!

    (….it is just that the media has been preoccupied and swamped with the Auckland sex scene for the last few weeks…..)

    Also maybe this is the calm before the storm….Cunliffe is resting up and getting ready for the big 2014 war…… conserving his energy……working on his strategies…before he talks to vested interest groups like farmer lobbys ( I always thought it was smart he didnt go to Hooton Possums Xmas dos…unlike Shearer who was in boots and all …and he didnt go to to the Auckland casino hospitality dos…unlike some of his more thoughtless colleagues)

    …..maybe Cunliffe is keeping his gun powder dry for Election Year

    …..getting all his cannon balls together

    ….getting the cannons all oiled and greased

    ……lining them up on deck ready to go

    … …placement and strategy and timing is everything in winning war…lets hope he has good intelligence sources and networks and advisers
11. Steve Withers 11

    10 November 2013 at 8:03 pm

    National are firm in their belief that government can’t run the economy properly. They are failing to understand that THEY can’t do it properly. Labour was doing a pretty good job under Helen Clark.
12. Draco T Bastard 12

    10 November 2013 at 8:26 pm

    Chorus, the Commerce Commission, and the Common Good

    It would appear that the criteria for government intervention is very simple; privatise the profits and socialize the losses. Profits before people in other words. The government is only prepared to intervene if company profits are threatened. Massive job losses, starvation wages, and consumers paying over the odds don’t warrant any action other than a bit of hand wringing and a plaintive, “we wish there was something we could do but there isn’t”.

    That says it perfectly. Government fucks up by accepting Chorus’ tender and then looks set to bail-out Chorus at our expense. If anything proves Nationals’ inability to manage the economy that would be it.
    • photonz 12.1

      11 November 2013 at 12:29 am

      It’s the Commerce Commission that’s stuffed up. They’ve given Chorus a price that has ZERO to do with what it costs actually costs Chorus to run their network.

      All they did was take a price from a different network in a different country with different rules and a different market. The assessment is so silly that fluctuations in exchange rates from a country on the other side of the planet, which are totally irrelevant, have been one of the main factors in the Commerce Commission working out what Chorus should charge.

      In fact the Commerce Commission have breached the Telecomunications Act 2001, as they have failed to take account the fact that Chorus is building a new network – they are legally required to do this under the act, but haven’t.

      The act requires that the Commerce Commission take into account expensive capital expenditure on new technologies that will benefit the country as a whole. In addition the fibre network is an upgrade from copper – not some completely different market. When fibre gets 1000 new customers, copper gets 1000 fewer customers.

      So as people transfer to fibre, the cost per customer to run the old copper network goes UP – not down.
      • Tat Loo (CV) 12.1.1

        11 November 2013 at 12:59 am

        Few are going to leave the old copper network.

        Because Chorus can’t get its fibre one cheap enough to be competitive. That’s why they’re asking the Government for handouts. According to free market philosophy, if Chorus isn’t competitive, it shouldn’t be bailed out and should sink or swim on its own merits.

        It’s the Commerce Commission that’s stuffed up. They’ve given Chorus a price that has ZERO to do with what it costs actually costs Chorus to run their network.

        Chorus crying has nothing to do with cost of running the network. It has everything to do with their annoyance at facing reduced profits for their shareholders.

        If they don’t want to do the work, they can feel free to walk from the contract and the Govt can complete it as a public works, at cost, no mark up, way cheaper for all NZers.
        • photonz 12.1.1.1

          11 November 2013 at 11:03 am

          Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers paying billions for something they will never use would be “way cheaper for all NZers.”?

          If you have a think about what you say, rather that simply spouting a cultish anti-buisiness line, you won’t come up with such silly statements.

          If the taxpayer foots the bill, it will be way dearer for those people who don’t get fibre, as they’ve subsidise those who do.
          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 12.1.1.1.1

            11 November 2013 at 11:15 am

            You should tell Farrar and Hooten how you’ve uncovered the truth about the Commerce Commission. I’m sure they’ll withdraw their public criticism of Chorus on your say so, and when I say sure, I mean convinced, 100% certain, yes indeedy.

            Oh, no, wait, this just in, it turns out you have less than zero credibility. Never mind.
            • photonz 12.1.1.1.1.1

              11 November 2013 at 11:28 am

              What line do you expect Hooten to have ?????….he is being paid to be a mouthpiece for the consumer groups.

              The Commerce Commission will now legally be forced, for the very first time, to look at what it actually costs Chorus to provide broadband.

              Rather than the rediculous situation of some random price from some country that where the main factor in their costings is an irrelevant exchange rate of a random foreign currency,….. but NOT even the slightest input of what it actually costs to run a network in NZ.
              • KJT …

                11 November 2013 at 11:39 am

                Photo. Chorus contracted to roll out fibre for a price. Now it is going to make less profit than they expected they want us, copper users, to subsidise it.

                How many of your customers allow you to increase your prices after the contract is signed and in progress.

                It has happened to me, and probably most contractors. Something changes after you start and you cannot make as much as you expected, or even a loss. Normally you just have to wear it.
                • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                  11 November 2013 at 12:03 pm

                  Forced? By you?

                  *ridiculous!*

                  The only judicial review in the pipeline is the one initiated by Callplus against Amy Adams. Keep dreaming.
                  • photonz …

                    11 November 2013 at 12:38 pm

                    Duh!!!!

                    “Chorus will force the Commerce Commission to go back to the drawing board to work out broadband charges..” from

                    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11151998
                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                      11 November 2013 at 1:06 pm

                      ” …it was Chorus’ right under the law to ask for this review. This can take years to complete …If the FPP process was not complete by December next year, yesterday’s price cuts would still come into effect…”

                      Who does the review? The Commerce Commission.

                      I can see that working out exactly as you predict, no, sorry, just can’t maintain a straight face any longer 😆

                      Chorus knew the rules when they (under)bid for the contract. The underbid was noted at the time. Now they’re cap-in-hand to the National Party (you’d hesitate to call it a government) looking for some Socialist bailout.

                      Your attempted defence of this is risible because if it weren’t for the fact that Dear Leader is up to his shonky neck in the deal you’d be howling along with Hooten and Farrar.

                      My guess is you’ve got skin in the game.
                • photonz …

                  11 November 2013 at 12:22 pm

                  The price the Commerce Commission has come up with has nothing to do with what it costs Chorus to supply the service – nothing at all.

                  In fact they haven’t even acted lawfully coming up with it. The are required by law (Telecommunications Act 2001) to take account of expensive capital upgrades when setting prices.

                  They totally to do this – totally failed – and instead picked a price from the other side of the planet and said Chorus should charge that.

                  Already that price is wrong because currency rates have changed since last week.

                  That the price is reflective of an irrelevant exchange rate with random foreign currency, but not with what it costs Chorus to provide the service, shows just how ridiculous their figure is.

                  The would have had a better chance of coming up with the correct figure if they’d picked random figures out of a hat.
                  • photonz …

                    11 November 2013 at 1:37 pm

                    Knucklehead says “My guess is you’ve got skin in the game.”

                    Just like 2 million kiwis with Kiwisaver accounts.

                    The irony is that we’ve got politicians on the left saying we need to invest more in NZ rather than overseas.

                    Then they show their plans to screw investors in NZ infrastructure, which leads to more and more financial advice NOT to invest in NZ, particularly if there is a likelihood of a Labour/Greens govt.
                    • Tat Loo (CV) …

                      11 November 2013 at 1:44 pm

                      Then they show their plans to screw investors in NZ infrastructure, which leads to more and more financial advice NOT to invest in NZ, particularly if there is a likelihood of a Labour/Greens govt.

                      Those “investors” are only interested in extracting profits out from our communities and exporting that money to their overseas shareholders.

                      We can provide our own capital for necessary projects, without that wealth extraction.

                      Just like 2 million kiwis with Kiwisaver accounts.

                      Meh. Kiwisaver providers are supposed to act as fiduciaries.

                      If they put their clients money in risky investments, that is a real problem.

                      Perhaps the way to go is a government Kiwisaver scheme like they have in advanced countries, which helps cut down on the profits extracted by the financial sector.
                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                      11 November 2013 at 1:57 pm

                      You’re transparent.

                      Chorus underbid for the job and now they want shareholders to have a government bailout rather than take a bath. If they can’t fulfil their contractual obligations there is a queue of companies who can.

                      The fact that the government let this crew on board makes Dear Leader look bad even though he was kissing babies at the time. Let Double Dipton run the show, what could possibly go wrong?

                      Got another small-business homily, empty vessel?
                    • photonz …

                      11 November 2013 at 2:22 pm

                      Knucklehead says “If they can’t fulfil their contractual obligations there is a queue of companies who can.”

                      Chorus – our largest network company by far, may not be large enough to borrow the money without breaking it’s debt limits.

                      So that either means a foreign company building and owning the network.

                      Or lots of smaller NZ companies, which as with the other 30% of the networks, is costing you, the taxpayer, considerably MORE per house to build the network.

                      So you either want a foreign company to build and own it, or a smaller Kiwi company that will cost the taxpayer much more.

                      That’s really dumb .
                    • McFlock …

                      11 November 2013 at 2:33 pm

                      Or lots of smaller NZ companies, which as with the other 30% of the networks, is costing you, the taxpayer, considerably MORE per house to build the network.

                      You assume that the chorus sticker price is the full cost of their part of the rollout.

                      The other 30% of companies that tendered based their price around the actual cost of building the network.

                      Chorus underbid, hoping that the difference would be made up by their high copper fees for a captive market.

                      Now they either need to borrow money, get a govt bailout, or continue to charge exorbitant prices for copper.

                      Regardless of whether NZers subsidise the broadband construction via high copper use fees or just a bailout from the nats, we still pay much more than the Chorus sticker price. It’s the equivalent of cheap credit with lots of hidden fees.

                      But you refuse to admit the obvious game of silly bugger chorus are playing.
                      That’s really, really dumb.
                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                      11 November 2013 at 2:34 pm

                      Not so dumb you didn’t fall straight into the pit I dug for you: I’m glad you have finally admitted that you think Chorus are too big to fail, and note that you are arguing against foreign investment, in direct contradiction to Dear Leader.

                      Tying yourself up in knots trying to defend the National Party’s ever shifting “position”, chump.
                    • Tat Loo (CV) …

                      11 November 2013 at 2:39 pm

                      Chorus – our largest network company by far, may not be large enough to borrow the money without breaking it’s debt limits.

                      Chorus “OUR” company? WTF? It mostly belongs to Australian investors mate.

                      BTW if it had retained some monies to reinvest in its own business instead of dishing every last dollar out in shareholder dividends, it wouldn’t need to be going cap in hand to the banksters.
                    • Rogue Trooper …

                      11 November 2013 at 2:47 pm

                      Solution anyone? 😉
                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                      11 November 2013 at 2:55 pm

                      “Chorus “OUR” company?”

                      Perhaps Photonz is being aspirational.

                      I don’t think it’s such a bad idea myself.

                      1. Reject Chorus’ whining.
                      2. Watch as their share price plummets.
                      3. Acquire a controlling stake at a firesale price.
                      4. Rename it to Kiwifibre.

                      Isn’t that what Gordon would do?
                    • photonz …

                      11 November 2013 at 3:56 pm

                      Tat Loo says “Chorus “OUR” company? WTF? It mostly belongs to Australian investors mate.”

                      “Latest statistics showed that 55% of shareholders were New Zealanders” from

                      http://www.odt.co.nz/news/business/263786/ownership-take-please-chorus-chief

                      Tat Loo says “BTW if it had retained some monies to reinvest in its own business instead of dishing every last dollar out in shareholder dividends”

                      Wrong again. Chorus puts the majority of it’s earnings into the fibre project – only a third is paid out in dividends.

                      Tat – you’re going to keep looking ignorant if you keep spouting off in a unquestioning cultish fashion.

                      Best look at the information BEFORE you decide on the answer.
                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                      11 November 2013 at 4:02 pm

                      The right answer is “too big to fail”, eh?
          • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1.2

            11 November 2013 at 2:14 pm

            Hundreds of thousands of taxpayers paying billions for something they will never use would be “way cheaper for all NZers.”?

            Please point out the “hundreds of thousands” of taxpayers presently not using the telecommunications network.

            BTW, Yes, it would be cheaper. Remember taxpayers are already paying half of of the billions required. Chorus wants us to pay more so that they get higher profits.

            If the taxpayer foots the bill, it will be way dearer for those people who don’t get fibre, as they’ve subsidise those who do.

            Actually, that would be a load of bollocks. If the taxpayer was going to foot the entire bill then the first thing that would have to happen is that the entire telecommunications network got renationalised. The rate that people would get copper would be at the Commissions rate. The rate for fibre would then be slightly higher but still significantly less than whet Telecom wants to charge – no dead weight loss of profit you see.
            • photonz 12.1.1.1.2.1

              11 November 2013 at 3:37 pm

              1/ The fibre network will never reach a quarter of 2 million current copper connections. Why should they pay for fibre if they’ll never get to use it?

              2/ Wrong – While taxpayer are subsidising some smaller companies, the difference with the 70% Chorus is building is the taxpayer input is a LOAN – not a grant – it has to ALL be paid back.

              3/ It’s totally false that Chorus have asked to be paid more – they haven’t. All they want is to be able to charge enough for access to their network that allows than to upgrade old copper technology to fibre before it becomes obsolete.

              Just like power companies do. Just like mobile companies to. Just like every company does.

              If no company is ever allowed use profits from older technology to upgrade, there would never be any upgrades of anything, anywhere. You’d lock NZ into the dark ages.
              • Draco T Bastard …

                11 November 2013 at 3:56 pm

                The fibre network will never reach a quarter of 2 million current copper connections.

                Then we have a problem as fibre should be rolled out to every house/residence in the country.

                It’s totally false that Chorus have asked to be paid more – they haven’t.

                There’s a reason why Chorus is regulated – it’s because of its monopoly position. Allowed to go their own way, as Telecom was for so long, and they will overcharge us again.

                If no company is ever allowed use profits from older technology to upgrade, there would never be any upgrades of anything, anywhere.

                I’m quite aware of that. It’s also why Chorus should not be allowed to charge any more than the regulated amount. They had the income and paid it out in dividends rather than upgrading the network. Basically, we’ve already paid for the upgrade but we just didn’t get it. This is what happens under private monopolies – theft.

                It also comes back to your 1/ If Chorus gets to charge more so as to subsidise the installation of fibre then fibre would need to be rolled out to every home and not just the 500, 000 that you mentioned. Of course, this government did promise it across 75% of houses which is a hell of a lot more than that.

                Basically, Telecom should never have been sold or deregulated because, amazingly enough, that’s how they were working prior to the sale. It’s how we now have digital exchanges and fibre across the country. Since the sale, re-investment in the network declined from 100% of surplus to ~15% which wasn’t enough to keep up with what needed to happen (it’s barely above maintenance). The other 85% went out on dividends proving the dead-weight loss of profit.
                • photonz …

                  11 November 2013 at 4:31 pm

                  Draco says “Then we have a problem as fibre should be rolled out to every house/residence in the country.”

                  Why? Current cost is $3000 per house – AVERAGE.

                  Remote areas can cost $20,000 and even several times that, PER house.

                  You really think that’s a good idea?

                  Draco says “They had the income and paid it out in dividends rather than upgrading the network.”:

                  Total nonsense.

                  Chorus put twice as much into the new network than they pay out.

                  Why does everyone here keep making up bullshit when they obviously are totally ignorant of what they’re talking about?

                  Draco says “basically, Telecom should never have been sold or deregulated because…”

                  You’re a few decades too late to be winging about that. If you’re so anti profits, you should emigrate to that leftist paradise – North Korea.

                  Draco says “It’s also why Chorus should not be allowed to charge any more than the regulated amount. ”

                  The “regulated amount” is a figure pulled out of the sky that bears no relation to what it costs Chorus to run their network – none at all.
                  • Rogue Trooper …

                    11 November 2013 at 4:33 pm

                    everyone you say.
                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                    11 November 2013 at 4:36 pm

                    Never “too late” too revisit previous mistakes. Never too late to start rounding up lowlife scum people who suggest exile for their political opponents and packing them off to North Korea either.
                  • McFlock …

                    11 November 2013 at 5:20 pm

                    Draco says “They had the income and paid it out in dividends rather than upgrading the network.”:

                    Total nonsense.

                    Chorus put twice as much into the new network than they pay out.

                    Lol
                    So of the funds available for new network development, a full third is diverted into shareholder dividends?

                    Seems to support DTB’s assertion…
                  • Draco T Bastard …

                    11 November 2013 at 6:33 pm

                    Total nonsense.

                    Chorus put twice as much into the new network than they pay out.

                    Chorus didn’t magically spring into existence. There was a before and that was Telecom with better than a href=”http://www.greens.org.nz/misc-documents/table-sales-proceeds-and-foregone-dividends-resulting-sale-bnz-telecom-and-contact”>$17b in dividends paid out.

                    You’re a few decades too late to be winging about that.

                    It was a fuckup that’s cost us billions of dollars and I’m going to keep pointing that out until we get a government that accepts reality and renationalises.

                    The “regulated amount” is a figure pulled out of the sky that bears no relation to what it costs Chorus to run their network – none at all.

                    You don’t actually know that though, do you?
                    • photonz …

                      12 November 2013 at 12:46 am

                      Draco says ‘You don’t actually know that though, do you?”

                      Of course I do – anybody who has any interest in the case knows that.

                      The Commerce Commission used the price of a copper network on the far side of the globe, in a different country, in a different market, with different regulations, and a different economy.

                      Then they took the current exchange rate for a currency that has plummeted, changed it to NZ$, can came up with a price.

                      None of which has anything to do with
                      1/ what the Chorus network is worth
                      2/ what it costs to run
                      3/ what it is costing to replace.

                      Under the Telecommunications Act 2001, comcom are LEGALLY REQUIRED to take account of expensive capital upgrades to new technology when setting prices.

                      They failed to do that as well.
                    • Tat Loo (CV) …

                      12 November 2013 at 12:52 am

                      You’re sure that this has nothing to do with Chorus’s incompetent bid which was far too low, and now needs bailing out to the tune of several hundred million dollars?
13. SPC 13

    10 November 2013 at 8:32 pm

    The GFC hit in late 2008, the extent of the economic impact only became known in 2009 and 2010. There was also the earthquake. This makes placing the blame on National for failure to reach forecasts a tough sell.

    National will get more traction claiming to have managed us through a difficult period.

    Labour should focus on those left behind by National, – in the centre there will be plenty of swing votes available: first home buyers locked out of the market (because the government did not support new building in the 2008-2013 period and their continued opposition to state led solutions), those unable to continue with study for their masters degree, and those who will be unable to buy UFB (or retain Sky packages) as their mortgage rates rise with the “economic recovery”.
14. photonz 14

    11 November 2013 at 12:03 am

    Has there ever been a sillier comparison?

    Economic conditions after half a decade of the country spending 15% MORE then we earned EVERY year, compared to the end of five years of global financial crisis.

    If you want a comparison that is not totally meaningless, compare us to every other first world country.

    When it comes to debt, growth, unemployment etc, NZ is better than the vast majority of other countries.
    • KJT 14.1

      11 November 2013 at 11:47 am

      Just as well National were not in for the 9 years previous to the GFC then.
    • Draco T Bastard 14.2

      11 November 2013 at 2:24 pm

      When it comes to debt, growth, unemployment etc, NZ is better than the vast majority of other countries.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

      So, which were you actually talking about?
15. Tracey 15

    11 November 2013 at 6:25 am

    But only above greece on percentage of wages required for accomodation and not much better on disposable income.

    so success for whom is the labour greens mantra..

    photo on the thread where you were bemoaning the time you pay your employees to “do nothing” . I asked what you earn from all sources taking into account income maximisation methods. Would appreciate an honest answer.
    • photonz 15.1

      11 November 2013 at 12:01 pm

      Here’s the 50 most expensive places to live – I can’t seem to find any NZ cities in there, but plenty in Australia..
      http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-worlds-50-most-expensive-cities-20120612-207lr.html.

      As for income, I’m the lowest paid in my company, like a lot of small business owners. We don’t get paid for holidays, sick days, stats, or tea breaks.
      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 15.1.1

        11 November 2013 at 12:06 pm

        Yet another wingnut with a fucked business model seeking to smear their incompetence all over everyone else.
        • photonz 15.1.1.1

          11 November 2013 at 12:14 pm

          Yet another extremist who thinks abuse is intelligent debate.
          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 15.1.1.1.1

            11 November 2013 at 12:23 pm

            I’ll rephrase. Charging your time at such a low rate that you cannot afford to pay yourself a salary (including holidays etc.) is a bad business model, and yet you have the temerity to lecture others about what you imagine is their lack of understanding of the issues involved.

            Stick around. You might learn something.
            • photonz 15.1.1.1.1.1

              11 November 2013 at 12:44 pm

              My business is very cyclic so I have good years and years where I don’t earn much. When that happens I my work still takes me on overseas travel, and I have income from investments, so it doesn’t bother me a great deal.
              • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                11 November 2013 at 12:52 pm

                One moment they’re a typical struggling small business owner who takes no holidays, the next they have investment income and overseas travel so it doesn’t bother them a great deal.

                The insincerity is strong in this one.
                • photonz …

                  11 November 2013 at 1:51 pm

                  You obviously missed the original point, which was employing anyone, means paying
                  – 4 weeks holiday
                  – 1.5 weeks sick pay (average taken in NZ each year)
                  – 2.2 weeks statutory holidays.
                  – 4 weeks of time in tea breaks.
                  (nearly 12 weeks total per year for zero work done)

                  And paying them even if it means dipping into your own savings, or not taking a wage yourself when cashflow is down..

                  The left want to continually make it harder and harder for small businesses to take on new employees.

                  And if they make it harder, any it’s patently obvious that FEWER new staff will be taken on.

                  Merely the other side of the coin – you can make it harder to take on new staff, or easier.

                  But if you make it harder you can’t complain about the unemployment rate.
                  • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                    11 November 2013 at 2:07 pm

                    Oh get a clue. Per capita GDP is always higher when the Left run the country. If they make it so hard to hire, how come the lowest unemployment in NZ history was in 2007?

                    Stop mindlessly parroting rote-learned drivel and think for yourself.

                    Whining about employment law when NZ is routinely acknowledged as one of the most business friendly countries in the world gives rise to the suspicion that your problems arise from your level of competence rather than the environment.

                    We need better wingnuts.
                    • photonz …

                      11 November 2013 at 5:53 pm

                      Knucklehead asks “how come the lowest unemployment in NZ history was in 2007?”

                      Because the country as a whole spend 15% MORE than it earned, year after year after year.

                      In a very short time under Labour we went from having $60m mortgage debt to $160m.

                      We had a spending party of $100b, then realised we had exactly the SAME houses we had before, but owed an extra $100b in debt.

                      If we did the same now, we’d have low unemployment, a booming economy, then another bust.
                  • Draco T Bastard …

                    11 November 2013 at 2:34 pm

                    (nearly 12 weeks total per year for zero work done)

                    Well then I suggest you buy some robots which can work 100% of the time.

                    Now, I really do suggest you work out how much it would cost to get contractors in to do the same work because they will be charging more than employees due to having to cover their own downtime (when they don’t have work to go to) as well as their holidays (overseas of course), sick pay, tea breaks, and administrative expenses.

                    You’re like most RWNJ employers. You want something but you never want to actually pay for it.
                    • photonz …

                      11 November 2013 at 9:09 pm

                      Draco says “Well then I suggest you buy some robots which can work 100% of the time.”

                      They’ve just invented automatic burger makers which cost about the same to run as a minimum wage worker. If you put the wages up, they become the cheapest option.

                      http://www.thestar.com/business/2012/11/29/automatic_burger_machine_could_revolutionize_fast_food.html

                      What the left fail to comprehend is the higher the wages, the more efficient it is to replace people with machines.
                  • Tat Loo (CV) …

                    11 November 2013 at 3:11 pm

                    – 4 weeks of time in tea breaks.

                    Do you give your workers 20 minutes off paid for morning tea break, and 20 minutes off paid for afternoon tea break?

                    No wonder you can’t make any money!
      • Rogue Trooper 15.1.2

        11 November 2013 at 12:35 pm

        “I can hide in you
        In your chestnut hair
        I’ll confide in you
        Whisper in your ear
        When the earth is ripe
        All the worms wake up
        In their stars and stripes
        And their swastikas
        There’s a cure in sight
        Set your soul at ease
        For the red and white
        And the Blue disease”

        “…got you on the handycam fits in my hand…”
16. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16

    11 November 2013 at 11:25 am

    And the stupid fuckers in Treasury couldn’t even forecast an earthquake. Does their incompetence know no depths?
    • KJT 16.1

      11 November 2013 at 11:46 am

      They may have had more luck with earthquake forecasting than their economic forecasting.

      Still waiting for the brighter future treasury promised if we adopted Rogernomics.

      The only consistent thing about treasury forecasting is how wrong they have been .
      • photonz 16.1.1

        11 November 2013 at 12:09 pm

        Since Rogernomics, (using 1985 as a base)
        – prices have gone up 173%.
        – wages have gone up 235%.

        http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monetary_policy/inflation_calculator/
        • Tat Loo (CV) 16.1.1.1

          11 November 2013 at 12:19 pm

          Hey keep repeating it mate, just lets every one know how disconnected you are from the reality that the majority of NZers are living through.
          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16.1.1.1.1

            11 November 2013 at 12:37 pm

            Yeah, photonz, fuck off with your statistics proving things that don’t suit Tat Loo. This must be stopped.
            • Draco T Bastard 16.1.1.1.1.1

              11 November 2013 at 2:36 pm

              He linked to an inflation calculator, not any statistics. This would indicate that he has NFI WTF he’s talking about.

              Considering that you believed his lies would indicate that you, also, have NFI WTF you’re talking about.
              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                11 November 2013 at 3:03 pm

                I know. It’s tricky, isn’t it. But some of us managed to use this calculator thing to produce the actual statistics cited by photonz.

                Personally, I think it is all witchcraft. For the same reason, I never let my photograph be taken in case the photographer is stealing my soul.
                • Tat Loo (CV) …

                  11 November 2013 at 3:07 pm

                  Au contraire. I really hope John Key bases his election campaign on how much better off people are now day to day, in his brighter future under a National Government.
                  • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                    11 November 2013 at 3:16 pm

                    “Au contraire” .

                    No. I did.
              • McFlock …

                11 November 2013 at 3:52 pm

                I’m somewhat intrigued – the treasury calculator refers to “wages”, but the QES seems to bundle “wages and salaries”.

                I mean, we know MP’s salaries have increased, and managers’ are through the roof, but everyone else?
                • Draco T Bastard …

                  11 November 2013 at 4:01 pm

                  Yep and that’s why we the actual statistics broken down into professions/trades and deciles. That way we’d be able to determine who’s better off and who’s worse off. Other statistics I’ve seen show that the lower deciles are worse off while the top decile is better off. everyone in between has stagnated.
                  • photonz …

                    11 November 2013 at 5:25 pm

                    It very easy to calculate the bottom end.

                    Minimum wage has gone up 96% since 1999. ($7 to $13.75)

                    CPI Inflation which includes housing and rents has gone up 43% since 1999.

                    And in case you can’t work it out, a 96% wage increase is much bigger than a 43% inflation increase.
                    • One Anonymous Knucklehead …

                      11 November 2013 at 5:34 pm

                      And every time the minimum wage went up, unemployment went down. Don’t forget to deny that part.

                      I note you have just debunked the standard model which postulates an inflationary effect of minimum wage increases.
                    • Tat Loo (CV) …

                      11 November 2013 at 5:35 pm

                      CPI Inflation which includes housing and rents has gone up 43% since 1999.

                      So Auckland rents and house prices have only gone up 43% in the last 14 years?

                      Maybe you should live in the real world mate like the 60% of NZers who are struggling day to day with minimal net worth and low income.
                    • photonz …

                      11 November 2013 at 5:47 pm

                      tat says “So Auckland rents and house prices have only gone up 43% in the last 14 years?”

                      Duh!!!! The CPI is not 100% housing.
                    • Tat Loo (CV) …

                      11 November 2013 at 5:50 pm

                      Apparently; it’s also not representative of the loss of income share of minimum wage workers compared to the rest of the economy.
                    • McFlock …

                      11 November 2013 at 6:20 pm

                      Oh, you’re excluding all the poor people!

                      Lol. I was trying to figure out what you weren’t counting, and then I realised that Treasury are basically only including the people lucky enough to have a job, while they have a job, and pretending that it refers to all NZers – hence the fudging of “salaries and wages” down to “wages”.

                      As for the minimum wage thing, does CPI have a different shopping basket for what poor people can afford, or is it one generic basket across all SES levels?

                      Because I know for a fact that I lived better on the dole 20 years ago than some of my relatives do now – and it wasn’t comfortable by any means even then.
                    • KJT …

                      11 November 2013 at 6:36 pm

                      What Photo won’t tell you.

                      http://www.alternet.org/media/no-class-warfare-please-were-americans?page=0%2C1

                      “average US income rose 6 percent from 2009 through 2012, that was almost entirely absorbed by the top 1 percent of earners, whose incomes leaped by 31 percent during that time.”

                      In NZ it was 17% to the top income earners last financial year.
                      Every one else had nil or less than 2.2% wage increases.

                      Looks like we are well on the path to emulating the failed State that is the USA.
                    • KJT …

                      11 November 2013 at 6:38 pm

                      And they now have to foot the bill for a whole lot of things that the State used to pay for.

                      The CPI is the rise in average prices over a basket of goods. It does not reflect expenses which did not exist years ago.

                      The advent of “user pays” has put a lot of extra expenses onto low income people.
            • Tracey 16.1.1.1.1.2

              11 November 2013 at 2:47 pm

              He hasnt disproved oecd findings tho. We are second bottom to greece and below average on disposable income. Put those two together and the average and below average punter is struggling. Still the pm gives himself 8/10 so nothing to see here.
    • Rogue Trooper 16.2

      11 November 2013 at 11:49 am

      are you tearing into fissures G.
17. Natwest 17

    11 November 2013 at 1:36 pm

    Latest BNZ Confidence Survey – record high, with 65.7% of respondents (businesses and inviduals) very optomistic of how the economy is tracking.

    There goes next years election hopes for Labour.

    You can bang on about doom and gloom – but you can’t hide the fact from the majority that the country is performing exceedingly well.

    Labour & Cunliffe are going to have to come with something a little more economically savy than KiwiAssure, and “yeah nah” politics, because it ain’t cutting the mustard with mainstream NZ.
    • One Anonymous Knucklehead 17.1

      11 November 2013 at 3:11 pm

      As all the opinion polls show, oh, no, wait.

      Business confidence is high because they’re sure things can’t get any worse. They’re wrong: Double Dipton has another twelve months in him.
    • Ad 17.2

      11 November 2013 at 3:59 pm

      Confidence surveys are pretty fickle and can change with the weather.

      So can of course Preferred Prime Minister polls.

      The one I particularly watch for is the unemployment and underemployment figures, and the freight figures that accurately predict the GDP numbers.

      It’s their accumulated total that worries.

      I am OK to hold my breath while National continue to slip slowly in the polls, but as I have commented yesterday, if a series of those headline numbers start turning positive for National, it will be totally insufficient for Labour to presume it can win solely on the presumption that the 800,000 who did not vote last time will vote this time.

      We should definitely hold Key to account. But we should also hold David Cunliffe to account.
18. Tracey 18

    11 November 2013 at 2:23 pm

    Hmmmm photo

    you are the first small business owner I know of that earns less than everyone else in tge company. Despite your railing against the living wage you are already paying everyone who works for you more than 18 bucks an hour. I know this because you cannot take overseas trips once a year have investment property and a mortgage on the living wage.
    • photonz 18.1

      11 November 2013 at 5:12 pm

      It’s VERY common for small business owners to have low earnings. The average income for photographers in NZ is $33,000.

      It’s well know that 50% of small businesses fail within five years. Less well known, is that by 8 years 75% have failed. Actually, just looked at stats on business.govt.nz and they say 70% fail in five years.

      “Only 25% of business owners actually receive a decent salary from their business, and only 5% actually are able to make significant drawings on top of this.” from

      http://www.mybusinessfinance.co.nz/blog/edward-mckee-wright-the-financier/Edward-McKee-Wright-Blog-1/

      Personally, I thought it would be higher than that, but many business owners I know only earn a reasonable wage by working 80 hours a week.
      • Tat Loo (CV) 18.1.1

        11 November 2013 at 5:18 pm

        So all the SMEs and local manufacturers are closing down, yet a dozen large corporates are extracting a couple of hundy million out of the economy a week, and shipping the money overseas.

        And here you are fighting to keep power prices and broadband prices high for small bsuiness owners.

        Interesting.
        • photonz 18.1.1.1

          11 November 2013 at 5:41 pm

          The dilema the left has is they hate foreign ownership, but if Kiwis invest in new tech (Chorus) or green tech (renewable energy power companies) like they tell us to, they make plans to screw them.

          Yeah, nah.

          Yeah, they want Kiwis to invest in NZ, but nah – not if they’ll make money from it.

          Job growth comes down to ONE single factor – companies making good profits. The left want more jobs, but they hate anyone making a profit.

          Yeah, nah.

          Yeah, they want jobs, but nah – not if it means companies will make a profit.

          Yeah they want new ultra fast broadband, but nah – they don’t want any of the users to have to pay for it.
          • One Anonymous Knucklehead 18.1.1.1.1

            11 November 2013 at 5:50 pm

            What a boring tiresome litany, mindlessly scraped up from the bottom of the wingnut barrel, mindlessly spoonfed to Photonz, and mindlessly dribbling out onto Photonz keyboard.

            Not an original thought there, just the same old shite that bears no relation to the Left, or New Zealand history, or anything other than this cretinous, slow drudge.

            Hey, moran, isn’t it time you got some new lines?
          • Draco T Bastard 18.1.1.1.2

            11 November 2013 at 6:39 pm

            Yeah, they want jobs, but nah – not if it means companies will make a profit.

            Nick Hanauer “Rich people don’t create jobs”

            Yeah they want new ultra fast broadband, but nah – they don’t want any of the users to have to pay for it.

            /facepalm

            Don’t need a profit to run a business. Just enough income to cover costs and a surplus to reinvest. No dividend payouts. The only way to get that is to run it as a government service. Though this will be cheaper than having the profiteers and competition it still gets paid for by the users. Exactly as it was before the sale of Telecom.
            • photonz 18.1.1.1.2.1

              11 November 2013 at 9:25 pm

              Draco says “Just enough income to cover costs and a surplus to reinvest.”

              Surely you are financially literate enough to realise that a surplus IS the profit?

              Or to realise that if people don’t get a return, there’s not much point in investing their money in the first place?

              Or to realise that if there’s no profit margin, just a small downturn will send everyone bust.
              • mickysavage …

                11 November 2013 at 9:29 pm

                Photonz you are obviously so convinced but so lacking in understanding of reality.

                Chorus has badly underestimated the cost of the rollout and bid too cheaply.

                Chorus was told by the legislation that this Government passed that the cost of copper based broadband was going to be reduced.

                Yet you keep saying that neither is true.

                Why do you insist on arguing that reality is not what it is?
                • photonz …

                  12 November 2013 at 1:29 am

                  mickey savage says “Chorus has badly underestimated the cost of the rollout and bid too cheaply.”

                  No – the rollout was on target, and will continue to go fine if the copper pricing is the same as the government had indicated it would be.

                  But instead the Commerce Commission has come up with an extraordinarily low price that has not even the slightest thing to do with how much it costs Chorus to run (and replace) it’s old copper network.

                  They price they’ve used comes from a different system with different regulations in Sweden, then they’ve used a very low exchange rate to give a price for NZ that has nothing to do with costs in NZ.

                  The problem is that people don’t want the taxpayer to fork out money for the fibre network, and they don’t want internet users to fork out for the new network.

                  They are so off the planet they think private investors in Chorus should act as a charity.
                  • Tat Loo (CV) …

                    12 November 2013 at 1:34 am

                    Costs in NZ are inflated to prop up corporate profits.

                    Maybe we should re-tender and ask some of those operators from around the world to bid. Since you repeatedly say that they are so much more competitive and cheaper than Chorus.
                    • photonz …

                      12 November 2013 at 1:49 am

                      Tat loo says “You’re sure that this has nothing to do with Chorus’s incompetent bid which was far too low, and now needs bailing out to the tune of several hundred million dollars?”

                      Chorus doesn’t want a bail out. It hasn’t asked for a bail out.

                      All it wants if a fair price for use of it’s copper network, as per the range the government indicated.

                      Not some ridiculously low price the comcom pulled from some company in Sweden which has nothing to do with what it cost to run and replace the copper network in NZ.
                    • photonz …

                      12 November 2013 at 2:17 am

                      Duh !!! Get up to speed.

                      The comparison is with the copper network – not the fibre one.

                      If you want the copper network to be as cheap as the comparison overseas, first you’ll have to –
                      1/ bring in five million more people.
                      2/ put them all in one part of the country
                      3/ move most other people to that part of the country as well
                      4/ then tear down all the houses and make everyone live close together in apartment blocks.
                      5/ bring in another half billion people and put them in countries that have a border with NZ

                      THEN you’ll have a more even comparison with the copper networks the Commerce Commission is comparing us to.
              • Tat Loo (CV) …

                11 November 2013 at 9:33 pm

                Surely you are financially literate enough to realise that a surplus IS the profit?

                REINVESTED, moran. Not distributed out to wealthy shareholders so that the company is in hock to the banks to fund their next project, like Chorus is.

                Or to realise that if there’s no profit margin, just a small downturn will send everyone bust.

                Not the government. That’s the advantage governments have over private companies.

                Or to realise that if people don’t get a return, there’s not much point in investing their money in the first place?

                The government doesn’t need a financial return. The government can print money after all, why does it need “a profit”?. All the government needs to do is generate a social return. Yet another advantage governments have over private companies.
      • One Anonymous Knucklehead 18.1.2

        11 November 2013 at 5:22 pm

        Ah, economic theory by the “things my mates tell me that match my existing bias and anecdotal experiences” school.
      • KJT 18.1.3

        11 November 2013 at 9:33 pm

        “Only 25% of business owners actually receive a decent salary from their business”.

        Shows how many hide their real income to reduce tax.
19. Tracey 19

    11 November 2013 at 2:31 pm

    Correction to above post…

    travel overseas from time to time and have investments on 18 bucks an hour.

    the ranking of nz just above greece was the oecd so argue with them not me. We are below average in disposable income…so looking at the top 20 most expensive cities was a complete red herring

    ” While New Zealand scored “exceptionally well” overall on the latest Better Life Index, it fell behind in the income category, scoring a mere 3.3 out of 10.The country’s average household net-adjusted disposable income is US$21,892 a year (NZ$27,077), less than the OECD average of US$23,047.Household net-adjusted disposable income is the amount of money that a household earns, or gains, each year after taxes. It represents the money available to a household for spending on goods or services.”

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS