Out of the Loop

Written By: - Date published: 9:49 pm, March 17th, 2014 - 155 comments
Categories: same old national - Tags:

As I’ve previously pointed out, John Key’s National government only serves the privileged elite.

But their policy of only favouring the favoured few is not only venal, it’s really stupid economics as well.

The reason why it’s stupid is simple Econ 101, supply and demand.

National is always quick to emphasise the supply side, the importance of looking after business. Because business is, in the eyes of National, the ‘engine of the growth’ in the economy.

You take care of the business (supply) side of the equation and everything else simply falls into place, right?

Fail.

Big fail.

What National neglects is the demand side of the equation. Without economic demand, there is no economy.

If the people in an economy have no money to spend then there will be no economic demand which means the economy won’t grow. It’s as simple as that.

We are already the most business friendly nation in the entire world. I think it’s safe to say that’s the supply side taken care of.

But 30 years of Neoliberalism has left most New Zealanders (and the rest of the Western world) in a state of economic anaemia. Kiwis are mired in debt, they have no money to spend, and therefore cannot possibly generate significant economic demand.

So what does John Key and National prescribe?

More Neoliberalism.

National’s antidote for the poison is……. more poison.

National loves going on about ‘growing the pie’ but growing the pie, ie increasing the size of the economy, is just a bad joke inside John Key’s high cost/low wage New Zealand.

To actually grow an economy, people need to have money to spend and under this government who’s got any money left to spend?

After all we’ve had…

  • Tax cuts for the rich (which worsens inequality)
  • Gutting workers rights even further (reduced family income)
  • Raising GST (shifts tax burden to those without capital gains, ie the NOT-privileged elite)
  • Flogging power companies (higher power prices, but totally worth it for the privileged elite who bought shares)
  • Failing to address the housing bubble (paying more and more for the already over-priced old houses is….pure evil)

These are just some of the really stupid things that National has done (or failed to do) which have weakened the economy and further impoverishing already debt-laden kiwis.

Gee, it’s almost as if John Key’s National doesn’t give a toss if the average kiwi has no money to generate economic demand. As long as the privileged elite, like Amy Adams can flog her milk solids to overseas buyers, and run her farms with dirt cheap kiwi workers then all is well…

We’re out of the loop.

Vote Left.

155 comments on “Out of the Loop ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Draco T Bastard 1
    17 March 2014 at 10:03 pm

    If the people in an economy have no money to spend then there will be no economic demand which means the economy won’t grow. It’s as simple as that.

    No, it’s that the financials won’t grow. The economy is a fixed size and we have no idea what that size is.

    Raising GST (shifts tax burden to those without capital gains, ie the NOT-privileged elite poor.)

    FTFY

    What you said was contradictory and thus meaningless.

    Gee, it’s almost as if John Key’s National doesn’t give a toss if the average kiwi has no money to generate economic demand.

    They don’t and this article clearly shows what the result will be – complete societal collapse. Hmm, wonder if the economists have worked out just how much that research is death to their hypothesis.

    • Richard Christie 1.1
      17 March 2014 at 10:57 pm

      It’s a sobering read, that Guardian article.

      • aerobubble 1.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 3:34 pm

        Two world wars started with Germany, there was no conspiracy. Simplistically it could be argued that the ability of the political-economic complex was incapable of adapting to the change of technology and resources. Oil and automation, added to political vacuum and a populations deprived of choices who were ‘given’ their power back through extreme right wing ideology.
        And as we all know, or should, fascists are either so apathetic to follow any crude argument, or so fed up with the present political impasse that they willing agree to join a human ponsi-pyramid scheme where only the top get to abuse everyone (in the hopes they they get to the top of the zombie pyramid).

        We are again entering a period where very boring men (mostly) are incapable of dealing to the present crisis-es. Collapse in military power (brought on by Bush II invasion into stupid) as America tried to cling on to power after the end of the cold war (which actually meant keeping profits of military, finance and media going). Anyone can now compete with the standing armies, all they need are cheap drones, network hackers… (etc).

        Yeah, so, sorry, to the point, of course Key is out of the loop, the Thatcher revolution was all about taking government out of the picture. Key, hopefully, is the last of those who deal themselves out of the govt, serving some ideological nirvana of free markets at the cost of even common sense.

        As for stupid. Why would we believe growth is key to our success. Growth is just a number and over throttling is just as dangerous as under throttling. Eating several earths is as stupid as communist central control. Its dangerous to target growth more when resources, population, pollution, debt, aging, all start going into the danger zone.

        The problem is the inability of tories to admit defeat and retire, they lost and clinging on just makes them look sad.

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.2
      17 March 2014 at 11:32 pm

      Hang about DTB,

      The article you link to places a huge importance in the role of wealth disparity in the part of the downfall of society – whereas you link to the article to argue against Geoff’s point on just that.

      … are you simply being argumentative for argument’s sake?

      From the article you linked to:

      These factors can lead to collapse when they converge to generate two crucial social features: “the stretching of resources due to the strain placed on the ecological carrying capacity”; and “the economic stratification of society into Elites [rich] and Masses (or “Commoners”) [poor]” These social phenomena have played “a central role in the character or in the process of the collapse,” in all such cases over “the last five thousand years.”

      Currently, high levels of economic stratification are linked directly to overconsumption of resources, with “Elites” based largely in industrialised countries responsible for both…”

      • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1
        17 March 2014 at 11:43 pm

        whereas you link to the article to argue against Geoff’s point on just that.

        I have NFI where you got that from. Geoff said:

        it’s almost as if John Key’s National doesn’t give a toss…

        To which I replied that they don’t and that’s it that not giving a fuck about anybody but themselves that will bring about the collapse of society and probably the environment.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.2.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 12:11 am

          @ DTB

          “No, it’s that the financials won’t grow. The economy is a fixed size and we have no idea what that size is.”

          I’m sorry have I misunderstood this part of your comment?

          • Draco T Bastard 1.2.1.1.1
            18 March 2014 at 11:40 am

            I was pointing out that there’s a difference between finances and economics and why the financials shouldn’t continue to grow as it really does take us into the over-use of resources that the article tells us brings about collapse.

            I’m all for being far more egalitarian but we also need to exist within the physical limits of the economy/environment and just giving more money to the people at the bottom won’t bring that about.

            • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.2.1.1.1.1
              18 March 2014 at 12:12 pm

              Yes, that is fairly well where I thought you were coming from.

              The article also put forward the case that having some with extreme wealth over many others pushes this process of resource depletion forward – that technology has made efficiency gains (efficient of resource use) – yet elites soak up this gain by extra consumerism

              “Currently, high levels of economic stratification are linked directly to overconsumption of resources, with “Elites” based largely in industrialised countries responsible for both”

              That if society was more financially equitable:

              a) the process of resource depletion would slow
              b) more importantly: those making the rules would be less buffered to the effects of their own destructive actions and would be more receptive to improving the structures so that unsustainable resource depletion didn’t occur.

              I.e until there is less wealth disparity it is unlikely a change in the elites’ attitudes toward growth and profits will occur because those in positions of power are the same people pushing those attitudes and they are the same group not experiencing the detrimental effects of such mistaken thinking.

              On rereading this article it may be that all of us in NZ might come under the definition of elite – unsure about the definition of who are the elite?

              • Draco T Bastard …
                18 March 2014 at 3:37 pm

                That if society was more financially equitable:

                a) the process of resource depletion would slow
                b) more importantly: those making the rules would be less buffered to the effects of their own destructive actions and would be more receptive to improving the structures so that unsustainable resource depletion didn’t occur.

                A) Not a good assumption. If everyone had enough money to demand excess resource use then excess resource depletion would still happen. That’s why it’s important for everyone to know what resources we have at a sustainable rate. The “market” doesn’t provide this information and the profit motive of the “elite” will drive us to excess resource use through a) their own excessive resource use and b) trying for ever more sales to drive up their profits.
                B) Possibly but I’m more inclined to think that the “elite” will just push for higher productivity from everyone else so as to increase that buffer that protects them from the negative consequences of their actions.

                unsure about the definition of who are the elite?

                The “elite” are the ones calling the shots – government and business leaders (which excludes the self-employed, small businesses and the general populace – see TPPA processes).

      • Richard Christie 1.2.2
        17 March 2014 at 11:50 pm

        It read to me to me that Draco is agreeing with the observation made about the caring nature of Dishonest John’s Govt.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 1.2.2.1
          18 March 2014 at 12:18 am

          Yes, I read that too – it was the first sentence (the one that started with ‘no’) that I was questioning.

      • aerobubble 1.2.3
        18 March 2014 at 3:49 pm

        Build another road, increases number, size and speed of vehicles into built up areas, slowing down traffic, increasing pollution and pushing adaptive industries out to clean fill sprawl. How does increasing the costs, time, petrol, infrastructure supposed to be efficient. Its not. Its about doing what worked when there were year on year drops in energy costs, when politicians (life ultimate cheapskates) manage (with media alliances) to sell the absurd (that their actions, policies, ideology was creating growth, not a bunch of greedy arab princlings who found black gold under their sandy front room floor).

        Take welfare, why are the poorest (those with most motivation to change) forced by the state (taxes) to take income support that stops them (70% marginal taxes) from using their free time to give back to the community (and so network, experience and so expose themselves to possibilities and so see and seize on opportunities). Why? well because stressing how those who already work for too little, or overpaid by far too much, how they could lose everything they work for, pressing the button on fear of change, has become lifeblood for the media. And so by locking out a share of the population from work, enough work, or living wage work, the economy will be saved. How I ask, by driving up the cost of labor, by increasing churn of employees, of breeding a generation of workers peeing in the bake beans (fed up with their lot).

        No, its not a return to religion we need. Its just churning out those who pander to negatives. Benefit bashing. Or Labor response, diverting.

    • Kahukowhai 1.3
      18 March 2014 at 10:52 pm

      Why do you think the NSA is gearing up their spy networks, in order to prevent that collapse a police state will be imposed first. It can be done in a way that was never possible in ancient times. Russia and China went that way and China especially has prospered – their societies didn’t collapse as such they just continued under totalitarianism.

  2. adam 2
    17 March 2014 at 10:59 pm

    So the next step is indentured servitude – I mean if the poor can’t pay their way then maybe they should have their freedom taken off them. That those who can pay their way, should have all the privileges and the rights. Who cares that in all probability, they inherited it, that just goes to show there a better type of people.

    My goodness this is the natural solution to all the problems of liberalism and why it is failing so bad. If we didn’t have an uppity poor – who wanted stuff – like houses, food, education, health care, a better future for their kids. We could keep them oppressed and downtrodden, and curb their ambition. It’s the damn aspirational stuff of the working classes which is holding us back.

    This is what is meant by supply side economics. The future you know you can love, if you’re part of the elite.

    • geoff 2.1
      17 March 2014 at 11:10 pm

      Well I’d like to be optimistic and say the next step is to vote this cretinous Key and his band of plundering plonkers out of government!

      • Stuart Munro 2.1.1
        17 March 2014 at 11:57 pm

        Failing which NZ will see the kind of skirmishing that characterized south american fascist regimes – kidnapping, death squads, an underground along the lines of sendero luminoso and vasts increases in random acts of senseless violence. When cows become preferred terrorist targets the right will slowly begin to realise that they can’t f**k over the people indefinitely.

  3. Richard Christie 3
    17 March 2014 at 11:36 pm

    .So the next step is indentured servitude – I mean if the poor can’t pay their way then maybe they should have their freedom taken off them.

    No need, just keep them well supplied with more lotto, sports arenas, reality TV, cooking shows, casinos, cheap Chinese DIY gear and a TVNZ news service.

    Despite what the aforementioned Guardian article predicts, the scam has years of life to run yet.

    • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 3.1
      18 March 2014 at 12:15 am

      er…Richard Christie…sorry I have bad news for you …the bit Adam said about ‘taking the freedom off the poor’….it wasn’t a prediction – it is a process that has well and truly started already….

      And any government that follows policies that ensure a percentage of us don’t have jobs or don’t have jobs that cover living costs or, while being on welfare can hardly be said to be ‘freedom’, creating rules to make it easier to boot people off welfare when there are no jobs cannot be said to be a policy that is creating more freedom…such governments are perpetuating this taking of freedom from a percentage of us because such policies create poverty.

      I agree though, that such devices as you mentioned serve to keep those with a bit more than nothing pacified.

      • Macro 3.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 11:44 am

        It wasn’t the peasants who begun the French Revolution, it was the bourgeois, the traders and the middle classes who saw that their position was continually being eroded by the elite.
        Those who neglect their history – and those who live solely for the present generally do (the elite amongst them) – are destined to repeat it.
        We have seen the beginnings of it in Greece and eventually if things continue the way they are, it will happen again here. Eventually people will have enough and the result will not be pretty.

        • greywarbler 3.1.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 12:20 pm

          Didn’t Marx foresee that it was inevitable that the poor would rise and protest and break the class system and claim their fair share? And they didn’t.

          It takes a very clear head to voluntarily throw away the little one has in the hope of a better future. Especially if you have children. If you are forced into doing so by disaster then its TINA, no choice. Usually they need to have helpers, either at the beginning. or willing to support and aid during the process which can be unpleasant.

          • Macro 3.1.1.1.1
            18 March 2014 at 2:46 pm

            The poor have neither the resources nor the organisational networks. What made the French Revolution “successful” was the organisational skills of the middle class. The were sick of being constantly screwed by the elite. I think that we are not far away (in historical terms) from similar reactions today. Just what the form of reaction will be I do not know. But those who currently give themselves obscene bonuses and live extravagant lifestyles obviously at the expense of others should remember what happened at the end of the 18th C.

    • tc 3.2
      18 March 2014 at 7:18 am

      Yes its boiling frogs, by the time people wake up it will be too late.

      Its the middle sector who think theyve got it sussed by leveraging their way to multiple properties thinking theyll be fine…..till demand dies and they discover the health, education etc has all been smashed along with nz and essential utilities sold off.

  4. PhilDC 4
    18 March 2014 at 12:23 am

    I always remember a piece of graffiti a water pipe on TiRakau Drive – long since painted over and fenced off to prevent another repeat spraying. I once delivered milk in that area(thats how long ago it was).
    it was burned into my brain seeing it everyday.

    “Prices rise and profits hop. Pay stays low so buying stops. Goods wont sell so workers sacked, dont look now depressions back – workers unite to protect wages and conditions.”

    Still as true today as it was back then.

  5. Matthew Hooton 5
    18 March 2014 at 7:25 am

    How do you reconcile your claim that John Key’s government serves only the privileged elite, when two-thirds of people want him to remain prime minister?

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11221487

    • Te Reo Putake 5.1
      18 March 2014 at 7:34 am

      Bread, circuses and royal visits.

      • Matthew Hooton 5.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 7:49 am

        That’s a very patronising attitude you have towards two-thirds of your fellow citizens.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 7:59 am

          What, as opposed to your relentless manufactured dishonesty for sale, you rancid hypocrite?

        • risildowgtn 5.1.1.2
          18 March 2014 at 8:22 am

          and the way u tory scum treat the common man on the street is disgusting and mark my words scum, you will be held accountable

        • kenny 5.1.1.3
          18 March 2014 at 10:15 am

          That’s two-thirds of a Herald DIGI-POLL respondents (laugh), clearly not 2/3rds of NZ voters.

        • Tracey 5.1.1.4
          18 March 2014 at 10:31 am

          Surely it is not patronising to say that the massaged message put together by those who understand about hot buttons and subliminal messaging and can afford to pay for the best (Crosby Textor, as opposed to Excelcium (altho I am sure you are not cheap matthew)) are working by making someone popular who is actually doing nothing for the majority or is harming them? That is a fact and one which makes your services wanted by some?

          Next you will say advertising doesn’t work.

        • Mark 5.1.1.5
          18 March 2014 at 12:04 pm

          Matthew, last poll for preferred prime minister had John Key at 39%. And that is 39% of the 70% of New Zealanders who took part. Land line polls are excluding 13% of the population and 17% of the respondents in the last poll wouldn’t give a preference. I live in Christchurch and 39% is a thing of the past down here. I am a former Nat member and even I acknowledge the party is going to get its arse kicked down here. Key is now a liability in this town.

        • geoff 5.1.1.6
          18 March 2014 at 12:34 pm

          How is it patronising?

      • Anne 5.1.2
        18 March 2014 at 9:10 am

        @Te Teo Putake

        Add to that, John Key’s top drawer and extreme dirty politics.

        A sad indictment on a large bunch of voters who can’t tell the difference between reality/truth and fiction/lies. They only work because said bunch of voters are stupid and ignorant.

        Right Hooton? You should know because you’re one of those who peddle the myths, lies and obfuscations.

    • RT 5.2
      18 March 2014 at 9:39 am

      Exactly the question I was going to ask! The replies are telling.

    • Tom Gould 5.3
      18 March 2014 at 10:05 am

      Indeed, this post is illustrative of how far the pseudo-intellectual left have their heads in the clouds, while just about everyone else, if the polls are indicative, seem fairly happy with where Key is leading them. It’s almost as if they know ‘trickle down’ was a con job, and they have moved on, maybe years ago?

      Discount the National Herald poll which was taken precisely to coincide with the Tory-orchestrated assassination attack on Cunliffe’s character.

      • Anne 5.3.1
        18 March 2014 at 10:59 am

        … Herald poll which was taken precisely to coincide with the Tory-orchestrated assassination attack on Cunliffe’s character.

        +1 Tom Gould. My immediate reaction too. This is the poll that always – I repeat always – over estimates National’s ratings. Digi-Poll would deny it, but they know what is expected of them and they deliver the result at exactly the right time. Don’t put it past their political masters to give them a heads-up as to the date they are to start polling – following the latest manufactured scandal. Conspiracy? No way. It’s common knowledge that’s the way the “Tories” operate.

      • Melb 5.3.2
        18 March 2014 at 11:18 am

        “Discount the National Herald poll which was taken precisely to coincide with the Tory-orchestrated assassination attack on Cunliffe’s character.”

        This is real head-in-the-clouds stuff. +111 for imagination.

        The Herald poll was taken a month after the last Herald poll, which was also taken a month after the previous one. If you think long and hard about it, you may start to notice a pattern. The editors don’t just sit around around and suddenly say “oi, you know, what! Let’s do some polling today!”

        The timing of the Cunliffe trust stories came from the deadline of having to file the pecuniary returns. It was a point of interest to see who had funded the leadership challengers, and even more interesting that Cunliffe had chosen to hide his secret big-business crony money-men with a trust.

        Though the piece that Paddy Gower did about Cunliffe’s older trust was pretty average, and likely to be National putting the boot in while Cunliffe was down.

        As an aside, wouldn’t the moniker Tory (Traditional Conservatism) be far more applicable to Colin Craig and his ilk?

        • Anne 5.3.2.1
          18 March 2014 at 11:37 am

          The Herald poll was taken a month after the last Herald poll, which was also taken a month after the previous one. If you think long and hard about it, you may start to notice a pattern.

          Yep. there’s a pattern alright. Sometimes they’re monthly, sometimes they’re not – or maybe they don’t bother to report some of them in non election years. It’s monthly now because the election is close. You lack the insight to see the politically biased patterns in the Digi-Poll? Perhaps I put it the wrong way around:

          Somebody rings Hooton/Slater/whoever… we’re sending you our latest attack story on Cunliffe. Don’t print until such and such a date. Herald says next poll due to start one week later.

          I’m not saying that is exactly how it happens, but do you get the picture Mr Clever Boy/Girl?

    • vto 5.4
      18 March 2014 at 10:10 am

      It is entirely about rising house prices, nothing else…..

    • thatguynz 5.5
      18 March 2014 at 10:54 am

      Does that include the million people that didn’t vote Matthew? Surely that is the absolute epitome of disinterest, apathy or loss of hope is it not?

      • Matthew Hooton 5.5.1
        18 March 2014 at 11:35 am

        There are not a million people who didn’t vote. But even of the nearly 800,000 who didn’t vote in 2011, you are wrong if you assume they are all left-leaning, lacking hope etc.

        • geoff 5.5.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 11:59 am

          True. Many of them are probably traditional National supporters who have given up in disgust that their party has been captured by the corporates.

          Traditional National party supporters aren’t all as dumb as you think they are, Matthew.

        • thatguynz 5.5.1.2
          18 March 2014 at 12:47 pm

          Fair point – I’ll acknowledge your 800k correction. I did however not mention “left-leaning” so they’re your words, not mine. So back to the question.. If they are not disinterested, apathetic or lacking in hope, what is your view as to why they didn’t vote?

    • Ennui 5.6
      18 March 2014 at 11:24 am

      Because Matthew most of those two thirds are one hell of a lot more privileged than those below them and they don’t want the party to end. This is all comparative, however if you were to try and live like the bottom third you wouldn’t enjoy it much!

      Of course you could try and be a little bit imaginative and think about the bad tempers and blame game that might occur should the markets take a dive (lets face it the world exchanges are at unprecedented and extreme highs..based upon f.a…read Galbraith and you might get the picture of what happens next). Or any number of more and more likely events that might send the repo agents around to reclaim the new shiny SUV as the money goes west.

      So Matt, yes the bloated fat cats that we “middle classes” are (consuming well beyond our means to repay on credit and unsustainable salaries) might just end up becoming plebian voters (probably will is more likely). With bad attitudes like anybody thrown out from the party.

    • geoff 5.7
      18 March 2014 at 12:19 pm

      Matthew Hooton, do you believe that poll result is accurate?

    • adam 5.8
      18 March 2014 at 2:36 pm

      Matthew, Matthew you cervical creation of the elites. You propaganda is a vial veil – that us scum from the poorest of the poor, are seeing as the lie that it is. The manipulation of the masses is an affair which has been running for almost a hundred years now. I thought you’d better understand that tool of corporations and the elites dear boy (or are they not letting you in). You distractions into the lies of the propaganda machine are stale, as they are old. Matthew lie to yourself, that I can live with – but stop lying to us

    • aerobubble 5.9
      18 March 2014 at 3:57 pm

      We keep being told by media his polls are so very very high. And the polling? Well it panders to parties not principles, issues, or ideals. When asked is Key doing a good job, geez, when government does nothing, does not believe in govt of course he’s doing an excellent job… …hence high polling for Key.

      Set the metric so low, flip it upside down, and then the more, longer stupid lasts the more credible and successful said metrics make fools of us all.

      Are we really better off? are we as adaptive as we were? are we better able to meet our expectations?
      How can you say yes? oil will continue to cost more, we will continue to mis-adapt by continued sprawl of cities and upside down inside out ideologies that hate govt yet want to retain govt…

      Will our kids be better off. No.

    • Kahukowhai 5.10
      18 March 2014 at 11:09 pm

      As the others say it is based on illusion. John Key for example didn’t tell people when they voted in 2008 that he was going to abuse parliamentary process to rush through a whole lot of new laws under urgency, including bringing in National Standards which no one knew was coming. He didn’t campaign on diverting obscene amounts of money from around the country into a handful of expensive and unnecessary highways in cities, or stealing water resources for the dairy farmers so they could pollute the rivers, or driving people off welfare rolls even if they were unable to work. I’ve got a sister who is mentally ill and the only thing keeping her sane right now is that she qualifies for the DPB and therefore has not got Winz hounding her day and night to get a crap job which she couldn’t do as she gets stressed out too easily but all that matters to the Minister is making the numbers look good. John Key didn’t campaign on slashing hundreds or thousands of low paid jobs out of the public sector throwing more people onto the dole queues did he? Or on putting huge 62 ton trucks onto narrow twisting highways which they will pound to pieces and where oncoming drivers are at real and serious risk of coming off second best as these vehicles will swing well over the centre line on curves so sharp that the recommended speed is only 45 km/h.

      And that 67% does not mean a lot as it does not translate into 67% of the votes, it’s extremely unlikely National will ever win that percentage of votes in a general election, or anything like any simple majority. So the preferred prime minister number does not mean a lot at all.

    • McFlock 5.11
      18 March 2014 at 11:19 pm

      Doesn’t it concern you that only 3/4 people who want key to be prime minister can stomach his policies enough to vote for his party? Or any of its likely coalition allies?

      And doesn’t it concern you that if the polls are biased towards the nactoids by even a few percent, the he’d need peters to get the government benches again?

  6. drongo 6
    18 March 2014 at 7:28 am

    If so, how come Key’s government is this popular?
    http://yournz.org/2014/02/09/poll-margin-of-error-explained/

    Latest NZ Herald Digipoll:
    – National 50.8% (up 4 from Dec 2013)
    – Labour 29.5% (down 5.9)
    – Greens 13.1% (up 2.3)
    – NZ First 3.6% (down 0.3)
    – Conservative 1.3% (no change)
    – Act 0.8% (up 0.8%)
    – Other 0.5% (up 0.1)
    – Maori 0.2% (down 1.1)
    – Mana 0.1% (up 0.1)
    – Undecided 11.4%

    • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1
      18 March 2014 at 7:44 am

      It isn’t. The National Party never gets the electoral support its polling suggests.

    • Craig Glen Eden 6.2
      18 March 2014 at 7:49 am

      Very simple drongo we have a biased media that keeps repeating Key’s good news spin. The people I speak to are struggling to make ends meet are asking where are these poll numbers coming from and as for the economy being in growth mode pppffftttttt.

    • risildowgtn 6.3
      18 March 2014 at 8:24 am

      and on all these polls i say bullshit

      pure bullshit

      fuk the way you lot go on and on and on and on its as though you have 30 seat majority over the LEFT, you have 1
      yeah 1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1
      1 🙂

      have a great day

      • Rosie 6.3.1
        18 March 2014 at 1:49 pm

        Statement of the day risildowgtn. +1.

        And it’s a shakey “one” seat at that eh.

        • blue leopard (Get Lost GCSB Bill) 6.3.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 2:33 pm

          +1 I second that Rosie – excellent point Risildowgtn

    • RJL 6.4
      18 March 2014 at 8:32 am

      drongo: If so, how come Key’s government is this popular?

      The inability of Labour to effectively communicate why they are a better option, to the individuals that were polled.

      You can decide for yourself whether this is because a) Labour is not the better option, b) Labour cannot articulate their position properly, or c) Pro-National / Anti-Labour spin has fooled the polled individuals.

      You can also decide for yourself whether or not the polled individuals (plus any “bias” corrections applied to the poll) are representative or not of the general population.

      • George D 6.4.1
        18 March 2014 at 8:49 am

        Labour doesn’t look like Government.

        Shane Jones isn’t helping.

        • RJL 6.4.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 10:03 am

          Of course, equally, National doesn’t look much like Government. So that doesn’t seem to be an impediment in and of itself.

    • woodpecker 6.5
      18 March 2014 at 9:11 am

      Hammer Labour with made up bull shit in the media, then do a poll. Any guesses how it will turn out?
      Also did you see the 11.4% undecided?

    • Tracey 6.6
      18 March 2014 at 10:33 am

      you get that 50.8 is not SO popular, it’s a slim majority?

      you get that companies pay billions of dollars on advertising (including subliminal messaging and dishonesty) because it works to convince people that their true desire may not be one that serves them well?

      • Bob Square Pants 6.6.1
        18 March 2014 at 11:11 am

        They could poll @ 90% and you’d still post the same crap.

        • Tracey 6.6.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 1:54 pm

          if they polled 90% I would not be posting that 90% is a slim majority.

          you still think collins didnt breach the cabinet manual dont you’

          cos that popular mr key told you so.

    • veutoviper 6.7
      18 March 2014 at 11:16 am

      Interesting that Drongo links to YourNZ, not the Herald reports on their Digipoll results. YourNZ is none other than Pete George’s blog site. Remember him – now the “impartial” editor of Politicheck …..

    • Mark 6.8
      18 March 2014 at 4:30 pm

      At least you got your moniker right. Polls as they are presently done are a joke. No cellphones polled and a double digit no response along with the margin of error means you may as well throw a dart at the board. I belonged to the National Party for a long period but have drifted away after the disaster of the Christchurch rebuild. I don’t think I could vote for Labour but The Nats are not getting my vote thats for sure. Key’s popularity in Christchurch has been severely damaged by the rebuild chaos and Parata’s incompetence.The Nats are going to get a mauling in Christchurch and they deserve it.

      • Kahukowhai 6.8.1
        18 March 2014 at 11:16 pm

        +1

        CERA especially CCDU is all about strangling the city council, look at what they are still keeping Ecan firmly under their thumb, and the commissioners have been told to run down the Ecan reserves to the bottom of the barrel so the farmers don’t have to pay any rate increases, meanwhile the water theft plan keeps on rolling along just nicely, even if the zone committees cannot agree on anything they have no power to stop the implementation.

  7. One Anonymous Bloke 7
    18 March 2014 at 7:57 am

    The National Party’s milk companies can sell to Chinese consumers. Who cares about demand in NZ?

  8. JanM 8
    18 March 2014 at 8:27 am

    “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him someone to look down on and he’ll empty his pockets for you.” Lyndon Johnson.
    And pretending you know nothing about this phenomenon is very disingenuous, Matthew Hooten

    • RedLogix 8.1
      18 March 2014 at 10:27 am

      Oh how very, very true. Johnson was a remarkable figure in American politics. Much underestimated over the years.

    • Tracey 8.2
      18 March 2014 at 10:34 am

      Bravo

      It’s how Mr HootOn makes his money. By peddling the myths and meme planting, truth is irrelevant.

    • Tracey 8.3
      18 March 2014 at 2:00 pm

      who would suspect that lyndon had met bob square pants?

  9. TightyRighty 9
    18 March 2014 at 8:49 am

    you haven’t proven that people in the economy have no money to spend? just repeating lame meme’s that tax cuts for the rich (earn over $70k a year? feel rich?) and that the assets are being sold (if you own more than 51% of something, you own it) doesn’t magik the money out of peoples pay packets.

    Try again geoffy

    • One Anonymous Bloke 9.1
      18 March 2014 at 9:20 am

      Personal tax and GST receipts not matching Treasury’s The National Party’s propaganda is a fair indicator.

      • TightyRighty 9.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 9:47 am

        at least 47%, and up to 54.6% of the population voting for the government that the tired old meme’s are supposed to be attacking and bringing down because the voting populace don’t have money in their pocket? that’s a fair indicator too. gst is a consumption tax. it’ll be interesting to see what people saved instead of spent with the certain rise in interest rates on the horizon. personal tax take down on projections could mean a number of things. that projections were a little bit overstated maybe? it certainly doesn’t mean people are poorer.

        • Tracey 9.1.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 10:35 am

          Do you agree that most economists accept that a tax cut to the top bracket during a recession does not stimulate an economy while tax cuts lower down the pile do?

          Do you agree that if the bottom tax rate is cut, that ALL tax payers benefit because of how our tiered system works?

          • TightyRighty 9.1.1.1.1
            18 March 2014 at 1:30 pm

            I don’t agree with your first assertion as most economists agree that a tax cut, at any time, let alone a recession, stimulates the economy more through private enterprise than the government can using higher taxes and higher spending.

            your second assertion is plainly correct. i’ve always argued for a tax free threshold as opposed to welfare to those in work. so whats your point? the msm don’t report that this is the case and are therefore stupid for not reporting it as you want?

            • TightyRighty 9.1.1.1.1.1
              18 March 2014 at 2:31 pm

              i must have been busy as i missed the blatant logic leap in your statements. if the top statement is false then then the bottom statement must be true, and vice versa. good work tracey.

            • Tracey 9.1.1.1.1.2
              18 March 2014 at 2:54 pm

              can you post your source for your first assertion. i keep finding research and data which ssuggests that tax cuts to the rich dont positively impact growth.

              In the last 50 years there were 5 tax cuts to the rich. Three of them were followed by a decline in GDP growth, 3 were followed by a decline in employment growth. The evidence suggests that tax cuts do not promote growth and probably promote decline.

              http ://conceptualmath.org/philo/taxgrowth.htm

              • TightyRighty …
                18 March 2014 at 6:06 pm

                can you post your source for the assertion you made in your first question? you’ve found “all this research” (btw conceptual math looks like an early 90s conceptual html website, and it’s hypothesis is rather weak, based on a tangetal equation that wouldn’t stand up to real life situations) so it should be a doddle for you to provide.

                How about the tax increases, as tax cuts start from a point too, what decline in capital investment followed their introduction? i could argue the raising of the tax rate to 38% on the dollar for income over $60k by the labour government led to property speculation as it incurred no capital gains tax and the flow of money to the middle class via wff increased income streams, enabling higher mortgages?

                No you try argue something properly…

                • Tracey …
                  19 March 2014 at 7:07 am

                  So I have to continue to prove my argument and you just get to say “I know you are but what am I?”

                  ” i could argue the raising of the tax rate to 38% on the dollar for income over $60k by the labour government led to property speculation as it incurred no capital gains tax and the flow of money to the middle class via wff increased income streams, enabling higher mortgages” Source? Otherwise you are not arguing you are writing an opinion with no factual basis that you have proven.

            • Macro 9.1.1.1.1.3
              19 March 2014 at 5:08 pm

              Bullshit! Plain and utter bullshit! Everything you spout from here on in is just that – utter crap!
              You say you have some knowledge of economics..
              Well almost your every utterance proves otherwise. You may be repeating some of the myths of neo – liberalism – but any understanding of what an economy is, and how it works, is completely beyond your comprehension.

        • Tracey 9.1.1.2
          18 March 2014 at 10:36 am

          what do you think the projections are based on?

          Makes you wonder why the government keeps using average wage rather than median though.

          • TightyRighty 9.1.1.2.1
            18 March 2014 at 2:29 pm

            projections are based on many things. also, being projections they make assumptions about human behaviour, often invoking ceterus paribus. David Cunliffe was predicted to lead labour to victory, look how well those predictions are going! maybe treasury has to get it wrong for a bit before it comes right.

            • adam 9.1.1.2.1.1
              18 March 2014 at 2:52 pm

              It’s the lies that hurt. – Tighty.

              I think your under the delusion that repeating the propaganda of the day from the media makes you a intellectual.

              Our politicians are morally bereft. Indeed there actions look like those of a socio-path – if not in thought, then action.

              We use to hang money speculators you know.

              A race to who can get the most money – stop, apply some morals to that question – and it comes up looking a very sick virtue. How about the will/desire for power – again when we stop and think for a moment – apply morality and, our leaders come up – wanting.

            • Tracey 9.1.1.2.1.2
              18 March 2014 at 3:01 pm

              hmmmmm, i read the words. twice. still not sure it answered my question or much at all.

              i know it didnt address my second question.

              • adam …
                18 March 2014 at 3:32 pm

                Tracy all tighty ever does is a Gosman. You will see hell freeze over first before you get a straight answer.

              • TightyRighty …
                18 March 2014 at 6:17 pm

                they are projections, for all i know they could have got the dartboard out. maybe they forgot to carry the one when they factored in the change to consumer behaviour from the impact of the OCR. the difference between predictions and actuality is sometimes referred to as variance. it’s not a bad thing, but you look like an idiot if it is too large either way. if they’d have gone over with the tax take, you can bet your life someone would be saying they are taxing too much. probably me.

                your second question is phrased as statement and lacks a question mark. I think those people who desire to use median wage as a benchmark are a special kind of stupid. there, i answered it.

                • freedom …
                  18 March 2014 at 10:35 pm

                  TR, you state stuff, then when called on it, you blame others

                  you’re serving last week’s bread

                • Tracey …
                  19 March 2014 at 7:32 am

                  “I think those people who desire to use median wage as a benchmark are a special kind of stupid.”

                  Thank you.

                  Which makes statements such as these kind of, well, stupid, or at least meaningless

                  “English says the tax package will leave someone on the average wage of about $50,000 with an average rent or mortgage about $15 a week better off – …

                  A typical family with two children and average household income of $76,000 will be about $25 a week better off, he says.” Bill English 2010

                  He then said

                  “He says the government still expects to borrow an average $240 million a week until 2013 before this amount falls away as we move closer to budget surplus.”

                  Then we have things like this

                  ““Does the Prime Minister agree with Professor Eric Leeper’s statement in the latest Reserve Bank Bulletin that counter-cyclical fiscal policy could actually be counter-productive; if not, why not; if yes, why, then, is he borrowing $1 billion plus interest a year in order to give tax relief of $1 billion?” – Roger Douglas, 1 April 2009”

                  National’s 2008 Tax policy statement

                  “National’s promises in 2008,

                  “National’s rebalancing of the tax system is self-funding and requires no cuts to public services or additional borrowing.

                  [...]

                  I also refer to the report: Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2011

                  Interesting article at Forbes on the CRS report I mentioned yesterday. Lends support to your argument too Tighty.

                  “The study by Grant Graziani, Wilbert van der Klaauw, and Basit Zafar of the New York Fed staff was based on two surveys of about 200 workers. The first (in February and March, 2011—just after the tax cut kicked in) asked what they planned to do with their extra take-home pay. The second (in December, 2011) asked the same workers what they actually did with it. The results: While workers on average said they planned on spending only about 14 percent of added income, they reported months later they actually had spent 36 percent.

                  One especially interesting finding: High-income workers were more likely to spend the extra cash than their lower-paid counterparts. This contradicts the widely-held theory that cash-strapped low-income households will spend a tax cut while high-income workers will save those extra dollars. If these results turn out to be correct, they suggest that payroll tax cuts may do a better job stimulating demand than many economists think.

                  The Obama Administration designed the payroll tax cut as a temporary one-year stimulus (though it did extend it for an extra year). It cut taxes by as much as $2,200 per worker and by an average of about $1,000 for a middle-income household. The study found that those workers who thought the tax cut would last longer than a year were somewhat more likely to plan to spend the extra income than those who believed it was only a one-year break.

                  Congress has reduced withholding many times over the past few decades and thus created lots of grist for researchers. But their studies have come to widely varying conclusions about who saved and how much. This may be because some did consumer surveys while others looked at spending data, or because the circumstances or designs of the tax cuts differed. Whatever the reason, the New York Fed study lands at the high end of the estimates of how much people spend.

                  Even the authors seem somewhat baffled about why people consumed so much. Much economic theory argues they should have saved or used it to pay down debt. But the authors speculate that the design of the tax cut—a reduction in withholding rates instead of a single lump-sum rebate—might have been the cause of all that consumption.

                  Behavioral economists such as the University of Chicago’s Dick Thaler have argued this for many years. In their view, people think of a large lump-sum tax cut as new wealth and thus save it, while they think of the extra money that shows up in their weekly paycheck as additional income and spend it.

                  There is a big caveat here: Surveys are not necessarily the most reliable way to measure behavior—people often say they do one thing when they actually do something else.

                  Still, there are some interesting policy lessons from this new study: If your goal is to boost spending, you should probably do what Obama did and reduce weekly withholding rather than give people a one-time tax season rebate. But if you are going to give it to them for two years, you should probably say so up front, rather cut their taxes one year at a time. All good to remember when the next recession comes around.”

                  • Tracey …
                    19 March 2014 at 7:49 am

                    a special kind of stupid or meaningless cos they are a statistical fallacy. The important aspect of wage movement is how many people are experiencing the movement toward higher wages and their ability to offset their wages against their accommodation and other bills. Average does not address this and is a special kind of stupid.

                    Gosh, now we both say that something is a special kind of stupid.

                    Here is an ee of the two terms.

                    “Hon Phil Goff: Why is it fair that someone on a high salary—let us use, for example, somebody on a salary of the level of the Prime Minister’s—gets $120 extra a week today, while someone on the median wage with kids gets nothing?

                    Hon JOHN KEY: As I said earlier, the reality of a progressive system is that higher-income earners pay a lot more tax. The reality is that a very small percentage of New Zealanders pay a lot of PAYE tax. But today the National Government has been very fair in its tax cuts. The average worker is getting around $20 a week. It is a very fair tax system.”

                    The average worker is a fiction. He/she cannot actually be pointed to, they are a pure statistic. The median wage earner is identifiable and real.

                • Tracey …
                  19 March 2014 at 7:38 am

                  “special kind of stupid” use median, enlighteneded folks use average wages…
                  Steven Joyce 2013 and 2014

                  ” 2. JOHN HAYES (National—Wairarapa) to the Minister of Finance: What reports has he received on wage increases in New Zealand?

                  Hon STEVEN JOYCE (Associate Minister of Finance) on behalf of the Minister of Finance: Everybody’s own circumstances are, of course, different, but average movements in wages across the economy are shown in the quarterly employment survey, the latest release of which came out last week. It showed that average hourly wages rose 2.6 percent in the last year, compared with inflation of around 0.9 percent. Average weekly wages rose by even more—2.9 percent—and the average wage is now over $53,000 a year before tax. So it is quite clear that, on average, wages in New Zealand are rising considerably faster currently than the cost of living is…. Since September 2008 the average wage after tax has increased by a total of 22 percent, from a bit over $36,000 a year to a little bit over $44,000 a year. Inflation over the same period has totalled 8.5 percent. So it is a total of 22 percent in after-tax wages versus 8.5 percent inflation over the same period. Again, everybody’s circumstances are different, but it is clear that, on average, working New Zealanders have had a sizable increase in their standard of living over the last 4 years.”

                  “Using this measure, average weekly earnings rose by 2.8 percent over the year to December, while inflation was only 1.6 percent. So, on average, wages are continuing to rise faster than inflation. The gains are even more significant when measured on an after-tax basis. The average weekly earnings after tax—[Interruption]; they do not want to hear it—have gone up 25 percent since September 2008, compared with inflation of just 10 percent over the same period.”

                  My sense is a special kind of stupid believes that using average wages paints a realistic or even honest picture of our society and its ability to navigate its bills.

                  50% of kiwis in work earn less than $22 per hour. 50% of kiwis can only get 36.5 hours per week paid work.

                  But for you that is meaningless.

                  • TightyRighty …
                    19 March 2014 at 8:42 am

                    Everything you just pointed out shows that the average wage is a better measure and that median wages only enter the conversation when someone wants to point out how poor someone else is.

                    oh, and that tax cuts for the well off aren’t a waste of money.

                    at what point are you actually going to prove to me that using median wage means something.

                    you’d give an asprin a headache.

                    • TightyRighty …
                      19 March 2014 at 9:07 am

                      can you provide one definitive source that says using the median wage is a better indicator of an economies performance that isn’t a nz labour politician / green politician in opposition?

                    • Tracey …
                      19 March 2014 at 10:40 am

                      and average why do you think i posted something that supported your argument?

                      by all means call me names or make your silly comments but of tge two of us only one of us is trying to find fact for support.

                      of course “how poor” people are is important which helps explain your a nationals desire to cling to the average. any growth that doesnt reduce poverty is more than a spreadsheet exercise.

                      it appears you delight in discussing statistics with little application to human beings yet you blithely say nzers are saving more. BS. some may be, but which ones and to what end. the gap between the bottom 50% earners and top 10% is growing. your average and growth smugness overlooks this.

                    • Tracey …
                      19 March 2014 at 10:52 am

                      you wrote

                      ” provide one definitive source that says using the median wage is a better indicator of an economies performance…”

                      ” What does the gross domestic product tell us about our quality of life and economic well-being? If you ask Nobel laureate and economist Joseph Stiglitz, he’ll say — Not much. And then he’ll tell you to look at median household income instead.

                      In his May 16 New York Times Magazine article about GDP, writer Jon Gertner featured Stiglitz for good reason. Stiglitz recently served as the head of a commission formed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy to identify the limits of GDP. And he and his international team of economists and statisticians produced an expansive report outlining a dashboard of indicators for measuring progress — considered as alternatives to GDP.

                      His oft-repeated mantra is “What we measure affects what we do.” In his view, using the wrong metrics will inevitably lead to the wrong policies.”

                      …” Share This Print This RSS Feed
                      Economy
                      Measuring Economic Well-being: GDP vs. Median Income

                      By Anthony Calabrese
                      July 6, 2010

                      gdpthumb.gifWhat does the gross domestic product tell us about our quality of life and economic well-being? If you ask Nobel laureate and economist Joseph Stiglitz, he’ll say — Not much. And then he’ll tell you to look at median household income instead.

                      In his May 16 New York Times Magazine article about GDP, writer Jon Gertner featured Stiglitz for good reason. Stiglitz recently served as the head of a commission formed by French President Nicolas Sarkozy to identify the limits of GDP.

                      Public Perception and Economic Reality

                      In addition to wasting time and taxpayer money on bad policy, the gap between expectations and economic growth can erode the public’s trust in the government, according to Stiglitz. “One of the reasons that most people may perceive themselves as being worse-off even though average GDP is increasing is because they are indeed worse-off,” Stiglitz said in official reflections on the commission’s report.

                      …

                      Focusing on Different Measures Over Time

                      Looking at median measures (the middle value in a set with an equal number above and below), Stiglitz noted how median household income had declined over the past decade while GDP per capita had gone up. “When you have increasing inequality, median and average behave differently,” Stiglitz said in the Times article.”

                    • geoff …
                      19 March 2014 at 1:00 pm

                      Traitor tighty, this is just basic stats.
                      The median is used primarily for skewed distributions, it’s just the point where half of the sample values are less than the median value and the other half of the sample values are greater than the mean value.
                      It’s usually a better measure for population wage measurements because the wage distribution for a population is usually skewed.

                      I don’t hear you complaining about the use of the median price in the reporting of stats in housing market where it is commonly used for exactly the same reason.

                    • TightyRighty …
                      19 March 2014 at 1:38 pm

                      lol stiglitz. that guy. sheesh. where do i start.

                      what your really saying is that inequality increases as gdp increases and it’s hidden if we only use average wage growth to measure the growth in average wages. to some extent thats true, but it still doesn’t make up for the loss of accuracy as to where individuals sit in relation the wage group as a whole.

                      If you just want to measure how poor some of the working people are, by all means flagellate yourself about it and use the median wage. If you want to see how sectors within the economy, professions, and individuals within these sectors and professions / vocations are actually doing in relation to their peers, use average wage. it’s easier to break down, and then we all know if we are above average. or in your case below.

                      geoff, you are a complete moron. have you ever heard me complain about house prices and how they are reported except to say i think they are overvalued and not a good investment compared to stocks? try again geoffy. basic stats? duh. this is the standard of the authors on the standard these days? someone please help the mouthpiece of the labour movement.

                    • geoff …
                      19 March 2014 at 1:47 pm

                      Ah ok, I see what level I should have pitched at now.
                      I’ll try again.

                      Ewe iz pooo fart! Er duh shurrp bowt stuf lol Y yoo suche a dum?!!? Lolzzzz

                    • Tracey …
                      19 March 2014 at 2:56 pm

                      so it has to be an economist you agree with? gosh it gets narrower and narrower.

                      are you still reading the second article and sounding out the big words?

                    • Tracey …
                      19 March 2014 at 3:01 pm

                      Adjective
                      definitive (comparative more definitive, superlative most definitive)
                      explicitly defined
                      conclusive or decisive
                      definite, authoritative and complete

        • Kahukowhai 9.1.1.3
          18 March 2014 at 11:19 pm

          54% in the polls is not 54% of the electorate, a large chunk have not voted in the last election and maybe the one before.

    • Ennui 9.2
      18 March 2014 at 11:31 am

      Tighty, you are right that there is spending…I would contend that to a large degree that expenditure is made possible by credit based upon any number of false assumptions such as “continuously rising property prices”. I would also contend that the spending is highly vulnerable to any number of likely events and could dry up over night.

      Neither Right nor Left have a clue how to respond to reality, smoke and mirrors suffice to keep confidence in unreality high enough to maintain the mirage. Real supply and demand will be a harsh tutor….and this particular Cassandra will be truly despised because she wont take any prisoners. Interesting times.

      • TightyRighty 9.2.1
        18 March 2014 at 2:38 pm

        I would contend that you are partially right with your first statement. ignoring the fact that for the last 6 years new zealanders have saved as opposed to borrow, even if it is only 3c on the dollar as opposed to borrowing 17c, you would be completely right. but there are savings and a pool of local capital available for investment. we are starting to see the net improvement in the economy as a result of returns to local people for their investments.

        the second part of your comment is grounded in the belief that the government can control the economy. i think there has been enough evidence of this recently to prove that the good government is a stable government. one not hell bent on nationalizing everything to please it’s ideological, but minority support base.

        • thatguynz 9.2.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 2:55 pm

          Would the opposite of “nationalizing everything to please it’s ideological…” not be “privatising everything to please its ideological” as opposed to what you have called a “stable government”?

          Interesting play on words you’ve used there.

          • TightyRighty 9.2.1.1.1
            18 March 2014 at 6:18 pm

            it’s partially privatized. the majority of it is still government owned. that’s what it means when you have 51% of something.

            • thatguynz 9.2.1.1.1.1
              19 March 2014 at 9:30 am

              That’s splitting hairs – so if the left were to nationalise it, they are only nationalising 49% of it?

              The point still stands.

        • Tracey 9.2.1.2
          18 March 2014 at 3:04 pm

          WHICH nzers have saved?

          you relyi g on averages or median? source?

          • TightyRighty 9.2.1.2.1
            18 March 2014 at 6:11 pm

            median wages are a fallacy, it automatically makes the “benchmark” wage lower as there are a lot more people on lower wages than their are on high ones. if we take the stupid measure that any income gets included into wage equations, median drops right down to next to nothing, where as using average wages accounts for it.

            WHICH new zealanders have saved? those who didn’t spend all their money obviously. yell at me like you actually asked a cogent question.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 9.2.1.2.1.1
              18 March 2014 at 6:19 pm

              The median wage is a statistic. Calling it a fallacy is a National Party enabler, so who cares what they say they mean?

              • TightyRighty …
                18 March 2014 at 6:40 pm

                a meaningless one. if it meant something, it would have been used before the national party came to power.

            • Tracey 9.2.1.2.1.2
              19 March 2014 at 7:46 am

              You stated that NZers had saved not spent. I asked you which ones had saved. As you wish to be deliberately obtuse, let me rephrase it for you.

              Please post your sources for “for the last 6 years new zealanders have saved as opposed to borrow”

              You attack one statistic as a fallacy, median, but invoke other statistics to boost your arguments. median is a very good measure precisely because it deals with real peole where average does not translate to anything tangible. median gives us a snapshot of the lower 50% of our working nation or our nation. Average does not, but purports to, as used by politicians and their apologists.

              “as there are a lot more people on lower wages than their are on high ones” – we definitely would be stupid to focus on that.

        • Ennui 9.2.1.3
          18 March 2014 at 3:08 pm

          T, the second part of my comment is not around government at all, it is around the concepts and ideas currently espoused by both Left and Right that have far more in common than you imagine. For example both are children of industrial growth economies, and share definitions / assumptions re money property etc even if they dont agree on outcomes etc. They both proscribe the thinking and the possibilities of what can be included in any debate, they both frame the argument into one theme.

          As Galbraith said about Keynes “He was for a time, but not for all times”, so to are the concepts of Left and Right.

          • TightyRighty 9.2.1.3.1
            18 March 2014 at 6:12 pm

            while not wrong, i’m guessing what your proposal would be to replace it would be more wrong than the current status quo. i don’t have the answer, but i’ll know if ones wrong.

          • geoff 9.2.1.3.2
            18 March 2014 at 7:23 pm

            Depends what you mean by left and right.
            For me they relate to the distribution of power in a group of people.

            Left generally means a more even distribution of power but more importantly, where ever the power is held it is exercised for the benefit of the group.

            Right means the opposite, generally power condenses to a few and that power is exercised for the benefit of those few.

            Greens, Labour, Mana, NZ first are left in their outlook

            National/Act are clearly Right wing in this sense. Hence they are privileged elites who fuck everything up with their greed for power.

    • Lanthanide 9.3
      18 March 2014 at 12:16 pm

      TR, it was National that decided if you earned over $70k, you are rich.

      • TightyRighty 9.3.1
        18 March 2014 at 2:33 pm

        no shit lanth, it’s not like i’m making a huge song and dance about where the tax rate kicks in. do you fell rich though? would you feel any richer if being rich kicked in at $60k. seems national might be a bit more progressive than labour on that front.

        • alwyn 9.3.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 3:54 pm

          Given David Cunliffe’s musings it appears that the “new” labour party approach regards rich as being about a million a year.
          Cunliffe himself gets about $300,000/year if we include his tax-free expense account. His wife, a well known Auckland lawyer and a partner in a law firm would probably have a similar income. He then has the gall to describe his family as being in a middle income bracket who live in a “do-upper” type of house! I can’t remember his exact words but that was the gist of them.

        • Lanthanide 9.3.1.2
          18 March 2014 at 8:15 pm

          Once again, TR, Labour implemented a tax cut that put the top tax bracket at $80,000.

          National repealed it as one of their first actions in government.

          National have chosen not to introduce a higher tax bracket, as Labour are planning for this election (with enough signalling to suggest it’ll kick in at $150k).

          Therefore, National thinks if you’re earning over $70,000, you must be rich.

  10. captain hook 10
    18 March 2014 at 8:51 am

    the National party dont care if its stupid or not as long as they are in charge. Thats all that counts with lowbrows like them.

  11. travellerev 11
    18 March 2014 at 9:13 am

    In 1973 the club of Rome released a paper called the limit of growth. The paper stated that according to this group the planet could not sustain more than 500 million people long term.

    In fact one of them in 1980 said that the US should lose 2/3 of its population within the next 50 years. That was almost 35 years ago and they just stopped billions in foodstamp programs for some 50 million people. All they need to do is find a solution for another 150 million or so over the next 15 years (Fukushima, more wars come to mind) and they should be up to schedule.

    Some of the people responsible for that paper are still powerful behind the scenes today and they mean to get to that number no matter what.

    They are printing their own money out of thin air. Don’t need workers for taxes anymore and with the introduction of a robot army in the form of drones and remote controlled weaponry they don’t need to convince thousands of idjits anymore to join in the war efforts. They can kill us from above and so no longer need to fear us; the masses.

    We are not so much out of the loop as obsolete.

    • Lanthanide 11.1
      18 March 2014 at 12:18 pm

      “Some of the people responsible for that paper are still powerful behind the scenes today and they mean to get to that number no matter what.”

      Your comment was going so well until you got to there.

      • thatguynz 11.1.1
        18 March 2014 at 12:52 pm

        So you don’t agree with the remainder of the comment then Lanth?

        • Lanthanide 11.1.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 2:26 pm

          Stopped reading when I got to the paranoid conspiracy theory so don’t know what the rest says.

          • thatguynz 11.1.1.1.1
            18 March 2014 at 2:56 pm

            Wow.. Interesting view of what a “paranoid conspiracy theory” may look like I guess.

            • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1.1.1.1
              18 March 2014 at 3:44 pm

              I’m with Lanthanide on this one. travellerev obviously has no idea as to what the Club of Rome was doing or trying for.

              • thatguynz …
                18 March 2014 at 4:04 pm

                That’s not what I was questioning 😉

                I was questioning Lanth’s statement that she stopped reading at the line where Ev asserted (or implied) that members of the Club of Rome were still powerful “behind the scenes today” and that it was a paranoid conspiracy theory when I think it could be fairly well accepted that some members of MOST international think tanks almost certainly are powerful behind the scenes today.

                I may of course have misinterpreted what Lanth was taking umbrage with and if so, I withdraw and apologise 🙂

                • Draco T Bastard …
                  18 March 2014 at 4:37 pm

                  I don’t think the Club of Rome has always been a powerful force behind the scenes – if they had been I think the world would be a much difference place today.

                • Lanthanide …
                  18 March 2014 at 8:18 pm

                  It seems you only read the first half of the sentence I quoted, I’ll quote the second part for you again:
                  “and they mean to get to that number no matter what.”

                  travellerev is saying members of the club of Rome are trying to orchestrate genocide under the guise of the planet running out of resources.

                  Also I’m male, btw.

                  • travellerev …
                    18 March 2014 at 10:07 pm

                    Here are some members. Kissinger notably was part of the Club of Rome when the wrote the paper I wrote about:

                    The membership list of the Club of Rome includes Henry Kissinger, Al Gore, Javier Solana (Secretary General of the European Union), Mikhail Gorbachev, Hassan bin Talal (World Future Council), Javier Perez de Cuellar (former UN Secretary General), Kofi Annan (former UN Secretary General), Bill Clinton, Bill Gates, Jimmy Carter, and Steven Schneider, the Stanford University biology professor who practically invented global warming. Other associates include Tony Blair, Deepak Chopra, George Soros, Ted Turner, Barbara Marx Hubbard (New Age occultist), Jane Goodall (evolutionist), Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, Prince Philipe of Belgium, Martin Lees (President of the University of Peace), Ernesto Zedillo (former President of Mexico), Vaclav Havel, and a variety of UN officials.

                    Kissinger thinks we’re all useless eaters and should be got rid off and soldiers are stupid animals to be used as pawns. Nice!

      • travellerev 11.1.2
        18 March 2014 at 1:37 pm

        Radioactive rare earth man,

        I take it you are trying to make a point?

        For all of you out there needing some links to read up on:

        Here is Webster Tarpley on what the IMF, Europa, the US and Chevron just to name a few are trying to unleash in the Ukraine on the local people after their illegal regime change.

        Here is what will happen when the 0.001% can kill whomever they don’t like with drones.

        Here is what Max Keiser has to say about us not being needed anymore and a whole lot of other interesting genocidal activities by the way.

        Here is what is happening in China. Something I might add I have predicted for at least the last 6 years.

        They killed more than a million people in Iraq, They’re killing in Libya, Syria. The Greek are being pushed out of healthcare and an entire generation in Spain, Italy, Portugal, France, England and the US to name a few is unemployed with absolutely no prospect of ever getting a job.

        And yes, they are printing money out of thin air as I might add they have been doing when they took the US from the gold standard.

        Now radioactive rare earth man why don’t you go geek out some more somewhere else or alternatively why don’t you do us all a favor and read up on the links I just agave here.

        • Colonial Viper 11.1.2.1
          18 March 2014 at 3:25 pm

          I guess a global electronic surveillance state panopticon is also just some fictional paranoid conspiracy theory as well.

    • the pigman 11.2
      18 March 2014 at 6:46 pm

      Your post might have had some validity/interest until you fell back on the “Fukushima is going to cause deaths in the U.S.”

      Let me know when it’s held responsible for one, let alone 150 million.

      • travellerev 11.2.1
        18 March 2014 at 9:58 pm

        I never said Fukushima was going to cause 150 million deaths. Bad healthcare, no more food stamps, no jobs, no houses will probably do a lot of damage. And I’m sure they’ll come up with some other shit too.

        • the pigman 11.2.1.1
          18 March 2014 at 10:13 pm

          Of course, you are spot on that bad healthcare, no more food stamps, no jobs, and no houses will cause deaths, I’m not sure as it will go so far as wide-scale depopulation, since the U.S. doesn’t seem to be able to imprison its poor fast enough to stop them expanding.

          What I take issue with is the bald assertion that Fukushima is going to cause deaths in the U.S. (“All they need to do is find a solution for another 150 million or so over the next 15 years (Fukushima, more wars come to mind) and they should be up to schedule.”)

          For me, the last straw was when Stuff published the article about the “radioactive giant squid from fukushima” washing up on the west coast of the U.S. then didn’t publish even a squeak of a retraction when the whole thing was found to be a hoax. I only learned that it was a hoax watching Japanese TV several days later. Which is a fucking fail by NZ MSM journalism.

  12. Bob Square Pants 12
    18 March 2014 at 11:10 am

    Going by this years polling, it would suggest Labour is out of the loop.

    • drongo 12.1
      18 March 2014 at 6:41 pm

      It seems inevitable: Key to continue as PM, and the ABC faction must be sharpening the knives, but it’s a bit too late to change leader.

  13. greywarbler 13
    18 March 2014 at 11:31 am

    Rod Oram has interesting comments on Fonterra this morning. e&oe of my report. Worth listening to on Radionz to get the correct gen.

    The government has not released its report on its own responsibility or lack of it in the affair about botulism. He says there is much to be learned and government is not fronting. Fonterra is pleading guilty to the court case and that means that matters won’t come out there. But the French company that is suing Fonterra is likely to result in full reports being shown. Oram points out that Government has not picked up on recommendations of the task force. Kathryn Ryan defending Key strongly, more strongly than I would expect.

    He also says that it is very strange that Key has gone to China as it is unprecedented for a major leader to go and apologise for a business fault, and he cannot say definitely that government is not at fault. As he hasn’t he cannot assure the Chinese leaders of NZ being on top of it. It is really Fonterra’s problem, and Oram doesn’t think that there are lingering doubts there that make it necessary that Key should go. Oram feels that instead that it will raise questions and confusion in the minds of the Chinese leaders that there are further problems which they as yet have not learned about.

    Oram mentioned that food regulations take up 3 metres of shelf space. I think that is the NZ ones. And there are questions as to whether they are satisfactory. There is an absence of a special branch responsible for food safety here which has been noted overseas.

  14. greywarbler 14
    18 March 2014 at 12:26 pm

    Just hat tip to a heading in today’s The Press Chch – pA2 –
    “Key suggests Chinese lease rathr than buy” from Cathie Bell and Tracy Watkins.

  15. greywarbler 15
    18 March 2014 at 9:52 pm

    Ooh I have just read a comment from Gravedodger on No Minister. Reading this and some of other stuff on certain blogs gives me the same sinking feeling as having walked on a piece of dog shit.

    • lprent 15.1
      18 March 2014 at 10:44 pm

      Yeah Pyscho doesn’t appear to be writing there much these days. I may drop the site off the feed. The old farts over there seem to be getting pretty repetitive and boring.

  16. Kahukowhai 16
    18 March 2014 at 10:48 pm

    That is easy to work out. The idea (chilling as it is) is export focused and completely writes our small domestic market out of the picture. Make labour costs as low as possible and exporters can compete with low wage economies like China or undercut high wage economies like the US. This of course is exactly what China has done and look at how their economy is booming. Of course China has a terrible work safety and public health record but their government helps to keep a lid on dissent so the companies all doing business over there just look the other way.

    Economic development or empowerment of NZ workers is definitely not the aim – disempowerment and impoverishment is, and I am sure John Key and all of his cabinet know it. China is the model for this. With the export demand constantly growing due to the increasing global population, NZ’s small domestic market can be largely ignored. The government can always fill gaps in labour shortages by importing workers from low wage countries, for whom New Zealand is seen as a paradise.