Yeah, right. For example, our lovely stimulus package has $1.7 million dollars for pig odor research in Iowa. Everyone knows that stinky pigs are absolutely prohibitive to a US recovery!

This is only a very small example of all the great stuff (AKA PORK!) in the US stimulus package.

I’m moving to Canada!

It really feels like the stupid members of your third form class have taken over and are deciding what in intellectual terms is right and wrong ..

Media deficiency.. insuffociency..? The solution to which lies in how they can be made to think about and write sensible, sensitive and intelligent copy for folks to take up..

Well, here’;s something. I’ll relate it as a start: a way of figuring things.. of stating a progessive line.. futures.. sustainable and not fall-overs..

Governing Labor (Labour) has a name of being control freaks. National need a different mindset. Control… what?

The new National – whether they like it or not, know it or not – operate twixt price and risk. Best risk is the priced risk. No price = uncertainty. Uncertainty is too much risk. Recession is risk!

Yep, do more than just think about this.

ps: once was northpaw, but I was ‘touched’ the other day and henceforth until further notice my monicker here shall be Snail.. One thing is for sure.. folks will always know where I have been nights by following the silver trail by day.

pps: has anyone else noticed how the enzed bonds market is shaping out..

.

Anyway, just because the majority of people back something does not mean it is correct or above question. I’m certain you have views that the majority disagree with but that doesn’t stop you making your arguments.

The NZSF contributions are not destimulatory because they’re not coming at the cost of spending in the economy.

That isn’t true SP. Governments have three options: adjust tax, adjust spending, and adjust savings/debt levels. Increasing savings levels as the super contribution does removes spending on the economy.

PB, I’m not strictly speaking a Keynesian, but I take your point. Yet I’ve never said that the only positive effect of tax cuts, or that the only time to do it, is when there are large surpluses. I would argue that one of the positive effects of tax cuts is that they stimulate the economy in a downturn. Yes that’s a Keynesian argument but it’s not the only one. Labour claimed that the main motivation for its tax cuts were that surpluses were “structural”. That’s turned out to be patently wrong.

I should clarify I’m not asking you to justify Labour’s policy. My point is though that the electorate has two broad political options in Labour or National. We don’t have a lot of an idea of what Labour would do in the current climate, except for the statements made by Phil Goff: cancelling tax cuts and maintaining super contributions, both of which probably have a more destimulating effect on the economy than anything else. I haven’t heard much of what positively stimulating policies Labour might have pursued, but given the options it seems to me that National’s plan has a more stimulating effect than Labour’s.

Only if they are spent. But in the current environment, with asset values collapsing, the highest priority for most people will be to reduce debt. Which has no stimulatory value at all. The rest of your train of thought falls apart after that.

We are at the beginning of a massive debt deflationary period. These things are rare, occuring only once ever 70-80 years or so. Most of what we know from our recent past will prove misleading or wrong in the next decade.

Goff has called for super contributions to remain.

I never thought I would say this, but increasing debt by borrowing expensive money to buy depreciating assets is probably counterproductive at this point in time. National could get away with suspending the Fund (as the legislation explcitly allows), if it also laid out acceptable conditions that had to be met in order to restart them. Simply suspending the Fund with open-endedly would be widely perceived as killing the political accord around Super, and added to their already long list of reprenhesible moves in this area.

(and one of Cullen’s excuses for not pursuing with tax cuts earlier was that it would provide too much stimulation in a hot market)

And he was right. Now that you are lauding the keynesian effects of tax cuts, I’m sure you’ll be happy to admit as much.

National’s tax cuts are more aggressive than what Labour promised.

They are slightly bigger, and differently targetted. Whether or not they are more stimulatory than Labour’s depends at least as much on the latter as the former. Which is the point.

I don’t really care what Goff is saying.

Goff has called for super contributions to remain. That also removes stimulus from the economy.

[The NZSF contributions are not destimulatory because they're not coming at the cost of spending in the economy. Removing the tax cuts would be destimulatory but I'm adovating using the moeny on spending instead, whcih would be more stimulatory than tax cuts for the rich. SP]

Oh come now Pb, you can’t hold him to that – it was before the election!