And they’ll be grateful!

Written By: - Date published: 10:17 am, May 20th, 2015 - 15 comments
Categories: bill english, debt / deficit, Economy - Tags:

Bill English tells us that the promise that they won the election on – that they’re the only Masters of Finance who could balance the government books (because that’s all that’s important… not child poverty, or housing, or climate change, or the current account deficit…) – now isn’t at all important to the public.

So after 9 years of Labour surpluses, we have 7 years of National deficits.  The stuff that they constantly claim to be good at, they’re truly crap at.  Who knows if they’ll deliver next year really?

And Bill tells us: they’ll get their surplus when I give it to them, and they’ll be grateful for it.

15 comments on “And they’ll be grateful! ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Lanthanide 1
    20 May 2015 at 10:31 am

    Decade of deficits anyone?

    • Colonial Rawshark 1.1
      20 May 2015 at 11:56 am

      Labour should not be trumpeting its years of surpluses, when those years of surpluses were simply Cullen driving down government debt by letting private sector and household debt explode.

      As a nation NZ became MORE indebted during Cullen’s reign even though his own section of the books looked better by 2008.

      Bunji, you would do well to recognise that a government’s surplus in NZ inevitably means private sector deficits (less profits, less income, less savings, more debt). Hardly anything to be proud of.

      • Lanthanide 1.1.1
        20 May 2015 at 11:58 am

        “Bunji, you would do well to recognise that a government’s surplus in NZ inevitably means private sector deficits (less profits, less income, less savings, more debt). Hardly anything to be proud of.”

        So what you’re saying is debt is always going to go up anyway. In that case, is it better for private debt to go up (which each individual has control of themselves – if you don’t take on debt you won’t be in debt), or is it better for the government to take on debt on behalf of everyone?

        • Colonial Rawshark 1.1.1.1
          20 May 2015 at 1:11 pm

          Debt is always going to go up (unless we wish to contract our economy) because the system NZ runs is one where debt is our primary source of money (and credit) into the economy.

          In that case, is it better for private debt to go up (which each individual has control of themselves – if you don’t take on debt you won’t be in debt), or is it better for the government to take on debt on behalf of everyone?

          If you consider that government can borrow much more cheaply than private individuals and households, and that public debt can be managed far more stably than private debt (consider where the liabilities which caused GFC were from – private banks and private financial institutions), then the answer is fairly obvious: if you insist on running a debt based money creation system, then most of the new debt should be on the government side of the ledger, not the private sector side of the ledger.

      • Bunji 1.1.2
        20 May 2015 at 1:22 pm

        There are 2 sides to a balance sheet – a big part of National’s deficits is their cutting top tax rate – was that the big effective stimulus for the economy?
        Similarly the lack of a capital gains tax / other measures to stop a housing bubble that raise revenue, and hopefully encourage people to invest in productive industries (creating jobs) instead of creating more debt through foreign banks lending for housing, would change the current account deficit and the government books in the same (correct) direction.

        It’s not a pure either/or.

        A huge chunk of the current account deficit is the big banks profits. Getting the housing market on a sensible footing could make a significant difference.

        So, not so simple.

        I would say the Labour policy of looking after the little guy (instead of National looking after the big guy) results in lower unemployment, higher wages, lower outgoings, higher tax take – hence better balanced books. The Current Account Deficit needs dealing with too, but it’s not a wholly connected problem.

  2. Wayne 2
    20 May 2015 at 10:40 am

    Bunji

    Surely this must be the prime entry of your vast catalogue of lies. Even though there are understandable reasons why the surplus was not reached this year (milk price collapse) surely it still meets your definition of a lie.

    • Lanthanide 2.1
      20 May 2015 at 10:45 am

      Bill English kept telling us that the milk price collapse wouldn’t have any impact on the deficit or the economy as a whole.

    • Zorr 2.2
      20 May 2015 at 10:48 am

      You would be meaning Blip’s vast catalogue…

      And not only that, the milk price collapse threatening our entire economy was pretty much predicted. It continually surprises me how many people in this current government are stupid enough to believe in “growing” our economy through primary production and, especially, focusing all that effort in to milk production. So, of course, when milk has a bad day, so does the New Zealand economy.

      Amazing how when you cut funding for the development of other industry and put it all in the one basket, crying that that industry is going down doesn’t garner you any sympathy.

    • The Murphey 2.3
      20 May 2015 at 11:25 am

      Not talking openly about the factual truths of debt / money / surplus / deficit are the lies

      Allowing politicians to get away with propagating the lies is equally as bad

  3. johnm 3
    20 May 2015 at 11:49 am

    Accounting 101. The Great Bean Counter strikes again. Can’t even work out his sums properly certainly doesn’t know the value of anything. His incompetence and massive tax giveaways will be used as a refrain: ” we don’t have any money! ” to further demolish our civilisational welfare state.

  4. adam 4
    20 May 2015 at 11:49 am

    Message to devotees of liberal economics.

    If you live in a bubble – you will suffocate.

  5. heather 5
    20 May 2015 at 12:39 pm

    I have always disliked the use of the word grateful, it smacks of do gooders dispensing alms to the poor, they should be grateful for the crumbs passed down to them.
    It is such a patronising word.

    • Charles 5.1
      20 May 2015 at 1:12 pm

      It’s worse, because to arrive at a position where alms are necessary, the “do-gooders” have to have been very bad at some point. Grateful = “don’t remind me of my guilt”.

  6. Stuff the Politicians 6
    20 May 2015 at 1:07 pm

    There will be a manipulated surplus in May 2017, 5 months prior to the election with promises of tax cuts.
    This Govt is as dodgy as they come.

  7. whateva next? 7
    20 May 2015 at 5:10 pm

    Cooked the books for a shiter future, not as promised, but as predicted