Daily review 20/03/2024

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, March 20th, 2024 - 35 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

35 comments on “Daily review 20/03/2024 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. mac1 1
    20 March 2024 at 6:37 pm

    I have just watched the valedictory speech of Grant Robertson from Parliament. At the end he spoke of hope. Beautifully.

    I recommend Standardistas to listen to him if they have not already.

    Keep the faith. Practice charity. Hope demands that.

  2. Patricia Bremner 2
    20 March 2024 at 8:11 pm

    Willis has felt the burn of wrath, Rolling-on- Gravel. She has called in the disabilities Minister and staff.

    • Robert Guyton 2.1
      20 March 2024 at 8:58 pm

      What-a-mess.

    • Grey Area 2.2
      20 March 2024 at 9:44 pm

      Why does Nicotine Willis call in officials for a please explain in the disabilities area? She's the minister of finance.

      Maybe because Lying Luxon is missing in action as usual and she has to try and do his job as well as her own (however incompetently).

      What a shambles.

      • weka 2.2.1
        20 March 2024 at 9:52 pm

        it's a key funding issue. And she was just quite majorly publicly embarrassed by a more junior Minister.

        • Kay 2.2.1.1
          20 March 2024 at 10:01 pm

          Yes, isn't it nice to see them publicly humiliated. Got to enjoy those small dopamine bursts…

        • Grey Area 2.2.1.2
          20 March 2024 at 10:05 pm

          Okay. Which maybe explains why she appeared happy to not be Deputy PM. Because as Minister of Finance she is the power behind the throne? However bad she is in that role.

  3. SPC 3
    20 March 2024 at 9:14 pm

    The IMF has looked over the small pond and its unimpressed with the government.

    It's basic advice Treasury could manage on a good day.

    1.do not fund tax cuts with borrowing

    Ms Willis may need to resign, as she said she would.

    2.An increase in progressivity is tax is required, but via the means of a CGT and a land tax (the second to target speculation via land acquisition, rather than productive purpose – a land tax in place of a wealth tax).

    3.it said the broader tax base was required for investment in infrastructure (and productivity).

    4.It said measures to boost the supply of housing were urgent because housing unaffordability was serious.

    Speaking truth to those who acted for those of their class and removed the incentive on landlords to invest in new builds.

    https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/03/20/govt-warned-not-to-borrow-more-money-for-tax-cuts-in-imf-report/

    • Nic the NZer 3.1
      20 March 2024 at 11:42 pm

      Really should not be relying on IMF advice, its usually highly regressive at best.

      • SPC 3.1.1
        21 March 2024 at 1:04 am

        Nothing about the above is regressive.

        And not surprising given our policies are to the right of the rest of the OECD … (few have GST on food)

        Neither CGT, nor a land tax are regressive

        More housing … less cost of land and housing is not regressive

        • Nic the NZer 3.1.1.1
          21 March 2024 at 7:50 am

          Actually it is. The IMF line is that New Zealand should maintain a balanced budget which means over the longer term New Zealand will maintain a surplus of unemployment. That is in taking the rest of the policies as something Labour would have followed on a good day.

          Its fait accompli at this stage but what is going to happen now is National is going to go ahead with their tax cuts and because they are pursuing a balanced budget they are going to accompany that with a public sector austerity program. Now we know the austerity program will be tremendously damaging to vulnerable New Zealanders and the tax cuts will have minimal benefits to a particularly select group so its a poor policy trade off in terms of the countries well being, this is absolutely true. But on the other hand its only being maintained as a 'necessary' trade off because of the national (small n) obsession with balancing the budget even from an extremely low (and technically irrelevant) public debt position.

          The country would still be better off if the govt just goes ahead with tax cuts and lets the deficit blow out a bit. This is actually also a highly likely scenario under the austerity program due to either estimates of savings not panning out or (the more likely) the public sector austerity having such an impact on the economy that a recession results and the denominator (GDP) shrinks so public debt ratios actually rise. As you will be aware the IMF have a long track record of pushing countries into austerity programs and this is coupled with a track record of the outcome of those austerity programs being an increase in public debt ratios due to GDP falling in response. Simply put these IMF programs failed in their own terms.

          • SPC 3.1.1.1.1
            21 March 2024 at 8:11 am

            Given the IMF does not advise zero debt – and accepts deficit financing of investment in infrastructure and productivity, you do misrepresent them a little.

            Nor do they oppose the growth in value of public assets, that enable net wealth.

            Sure they are opposed to more general spending and tax cuts when it is not afforded and simply leads to growing debt via deficits. But they do recognise the across time nature of budgeting for an economic cycle.

            For mine, they would have no trouble with 30% GDP debt, if the spending was of the right sort.

            All of that and an appreciation for a CGT and land tax as funding mechanism for greater equity, indicates they are closer to where we want Labour to be, not just way ahead of this government.

            • Nic the NZer 3.1.1.1.1.1
              21 March 2024 at 9:38 am

              Your reply indicates you have not understood the criticism. Zero debt is not remotely a realistic goal, what the IMF targets with a balanced budget is NET zero debt over the economic cycle. I'll assume since you seem to also advocate for this policy choice you understand those terms.

              In NZ this arbitrary debt to GDP target comes mostly from the government where a similar or lower than present debt to GDP ratio becomes the target and then budgets are adjusted to best case hit this target. It should be highlighted what worst cases catastrophizing says about this given NZs debt to GDP ratio is about 30%. Infamously Reinhart and Rogoff released a fraud paper claiming an 80% debt to GDP threshold resulted in slower GDP growth. Now we know that this threshold doesn't actually exist in the data, and we should also be aware that most of the at least some causality goes in the other direction of slower GDP growth resulting in higher debt to GDP ratios (which was never dealt with) but that is the worst case scenario come up with. By balancing the budget over the cycle NZ is staying well clear of that infamous economic evil of growth may supposedly slow a bit.

              On the other hand what is the trade off, maybe this trivial goal has extremely low costs? Yeah, its continuously implementing excess unemployment and at best maintaining public service levels. I surely don't need to go through the obvious scale of these costs. And that is your best case scenario of following IMF preferences.

              • SPC …
                21 March 2024 at 5:57 pm

                You have certainly not understood my position – which is the IMF position is in advance of Labour's so far – in that CGT and land tax revenue enable

                1.more funding for public services across the economic cycle

                2.investment in assets (growing wealth – infrastructure/state houses/Cullen Fund/ACC) means lower net debt.

                And IMF cannot and does not say a nation with an infrastructure deficit, as we do, should take no action (increase debt) to remedy that.

                A state with low debt and lack of infrastructure is not better off than one with higher debt and highly productive and low cost because of well funded infrastructure.

                And it is obvious – given our decades long lack of investment (no tax on CGT and estates etc etc to finance), where we stand.

                At this point Labour is on the side of 30% debt to GDP, National for reducing it to 20% – yet a case can be made (even on OECD terms) for anywhere between 30 and 50, if the spending is in infrastructure and or for productivity gain (to increase wages and reduce housing cost).

                It's position as to the economic cycle is related to balancing funding of operational spending and budget revenues, not infrastructure spending levels.

                Our specific problem atms

                1.lack of domestic worker skills (and productivity) and population growth by importing migrant labour beyond domestic infrastructure capacity.

                2.low wages and high housing cost

                3.insufficient revenue from CGT, land tax, estate tax, wealth tax, windfall profit tax on banks

                4.lack of R and D, new shareholder capital, low cost business finance

                • Nic the NZer …
                  21 March 2024 at 7:31 pm

                  Unfortunately your position of 30% to 50% debt to GDP being fine is not the IMF position at all. The IMF position is at best in line with Labour accepting about 30% and roughly maintaining public service levels, though they also make the claim that NZ inflation is excessive and ought to be addressed by a tight government budget. So you can advocate what ever progressive budget you want, its simply not relevant to what the IMF are advocating (which is effectively a de-politicized austerity program ala Bill English in the face of a technical recession). For all we know the IMF would be fully satisfied if National broke their tax cut promise and still went ahead with their public sector austerity program anyway.

                  • SPC …
                    21 March 2024 at 7:45 pm

                    Then name one country with 50% debt to GDP they have asked to get debt down to 30% GDP.

                    A country can grow debt from 30 to 50% debt to GDP without operational spending in excess of revenue.

                    We could do it by increasing the amount into the Cullen Fund, establishing funds for other purposes, more state houses, investment in infrastructure, research and development etc.

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      21 March 2024 at 8:04 pm

                      Ridiculous. The focus of the IMF is mostly political since they lost their purpose with most countries leaving fixed exchange rates (and reconstructed as an economic influence institution).

                      The point is their base line is balanced budgets over the economic cycle and this isn't going to lead to 30% debt to GDP turning into 50% debt to GDP (with a likely related expansion of public services). Meanwhile they do mention that their priority is government policy should be "fiscally neutral", their main reason to bring in new taxes. In the context of a Labour government that fiscally neutral policy might maintain 30% debt to GDP, in the context of the National government (you already said) they are probably targeting 20% debt to GDP.

                    • SPC …
                      21 March 2024 at 8:12 pm

                      So no.

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      21 March 2024 at 8:21 pm

                      "A country can grow debt from 30 to 50% debt to GDP without operational spending in excess of revenue."

                      Maybe, spending isn't directly related to revenue via borrowing anyway. The govt could also just as well have the RBNZ buy up most of the government debt, making it into debt which is no longer external to the government. But this doesn't seem to be getting the country anywhere.

                      On the other hand if you want the public sector to purchase the manufacture of more state houses, make actual investments in industry, fund research then yes this absolutely this gets recorded as GDP. Its the income of the builders, industry or researchers who the government employed.

                      Anyway presumably your not thinking that this will hoodwink the IMF in some way about the state of the NZ economy?

                    • SPC …
                      21 March 2024 at 8:51 pm

                      Because GR cited standard IMF measures, he seems to have floated a major change and without any impact on our credit rating.

                      The Government is setting a ceiling on government debt at 30% of GDP under the new measure, which translates to about 50% under the ‘old’ core Crown debt measure.

                      https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/128607232/how-far-has-grant-robertson-shifted-the-goal-posts-on-government-debt

                      National is now the one aberrant from standard IMF practice to validate small government (low debt downsizing) and a society organised around private capital/business interests with minimal tax liability. To the extent Treasury panders to them, they are also outliers.

                    • Nic the NZer …
                      21 March 2024 at 9:19 pm

                      That is a change in accounting practice. Anyone who treats that as material (including credit rating agencies) is not serious.

  4. weka 4
    20 March 2024 at 9:41 pm

    this is an extraordinary interview with the Deputy PM of NZ. Peters in full blather mode. The interview is superb (and sometimes struggles to not laugh).

    • weka 4.1
      20 March 2024 at 9:41 pm

      Anna Burns-Francis is the interviewer.

    • SPC 4.2
      20 March 2024 at 10:49 pm

      He claims the idea of a "superior Maori DNA" is repugnant. And that he is merely a strong opponent of racism.

      The scientific evidence is that the evolutionary factors of Pacific Island existence resulted in a population with larger bones and more muscle, and all the TPM leader said was that their policy was to invest in the sporting potential of Maori – so that economic deprivation would not deny them that opportunity.

      But Peters is not interested in those facts – he wants to impugn Maori nationalism, whether Treaty claim, indigenous people identity rights and any race based policy.

      He should be asked about Te Puni Kokiri, Maori broadcasting, whanau ora etc. Where will his attack on a place in governance for Maori or place of any government programme for Maori go?

      Now he is competing with Seymour for the right wing on social media vote, how low will he go?

      The man was one of those privileged Maori able to assimilate into the white settler class 50’s-70’s and is a man of his time – boomers easily manipulated by the Muldoonist anti-union and anti-foreigner “other” campaign of politics era (1975).

      Murray Ball sent that up with his comic strip “Stanley”.

      The more modern of his kind is the Maori kid assimilated into Atlas Network libertarianism – the middle class in the capitalist hierarchy regime order get well paid jobs shilling for the elite.

      • weka 4.2.2
        21 March 2024 at 9:35 am

        very few people know how to have a conversation about different strengths across ethnicity. But yeah, obviously there are physical differences that affect things like sport.

        TPM fucked up their messaging. The point about speaking to their own people to lift them up is really good, but this wasn't on marae, this was on the internet which means it crosses over into mainstream politics. Waititi could have talked about evolutionary factors alongside the positive messages for Māori. Instead he avoided answering the media questions which is why Peters can now use that for his own ends. If the MSM had had a decent answer from TPM last year, or the left, they would be able to use that to call Peters out. As it is, TPM just sound racist (I don't think they were)

        The Deputy PM going off on one is a separate issue, and a really big problem for NZ.

  5. Kat 5
    20 March 2024 at 10:05 pm

    Neighbours lettuce on her windowsill is looking good………

  6. SPC 6
    20 March 2024 at 10:20 pm

    Lux Soap.

    Will Willis resign?

    Will Benson Peters get a knighthood from Chuck for his service to white mans settler government rules OK?

    Will the popular nationalists and Atlas Network libertarian sisters maintain their marriages to the ruling landed gentry, farmer and landlord?

    Wait for the next installment of

    Lux Soap.

  7. Reality 7
    20 March 2024 at 10:26 pm

    Grant Robertson's valedictory was so well worth watching. A man with humanity, humour, kindness, decency, who cares about people.

    • Kat 7.1
      21 March 2024 at 12:13 am

      One of the Prime Ministers we never had……………

      • Phillip ure 7.1.1
        21 March 2024 at 8:41 am

        ..and all down to entrenched homophobia..

        • mac1 7.1.1.1
          21 March 2024 at 9:23 am

          Not 'all down', Philip. I really rate Robertson highly but in the interests of history he himself was not sure how much his being gay was a factor.

          "It was a factor. I know that. But I'm not sure it was everything,“ he told TVNZ’s Q+A on Sunday morning when asked if his sexuality affected the outcomes.

          https://www.stuff.co.nz/politics/350215195/grant-robertson-says-being-gay-factor-unsuccessful-labour-leadership-runs

          I hope it wasn't. He does say that it was less a factor in his second run. He also said yesterday in his valedictory that we have come a long way in ten years on these issues.

          • Phillip ure 7.1.1.1.1
            21 March 2024 at 10:20 am

            I would think it wouldn't be anywhere near being such a factor now..

            In fact almost irrelevant now…

            But not ten years ago…

            ..and I don't just mean homophobia out here..

            .. homophobia within the labour party at that time can't be ignored…

            (Ms fenton may be in the best position to comment on that..)