ECONOMY IN PERIL! DANGER!! WARNING!!!

149 comments on “ECONOMY IN PERIL! DANGER!! WARNING!!! ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Gosman 1

   3 February 2016 at 9:41 am

   Where exactly is this money budgeted for?
   • Natwatch 1.1

     3 February 2016 at 10:29 am

     http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/295382/labour's-announcement-welcomed-and-slammed
   • Sabine 1.2

     3 February 2016 at 10:35 am

     Can you tell us how the National Party is going to pay back the debt accumulated under their watch?
     Can you tell us how the National Party is going to raise the Tax revenue lost if they offer a tax cuts again.
     • pat 1.2.1

       3 February 2016 at 10:59 am

       another increase in GST perhaps?….that tax which disproportionately impacts the less well off
       • Stuart Munro 1.2.1.1

         3 February 2016 at 12:55 pm

         The confidence fairies will make it all right – Treasury promises.
         • pat 1.2.1.1.1

           3 February 2016 at 1:00 pm

           ah of course….the confidence fairies…..how could i forget
         • pat 1.2.1.1.2

           3 February 2016 at 11:36 pm

           of course the confidence fairies have been deceptively engaged by the grasping ogre ,Whunpa Zent, to enable the goblins to spirit away as much of the kingdoms gold as possible under cover of the cloud of fairy dust.
           • Stuart Munro 1.2.1.1.2.1

             3 February 2016 at 11:45 pm

             Oddly, there is a reliable source for the term:

             http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/27/opinion/krugman-death-of-a-fairy-tale.html?_r=1
             • pat …

               4 February 2016 at 12:11 am

               so it would seem…..vaguely recall the term from a Guardian article sometime ago, probably a Krugman piece as well
     • Nic the NZer 1.2.2

       3 February 2016 at 1:07 pm

       It is absolutely critical that left wing commentators understand that paying back the ‘accumulated debt’ is the last thing anybody wants, or needs National (or a different government) to do.

       http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3891

       Labour should trump this by offering these tax cuts in addition, given the present state of the economy.
       • Draco T Bastard 1.2.2.1

         3 February 2016 at 2:04 pm

         Wrong. The debt needs to be paid off so that we don’t keep losing billions a year in interest. To do this two things need to be done:

         1. Stop the private banks creating money
         2. Have the government be the sole supplier of NZ currency

         Then, as government bonds mature simply have the RBNZ create the money necessary to pay them off.

         Due to the fact that the government can, and should, create all the nations currency the government should never, ever be in debt. They may run a deficit but they don’t have to borrow to cover the shortfall.
         • Nic the NZer 1.2.2.1.1

           3 February 2016 at 2:39 pm

           “The debt needs to be paid off so that we don’t keep losing billions a year in interest.”

           As you are well aware, interest payments are not ‘lost’ they are paid to the holders of government debt. There are actual important things to worry about, which do not include this.

           “1. Stop the private banks creating money”

           Why are you still advocating this nonsense? The link between inflation and the money supply was completely discredited when Monetarism was actually tried in ernest (circa the early 1980’s)? You are well aware of the history (and failure) of this idea.
           • Draco T Bastard 1.2.2.1.1.1

             3 February 2016 at 3:45 pm

             As you are well aware, interest payments are not ‘lost’ they are paid to the holders of government debt.

             Well, it’s either pay the holders of the debt or increase social services. We can’t do both.

             Why are you still advocating this nonsense?

             It’s not nonsense. What we have (private banks creating money with almost no limits) is nonsense. And, yes, that is one aspect of our economy which is causing huge inflation in the housing market.

             The link between inflation and the money supply was completely discredited when Monetarism was actually tried in ernest (circa the early 1980’s)? You are well aware of the history (and failure) of this idea.

             WTF are you talking about? Sovereign money has always been a success when it’s been tried but the capitalists have always managed to persuade the politicians to swing the power of creating money back to them and the economy then fails.
             • Nic the NZer …

               3 February 2016 at 4:51 pm

               “Well, it’s either pay the holders of the debt or increase social services. We can’t do both.”

               If the government can create money (which it can) then clearly it can also choose to do both, which it can.

               “What we have (private banks creating money with almost no limits) is nonsense.”

               Nonsense, in the sense that this is not how banks and finance works. When in fact they work (do function, and continue to function) as they do now.

               “Sovereign money has always been a success when it’s been tried but the capitalists have always managed to persuade the politicians to swing the power of creating money back to them and the economy then fails.”

               The ability of banks to create credit clearly has not, and doesn’t undermine the ability of governments to create credit themselves. That’s not even what you are saying but somehow its the implication of what you have said.

               “And, yes, that is one aspect of our economy which is causing huge inflation in the housing market.” also “WTF are you talking about?”

               Well as I thought you were aware, several governments experimented with limiting growth of the money supply directly and if that was mechanism from M3 to inflation, so if this was ‘causing inflation in the housing market’. But it became apparent that there was not a direct link there. The same conclusion could probably be drawn from the failure of QE to spike inflation as well. In addition preventing credit to all markets on the basis of one seems rather heavy handed.

               Not that I would be particularly concerned about this policies likely success to be implemented in a significant way.
               • Lara …

                 3 February 2016 at 5:11 pm

                 – “What we have (private banks creating money with almost no limits) is nonsense.”

                 – Nonsense, in the sense that this is not how banks and finance works. When in fact they work (do function, and continue to function) as they do now. ”

                 I don’t think you understand how our money works.

                 And the Reserve Bank do.

                 Here is clearly stated (in a speech given by Michael Reddell from RBNZ) the following:

                 “Note that I’m not disagreeing that “money” is bank-created: a bank loan does typically leads to a new bank deposit, and those bank deposits do make up the bulk of our statistical measures of the “money supply””

                 So your claim that money is created by private banks is “nonsense” is directly contradicted by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand.

                 Now who to believe?

                 You?

                 Or RBNZ?

                 Hmmmm….
                 • Nic the NZer …

                   3 February 2016 at 5:21 pm

                   You need to look at the discussion. Yes banks create money. No thats not an issue with appropriate regulation.
                   • Lara …

                     3 February 2016 at 5:24 pm

                     I did look at the discussion.

                     Don’t patronise me.

                     I was responding to your repeated assertion that banks do not create money. That that statement was nonsense.

                     And I was calling bullshit on your assertion.
                   • Nic the NZer …

                     3 February 2016 at 5:28 pm

                     Well Draco said that, initially, not me. Also thats not the implication of what he said.
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 3 February 2016 at 5:27 pm

                 Nonsense, in the sense that this is not how banks and finance works.

                 So I take it that you disagree with the Bank of England’s research and analysis?

                 This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans.

                 When in fact they work (do function, and continue to function) as they do now.

                 That’s just it – it’s not working. As the Great Depression, the GFC and every recession in between and beyond proves.

                 The ability of banks to create credit clearly has not, and doesn’t undermine the ability of governments to create credit themselves.

                 You can’t have both the government and the private banks creating money. Then you will get the hyper-inflation that the right-wing always go on about. Thing is, you can’t leave the creation of money to the private banks because then you get massive disinvestment such as the present over investment in housing.

                 Well as I thought you were aware, several governments experimented with limiting growth of the money supply directly and if that was mechanism from M3 to inflation, so if this was ‘causing inflation in the housing market’.

                 Which had nothing to do with what I said thus WTF are you talking about?
                 • Nic the NZer …

                   3 February 2016 at 5:35 pm

                   “So I take it that you disagree with the Bank of England’s research and analysis?”

                   No, I agree with that research, you rather miss-interpreted what I said. The non-sense part is that inflation is not driven by he size of the money supply.

                   “You can’t have both the government and the private banks creating money. Then you will get the hyper-inflation that the right-wing always go on about.”

                   Will you? Because presently both do occur with no hyper-inflation.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 February 2016 at 5:52 pm

                     No, I agree with that research, you rather miss-interpreted what I said. The non-sense part is that inflation is not driven by he size of the money supply.

                     Size of the money supply/credit supply, if I were to be finicky.

                     Just look at the inflation in financial assets across the world due to money printing and cheap credit.
                   • Nic the NZer …

                     3 February 2016 at 5:57 pm

                     Inflation in financial assets however is not the same as inflation in prices (which is the concerning one).

                     Unless you are an Austrian economist that is an like to conflate the two for rhetorical reasons, Ha, Ha.

                     But can you show any research which says that the financial assets are driving inflation, rather than the inflation is driving the financial assets and leverage up?
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     3 February 2016 at 6:03 pm

                     The different “kinds” of inflation are not the same, but asset price inflation under conditions of unlimited easy/free money is a phenomenon we have seen for many years now.

                     But can you show any research which says that the financial assets are driving inflation, rather than the inflation is driving the financial assets and leverage up?

                     well no…but where is the research to say that is the paradigm which should be investigated?

                     But seriously…inflation is not seen as a problem in most places in the western world…its just that for ordinary people their incomes are deflating at a faster rate.

                     The whole scam appears contrived to increase financial inequality between the 0.01% and everyone else.
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     3 February 2016 at 6:37 pm

                     Well Draco said that, initially, not me. Also thats not the implication of what he said.

                     The non-sense part is that inflation is not driven by he size of the money supply.

                     Now you seem to be purposefully misrepresenting what I said. Almost nothing of what you’ve replied to me has any bearing on what I said.
     • Draco T Bastard 1.2.3

       3 February 2016 at 1:56 pm

       Can you tell us how the National Party is going to pay back the debt accumulated under their watch?

       Whatever makes you think that they’re planning on paying it back? IMO, They much prefer that they and their rich mates keep getting the government guaranteed income from doing nothing that that debt represents.
       • Colonial Viper 1.2.3.1

         3 February 2016 at 5:54 pm

         The funniest thing will be the old cycle of Labour squeezing down on communities to pay back the national debt, only to be thrown out of office again in time for National to come in and spend up big on the credit card that Labour has freed up for them!
     • Smilin 1.2.4

       3 February 2016 at 6:13 pm

       Well they could set up a sting crash like 2008 but this time wipe 100 billion off the books in NZ and boot Key and his BS idiots TO HELL
       how would that do Cheers
2. Gosman 2

   3 February 2016 at 9:44 am

   Have you got any figures suggesting the Student debt drives a significant number of graduates overseas? For example – What is the proportion of graduates living offshore versus onshore pre and post Student loans?
   • Natwatch 2.1

     3 February 2016 at 10:31 am

     http://teu.ac.nz/2012/02/student-loan-debtors-escape-on-oe/

     http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/ED0503/S00033/aus-tertiary-update.htm

     http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/10631945/Wipe-your-student-loan-go-bankrupt

     And just as a bonus

     http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/3963867/11b-student-loan-debt-a-disaster-says-Key

     Here’s a site that you might find useful in general

     https://www.google.co.nz/
   • linda 2.2

     3 February 2016 at 1:03 pm

     Gosman please answer the question where is national. Going. To get. 100 billion from to pay back to debt and where is nationals policy to cope with technolgical disruption
     • Colonial Viper 2.2.1

       3 February 2016 at 6:37 pm

       Labour’s play around “technological disruption” of the job market like its a new thing is ridiculous.

       Here’s a better question for both National and Labour:

       “Where is your plan to get the nation off fossil fuels?”

       *crickets*
3. Stuart Munro 3

   3 February 2016 at 10:03 am

   There’s a false premise here anyway.

   The economy is NOT strong. Idiots who are losing $20 billion a year, have just had their credit downgraded for the second time and are $120 billion in debt, having made NZ plummet 23 OECD places in the last thirty years don’t have a strong economy.

   These useless RWNJ need to wake the fuck up.
   • Gosman 3.1

     3 February 2016 at 10:11 am

     What evidence do you have for NZ plummetting 23 places amongst OECD nations in the past 30 years?
     • Stuart Munro 3.1.1

       3 February 2016 at 10:14 am

       You’ve got google – figure it out.
       • Gosman 3.1.1.1

         3 February 2016 at 11:00 am

         This link does not suggest NZ has slipped anywhere near 23 places amongst OECD nations.

         http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2002/02-14/01.htm

         Now where did YOU get your so called facts from?
         • Macro 3.1.1.1.1

           3 February 2016 at 11:23 am

           You certainly won’t get any “facts” from treasury!
           Opinions, dreams, neo-liberal clap trap, certainly – but “facts”….
           You have to dig a bit deeper for them.
           • Gosman 3.1.1.1.1.1

             3 February 2016 at 11:28 am

             Weird then that even The Green party wishes to use them to independently cost each political parties spending promises. Why would The Greens allow Treasury to do this if it is so obvious they only provide “Opinions, dreams, neo-liberal clap trap” but no facts?
             • Macro …

               3 February 2016 at 11:43 am

               My thoughts entirely. It should be a completely independent agency quite removed from any Treasury influence.
               I guess the reason the Greens decided that Treasury would be the best place for it was purely financial, (you see they are not completely devoid of the need to keep costs to a minimum – after all that is the whole point of the proposal), but I can see all manner of difficulties with it residing there.
               • Gosman …

                 3 February 2016 at 11:55 am

                 But apparently The Greens can’t see any difficulties with it residing there. They are obviously not as clever as some would like us to believe they are.
                 • Stuart Munro …

                   3 February 2016 at 12:09 pm

                   By no means – the Greens are merely tired of having their well-reasoned economic ideas – like Russel Norman’s suggestion that quantitative easing be considered – dismissed as silly by arrogant empty-headed buffoons like John Key.

                   Unhappily for the Greens, the Gnats, having no economic acumen whatsoever, certainly cannot recognise it in others. Key will continue to dismiss Green economic ideas on irrational grounds because his own activities cannot meet a rational public interest analysis.

                   Key’s a crook, and honest practices like a neutral policy costing unit do not serve his interests at all. Crooks are not and never will be good government however – hence rubbish like the TPP.

                   Nobel winners like Stiglitz understand what’s wrong with the TPP – so do the smarter Gnats (the dishonest ones) but the average Gnat supporter or tr0ll is not in immediate danger of Nobel recognition.
                 • weka …

                   3 February 2016 at 12:27 pm

                   But apparently The Greens can’t see any difficulties with it residing there. They are obviously not as clever as some would like us to believe they are.
                   

                   Says the person who didn’t even think to read the policy before criticising it.

                   This independent unit within the Treasury will be established with the specific role of costing political party policies. Political parties can voluntarily submit their policies to the unit for costing. The independent unit will then produce a standardised report with information on both the fiscal and wider economic implications of the policy, so that the public can see the expected costs of different policies.

                   The unit will use the existing comprehensive Treasury processes and guidelines for this work, but the current layer of Ministerial involvement will be removed. Changes to the State Sector Act will be necessary to protect this unit from the usual oversight and access by the Minister, meaning it can be truly neutral and work for all parties.

                   https://www.greens.org.nz/sites/default/files/policy-pdfs/Policy%20Costings%20Unit_FINAL.pdf
   • Bob 3.2

     3 February 2016 at 1:25 pm

     “There’s a false premise here anyway”
     And they all seem to be your own!

     “Idiots who are losing $20 billion a year”
     They actually had a surplus of $414M for the June financial year, and are only forecasting a $414M deficit for the 2016 FY so citation for your numbers please?
     http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/political/292185/i-see-red-government-forecasts-deficit

     “have just had their credit downgraded for the second time”
     They downgraded our economic outlook from Positive to Stable: https://www.fitchratings.com/site/fitch-home/pressrelease?id=998381, this is VERY different to a credit downgrade which remains at AA. Your lack of understanding of this may explain the rest of your figures also.

     “and are $120 billion in debt”
     That is NZ total debt, private + public.
     Government debt is currently falling as a % of GDP: http://www.oecd.org/newzealand/new-zealand-economy-performing-well-but-sustaining-high-levels-of-growth-and-well-being-will-require-further-reforms.htm
     And private debt has been reasonably flat since National came into power
     http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key_graphs/household_debt/ these are both signs of a strong economy.

     “having made NZ plummet 23 OECD places in the last thirty years”
     Citation for this as well? From what I can see, we have only dropped 2 places in the past 30 years:
     http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2002/02-14/01.htm

     Seriously Stuart, where do you get this shit from? I think you should have a read of this: http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/ (hat tip OAB)
     • Draco T Bastard 3.2.1

       3 February 2016 at 2:15 pm

       Anyone seen the rockstar economy lately?

       NZ Government books running $1.6 billion in the red as tax take disappoints

       I suspect that being down $1.6 billion dollars means that the expected surplus of $414m is long gone.
       • Bob 3.2.1.1

         3 February 2016 at 4:16 pm

         Still well below the $20 billion in the red Stuart has heard about.
         • Stuart Munro 3.2.1.1.1

           3 February 2016 at 5:54 pm

           Oh really Bob you disingenuous piece of shit.

           Last year NZ government debt was $100 billion.

           Now it’s $120 billion.

           I’d ask you to do the math but obviously it’s not your strong suit.
         • ropata 3.2.1.1.2

           3 February 2016 at 6:28 pm

           o rly?

           Public debt in 2008: $ 0
           Public debt in 2016: $ 120 908 000 000
           NatCorp™ in power: 7 years

           $ 121 billion divided by 7 years = $ 17.2 billion per year, (kiwi $$$ gifted to foreign bankers)

           $ 20 billion wasn’t far off
     • Stuart Munro 3.2.2

       3 February 2016 at 3:01 pm

       If your debt keeps increasing every year, and you never keep your promises, you must learn to expect that people will not believe you.

       I had the benefit of long discussions with the architect of Korea’s economic recovery – he didn’t think the Gnats are rock stars – more like folk with rocks in their heads – can’t even sustain real growth of over 3% and have no business whatsoever claiming economic competence, much less expertise.

       You useless hosers.
       • Bob 3.2.2.1

         3 February 2016 at 4:14 pm

         I get the feeling you may have been talking to a fraud rather than the ‘architect of Korea’s economic recovery’.
         Korea has had one year of >2% economic growth in the last 10 years! http://www.tradingeconomics.com/south-korea/gdp-growth
         National have kept New Zealand’s economic growth over 2% for the past 4 consecutive years which is predicted to continue: http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/gdp-growth-annual

         What was the persons name out of interest?
         • Stuart Munro 3.2.2.1.1

           3 February 2016 at 4:22 pm

           The late Lee Kie-Hong.

           If you believe that National have kept NZ’s growth over 2% for the last 4 years you are either dishonest or stupid.

           Take Christchurch off that – it may be churn, but it isn’t growth. Take migration out – migration isn’t growth it’s only capital inflow.

           This self-deceit does you no credit and the country no good.
           • Colonial Viper 3.2.2.1.1.1

             3 February 2016 at 5:58 pm

             I don’t see why Lefties are still promulgating a financial system which requires (eventually impossible) exponential growth.

             Of course constant 3% or 4% or hell 10% economic growth per year is possible for a few years (until it isn’t): the thing is you have to fuck up your environment and your people and your resources up to achieve it.

             Or, as the West has been doing for the last 20 or so years, simply resort to financial fraud and accounting games.

             Use South Korea as an example for many things, but just remember that there is a reason why their suicide rate is 25 per 100,000 people. That’s like doubling or more NZ’s suicide rate, and ours is pretty shite to start with.
             • Stuart Munro …

               3 February 2016 at 6:30 pm

               At the moment we have a failed rightwing government – they will pursue conventional economic policies at best.

               The Key government is however a screaming disaster in conventional economic terms, which is something people need to wake up to.

               Korea is a useful comparison because it instanced a real rather than a false technocracy.
     • Colonial Viper 3.2.3

       3 February 2016 at 6:47 pm

       Bullshit Bob

       “and are $120 billion in debt”
       That is NZ total debt, private + public.

       LOL

       total NZ foreign debt is at least one quarter billion NZD, mate.

       You really are out of date.
4. shorts 4

   3 February 2016 at 10:06 am

   While there is a “brain drain” of some of our brightest and a chunk of the middle class who do at the least an OE where this policy has the most to offer us is those who wouldn’t burden themselves with debt to gain higher qualifications – those children of beneficiaries and minimum wage earners

   it will help to start to reverse the growing inequality and poverty trap far too many are finding themselves in – as an added bonus if OE’s, gap years and travelling are not part of a families makeup (which they aren’t for the “poor”) then the qualified graduates are far more likely to stay here and help their communities grow and thrive

   Great policy by labour, or should I well borrowed from the greens
5. Matthew Hooton 5

   3 February 2016 at 10:54 am

   Unemployment falling towards 5%.
   http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/LabourMarketStatistics_HOTPDec15qtr.aspx
   • Stuart Munro 5.1

     3 February 2016 at 11:00 am

     One could almost believe this utterly useless pack of scumbags had some vague clue what they doing, if one ignored all the evidence:

     mounting debt
     lack of growth ex housing migration & rebuild
     declining workforce participation
     erosion of cultural capital and democracy
     rising corruption
   • Gosman 5.2

     3 February 2016 at 11:05 am

     But Stats NZ is obviously infiltrated with National apparatchiks who are following orders to fudge data to make their masters in the Beehive look better /sarc
     • Stuart Munro 5.2.1

       3 February 2016 at 11:22 am

       There must be the mother of all purges in Treasury – and afterward, their numbers must be true at their peril.

       No more – surplus next year guys D’oh! Try again next year 😉

       Dishonest reporting to lend credence to the utterly worthless Gnat government.
       • Gosman 5.2.1.1

         3 February 2016 at 11:25 am

         A lefty advocating a massive purge. Why am I not surprised.

         [lprent: Please don’t waste my time. When I read something like this comment while moderating, I have to go off and look at the context to see if there is someone I need to admonish. I tend to get a bit tetchy when I find it is a just an idiot chicken little overstatement. My first instinct, which I overrode, as to pass out an educational ban for wasting my time. Instead you get a warning – don’t overhype anything to cause a moderator to waste time looking for an offense. It is a dangerous thing to do. ]
         • Stuart Munro 5.2.1.1.1

           3 February 2016 at 11:35 am

           Of course you support Treasury’s failure to forecast a surplus correctly eight years running – it’s function (from the RWNJ perspective) is not to pursue the public interest, but to facilitate the lies that keep this corrupt government in power.

           Real right wing people don’t like incompetence.
           • Gosman 5.2.1.1.1.1

             3 February 2016 at 11:42 am

             The Greens seem to like Treasury. So much so that they wish to give them more money and authority to cost each political parties election promises. But I suppose you think The Greens are now Right Wing.
             • weka …

               3 February 2016 at 12:30 pm

               Go read the policy Gosman, because soon I’m going to have start calling you a liar if you keep misrepresenting what the GP intend. Link above.
   • pat 5.3

     3 February 2016 at 11:12 am

     Would imagine you understand lag effect….or perhaps you choose to ignore it?

     http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/hyefu2014/005.htm

     note that this link from last year with a projected MS price of $5.50……now reduced $4.15…..glad youre so confident
     • Matthew Hooton 5.3.1

       3 February 2016 at 11:19 am

       You could be right. Everyone I know (who knows about this sort of thing) was saying those Treasury forecasts were heroic. So perhaps this is just a lag from the good growth in the September 15 quarter: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/GDP/GrossDomesticProduct_HOTPSep15qtr.aspx
       • pat 5.3.1.1

         3 February 2016 at 11:29 am

         debt fueled growth…..sticking with the farming analogy….the chickens are on their way home
         http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/economic_indicators/NationalAccounts/NationalAccountsIncomeExpenditure_HOTPYeMar15.aspx
   • Sabine 5.4

     3 February 2016 at 11:23 am

     is unemployment falling because people are getting fulltime jobs or because they are sanctioned off the unemployment roles of Winz?
     • Matthew Hooton 5.4.1

       3 February 2016 at 12:02 pm

       From reports ….

       “Employment has been especially strong for 20- to 29-year-olds, with 26,800 more people employed in this age group over the year.

       “There were just over 23,000 more people employed in Auckland over the year, the largest rise coming from within Auckland’s construction industry.”
       • Lanthanide 5.4.1.1

         3 February 2016 at 3:27 pm

         I see you chose not to also quote these parts of the same “reports”:

         However the “participation rate” – the proportion of working age people making themselves available for work, has dropped for the third consecutive quarter, this time by 0.3% to 68.4%.

         …

         “It is unusual to have the participation rate fall when employment growth itself has been so strong. We suspect there still exists a degree of slack in the labour market and that wage inflation will remain slow for some time yet.”

         Tuffley said the employment rate and the participation rate usually moved together, “so the opposing movements in this quarter’s release are a surprise”.

         “Collectively, labour participation was surprisingly weak over the second half of 2015, something we will look at closer.”

         Tuffley said the ASB economists did not believe there was any strong reason for the fall in participation rate and, as a result, they expected the participation rate would pick up again in the first quarter of 2016.

         “That would see the unemployment rate also rise back to recent levels in 2016. On average, we are forecasting the unemployment rate to be 6% over 2016.”
   • Raf 5.5

     3 February 2016 at 11:58 am

     Mr Hooton – how do you define “employment”?
     • Matthew Hooton 5.5.1

       3 February 2016 at 12:00 pm

       You can read all about it here: http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/LabourMarketStatistics_HOTPDec15qtr.aspx
       • Raf 5.5.1.1

         3 February 2016 at 6:09 pm

         No no- in your own words, please. How do YOU define it?
     • DH 5.5.2

       3 February 2016 at 1:14 pm

       Raf. From the Household Labour Force Survey sources and methods: 2015

       Labour force definitions

       Employment relates to everyone in the working-age population who, during the reference week:
       • worked for one hour or more for pay or profit in the context of an employee/employer relationship or self-employment
       • worked without pay for one hour or more in work that contributed directly to the operation of a farm, business, or profession practice owned or operated by a relative (before April 1990 this was defined as 15 hours or more)
       • had a job but was not at work due to illness or injury, personal or family responsibilities, bad weather or mechanical breakdown, direct involvement in industrial dispute, leave, or holiday.

       Unemployment relates to everyone in the working-age population who, during their reference week, were without a paid job, were available for work, and:
       • had actively sought work in the past four weeks ending with the reference week (see appendix 2 for ‘active’ job search methods – only looking at job adverts in the newspaper is not counted as actively seeking) or
       • had a new job to start within four weeks.

       To me that raises more questions than it answers.
   • Ad 5.6

     3 February 2016 at 12:22 pm

     Excellent political news if it tracks into 2017.

     Still pretty poor on wages rising.
     • lprent 5.6.1

       3 February 2016 at 1:19 pm

       Still pretty poor on wages rising.

       Which is why the unemployment stats are pretty useless. A lot of what they measure is how many people have given up staying on the rolls. In this case in 9 to noon I heard something in today’s stats about 14 thousand people who wanted work who had stopped looking for work. Presumably they gave up trying to dealing with WINZ who these days are structured to be complete pricks according to people I know who have had to deal with them over this last year.

       Until you see wages starting to rise what you are looking at is a market with too many people looking for work.

       That is happening in some areas, notably IT jobs. I was told today that we’re having problems getting people to say yes when we offer them a job to come to work for my company, mostly because we were paying below market rates. At the start of 2015 we were paying at or above market rates. Despite a hike during the year, we’re noncompetitive again even for the grads we want.
       • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 5.6.1.1

         3 February 2016 at 1:41 pm

         Lprent how much of your IT industries noncompetitive wages is related to trying to keep up with property and rent increases?

         I suspect for the coming generation providing affordable housing would have a bigger effect on disposable income than wage increases.
       • The Fairy Godmother 5.6.1.2

         3 February 2016 at 4:44 pm

         So true Lprent. I know a couple of young people whose parents are well enough off to let them stay at home for free with an allowance so they dont have to put up with winz abuse. These are young people who have become totally disheartened because the real jobs just aren’t there. I did the same thing a year ago. Fortunately we were lucky. She obtained a job which 100 other people applied for.
   • UncookedSelachimorpha 5.7

     3 February 2016 at 3:39 pm

     From your link:

     “This fall reflected 16,000 fewer people being unemployed over the quarter.”
     …
     [there were] “…an increasing number of people not participating in the labour force; 14,000 more in the December 2015 quarter”

     Not as good as it seems.
6. Nick Nack 6

   3 February 2016 at 10:59 am

   “The policy is designed to fix the problem of student debt – a crushing burden which blights the lives of young people and drives many of them (with their expensive new skills) right out of the country. ”

   Student debt is not a ‘crushing burden’. It is an entirely fair system that ensures those who most directly benefit from tertiary education pay for it.
   • Stuart Munro 6.1

     3 February 2016 at 11:03 am

     No,

     A graduated tax system ensures fairness. Student loans just penalise the victims of corporate raiding as they try to rebuild their career paths.
     • Gosman 6.1.1

       3 February 2016 at 11:14 am

       A graduated tax system does not solve the problem of graduates leaving the country though. in fact it could increase the rate of this occurring.
       • Stuart Munro 6.1.1.1

         3 February 2016 at 11:31 am

         Graduates flee the low pay rates of the Key failconomy – and they need to fund repayment of their loans – which with NZ cost of living isn’t easily achieved here.

         The only booming industry in NZ is real estate – for which no qualifications are needed – only capital. But it isn’t healthy for the economy – a matter that ought to concern people who claim to care so much about economies.

         Darian? Biarritz? Property bubble ghost towns.
         • Wayne 6.1.1.1.1

           3 February 2016 at 11:50 am

           Stuart Munro,

           People fleeing New Zealand?

           We have the lowest outflow of people to Aus and elsewhere for decades.

           If you are going to propose alternative economic strategies, at least try and stick to the facts.

           And I don’t think you can seriously accuse civil servants of simply inventing statistics. In my experience they are highly professional, and properly advise successive Ministers of the actual facts, not just the “facts” the Minister wants to hear.

           Obviously civil servants implement policy of the elected govt, but they don’t make up facts to suit the policy.
           • Stuart Munro 6.1.1.1.1.1

             3 February 2016 at 12:16 pm

             Relates to the decline of Australia’s economy as you well know.

             Liar.
             • Wayne …

               3 February 2016 at 3:59 pm

               Must be a Blip type lie.
               • Stuart Munro …

                 3 February 2016 at 4:35 pm

                 Gnats – always have an excuse.

                 If you’re making excuses it’s because you’re screwing up, Wayne.
           • Draco T Bastard 6.1.1.1.1.2

             3 February 2016 at 2:40 pm

             We have the lowest outflow of people to Aus and elsewhere for decades.

             Yeah, because the economy of the rest of the world is collapsing under the delusion of the capitalist system and so many NZers are returning home.
       • gsays 6.1.1.2

         3 February 2016 at 11:42 am

         let me see if i got this correct-

         “Have you got any figures suggesting the Student debt drives a significant number of graduates overseas? For example – What is the proportion of graduates living offshore versus onshore pre and post Student loans?”

         but

         “A graduated tax system does not solve the problem of graduates leaving the country though. in fact it could increase the rate of this occurring.”

         in the first breath, meeting yr obligation doesn’t drive people overseas,
         then in yr second breath,
         meeting your obligation increases the amount of people going overseas.

         that looks like the hypocritical half hitch you’ve tied there.
         • Matthew Hooton 6.1.1.2.1

           3 February 2016 at 12:03 pm

           It is counterintuitive that student debt would drive people offshore. If people go overseas they have to pay interest on their loans so it is better from that point of view to stay in NZ if people have student loans. Of course, they may set that aside and go offshore for higher wages or other reasons but that has nothing to do with loan debt.
           • Stuart Munro 6.1.1.2.1.1

             3 February 2016 at 12:24 pm

             This presupposes that graduate employment is abundant and well rewarded in NZ – which it never has been. There’s a reason NZ was for decades a major exporter of science graduates – lack of opportunity.

             NZ without a secure income is one of the most miserable places on earth – which is why, under the Key failconomy with unprecedented levels of unemployment hidden by corrupt Treasury officials NZ’s suicide rate is now twice the road toll and climbing. This is the strongest growth result Key has produced – I wonder why we don’t hear more about it.
             • Matthew Hooton …

               3 February 2016 at 1:11 pm

               Yes, but that would be an issue with graduate (un)employment, not loans. It just doesn’t make sense that, other things being equal, someone would leave NZ because they had a student loan.
               • r0b …

                 3 February 2016 at 1:22 pm

                 Did you read the links from NW at 2.1 ?
               • Stuart Munro …

                 3 February 2016 at 1:22 pm

                 Unless you are happy that NZ student loans go unpaid indefinitely, unemployed graduates should always have the opportunity to take up any offer of employment abroad.

                 If the Right wish to avoid the inevitable comparison with other, less reputable fascist enterprises, they must learn to resist the urge to turn NZ into a concentration camp.

                 The dark side of planet Key is not a good place to live – except for reptiles.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 3 February 2016 at 2:50 pm

                 It just doesn’t make sense that, other things being equal, someone would leave NZ because they had a student loan.

                 Hey Matthew

                 Are you suggesting we help make “other things equal” eg by giving our grads decent paying entry level jobs which are competitive in pay and quality to those in the international markets where their skills are in more demand?

                 Great idea!
           • McFlock 6.1.1.2.1.2

             3 February 2016 at 2:45 pm

             If people go overseas the government will tack interest on their loans

             FIFY
             That’s not an incentive to stay in NZ. That’s an incentive to not return.
             • Gosman …

               3 February 2016 at 4:47 pm

               And having to pay higher taxes as a result of earning more from the qualification they get isn’t an incentive to leave NZ?
               • McFlock …

                 3 February 2016 at 5:02 pm

                 Not as much as a $100,000 debt.
                 And if you’re overseas earning money, you don’t pay tax in NZ, so when you come back to spend some of your cash on holiday you’re not risking arrest.

                 Taxes or loans, either one is an incentive to leave if your bread is buttered that way. But only loans are an incentive to stay in permanent exile.
               • Lanthanide …

                 3 February 2016 at 5:21 pm

                 Considering that taxes in Australia are higher, no.

                 Unsure about England.
     • Nick Nack 6.1.2

       3 February 2016 at 11:22 am

       “A graduated tax system ensures fairness.”

       How so? In the case of tertiary fees, the opposite is the case. As for ‘corporate raiding’, I thought this was a serious discussion.
       • Stuart Munro 6.1.2.1

         3 February 2016 at 11:23 am

         If it were a serious discussion you wouldn’t be in it.

         A graduated tax system means that those who benefit financially from education, or other advantage, contribute in proportion to those benefits.
         • Nick Nack 6.1.2.1.1

           3 February 2016 at 12:18 pm

           No, it doesn’t. Because obtaining more tertiary education doesn’t necessarily equate to earning higher remuneration.

           A graduated tax system is simply one in which the rate increases as income increases.
           • framu 6.1.2.1.1.1

             3 February 2016 at 12:37 pm

             “Student debt is not a ‘crushing burden’. It is an entirely fair system that ensures those who most directly benefit from tertiary education pay for it.”

             ” Because obtaining more tertiary education doesn’t necessarily equate to earning higher remuneration.”

             make up your mind nick
             • Nick Nack …

               3 February 2016 at 12:46 pm

               Where’s the contradiction? In fact my point highlights one of the very real problems with Labour’s plan – unless there are strict rules around what courses qualify, there will be people taking courses where there is little or no hope of vocational advantage. That’s how people end up with pieces of paper and no income.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 3 February 2016 at 2:53 pm

                 “Vocational advantage”

                 Get a grip mate, this mis-tuned economy can’t generate good graduate jobs as it is.
           • UncookedSelachimorpha 6.1.2.1.1.2

             3 February 2016 at 3:50 pm

             “A graduated tax system is simply one in which the rate increases as income increases.”

             At present that is true – but you could also have progressive taxation on capital / wealth.

             Even a flat tax on capital / wealth would be a great move in my opinion.
     • Macro 6.1.3

       3 February 2016 at 11:33 am

       Stuart

       Gosman and N N do not understand the concept of fairness. That is way too difficult a concept for these moral infants who are still at the developmental stage of 2 year olds.
       • Nick Nack 6.1.3.1

         3 February 2016 at 12:22 pm

         Oh I understand fairness. Fairness is when a labourer with zero tertiary education doesn’t pay more tax to fund the tertiary education of the kids of a multi-millionaire.
         
         [lprent: You are comparing two different things here. You are also astroturfing this line without arguing it or making your actual a opinion known. In other words you are trolling. Banned two weeks. ]
         • Stuart Munro 6.1.3.1.1

           3 February 2016 at 12:28 pm

           Yup

           Fairness is when the multi-billion dollar corporation pays enough tax that he doesn’t have to you plonker.
           • Nick Nack 6.1.3.1.1.1

             3 February 2016 at 12:41 pm

             Most corporations in NZ do pay their fair share of tax. But then that’s not really what this discussion is about.
             • tinfoilhat …

               3 February 2016 at 12:49 pm

               No I disagree – there is still huge amounts of transfer price manipulation from the likes of Apple and other companies and the banks are notorious for “interesting” tax arrangements as are companies such as facebook who should share profit/tax between country where the service/profit is being made and the country where they are domiciled rather than just in the cheapest tax haven.
               • Nick Nack …

                 3 February 2016 at 12:53 pm

                 Do you have any evidence of this actually happening in NZ? The IRD would be very interested.
                 • Stuart Munro …

                   3 February 2016 at 1:15 pm

                   The IRD know very well that large foreign corporates – Amazon for instance – contribute little tax in relation to NZ turnover. But NZ businesses are far from scrupulous too – they have abundant opportunities to evade their responsibilities and often do. Corporate share of NZ tax contribution has been declining even as their share of the economy has grown. You should know this stuff.
                   • Macro …

                     3 February 2016 at 1:25 pm

                     It’s not in N N’s interest to know this stuff – it gets in the way of his preconceptions, and perverted sense of “fairness”.
             • Draco T Bastard …

               3 February 2016 at 2:48 pm

               Actually, indications are that corporations , along with the rich, dodge taxes as a matter of course to the tune of $1billion to $7 billion.
               • Colonial Viper …

                 3 February 2016 at 3:15 pm

                 Global super rich have hidden at least US$21 trillion in tax havens

                 And that was a study from a few years back. That number would be substantially higher now.

                 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-18944097
   • pat 6.2

     3 February 2016 at 12:13 pm

     Think it would be a reasonable observation that student debt may not be a major driver in graduates leaving NZ but would certainly be a factor in deciding whether to return to NZ , particularly after a debt ignored has grown exponentially due to compounding interest and penalties…..and its worth also noting the admin costs associated with the loans scheme and the inevitable write offs
     • Nick Nack 6.2.1

       3 February 2016 at 12:20 pm

       If a student receives a free tertiary education in NZ, and then leaves the country, they are contributing nothing towards their education until they return, if they ever do. This works both ways.
       • Stuart Munro 6.2.1.1

         3 February 2016 at 12:30 pm

         That bastard Rutherford eh. Should’ve stayed at home & worked for the cockies until the cows come home.
         • dv 6.2.1.1.1

           3 February 2016 at 12:40 pm

           And Maurice WIlkins
           • tinfoilhat 6.2.1.1.1.1

             3 February 2016 at 12:47 pm

             I don’t believe Wilkins went to university in NZ but I may be wrong …?
             • dv …

               3 February 2016 at 12:49 pm

               Yes TFH, but he is a NzZer
               • tinfoilhat …

                 3 February 2016 at 12:50 pm

                 Sorry not sure what your point is then ?
                 • dv …

                   3 February 2016 at 1:20 pm

                   Forgot what thread I was on!!
                   Duh
         • Nick Nack 6.2.1.1.2

           3 February 2016 at 12:42 pm

           Rutherford could have stayed working overseas, just so long as he paid back his student loan.
           • Colonial Viper 6.2.1.1.2.1

             3 February 2016 at 2:43 pm

             You’re a bit of a miserable sod aren’t you? I’m not surprised that you share the exact same attitude as the six figure salary politicians who brought in student fees and student loans, and who keep that system going,and who got their own start in life for sweet fuck all.

             Talk about an elite entitlement syndrome.
         • tinfoilhat 6.2.1.1.3

           3 February 2016 at 12:43 pm

           I think that’s a fair example Stuart … and there are no doubt many more, but from a purely historical perspective tertiary study was not completely free in Rutherfords time at Canterbury and he was assisted with a scholarship to study at university and did work in NZ for a short time before moving overseas to more famous and better equiped institutions.

           Interestingly the assistance he received as a youth no doubt formed his character which in later years was to lend help to numerous others during the dark years in Europe during the 1930s prior to the second world war.
           • Draco T Bastard 6.2.1.1.3.1

             3 February 2016 at 3:08 pm

             before moving overseas to more famous and better equiped institutions.

             And that is what we should be building in NZ. Better equipped institutions that will help people to achieve their goals. Instead, we whinge about how much it costs and how much tax we’ll have to pay and so the people who could make NZ great leave.
             • tinfoilhat …

               3 February 2016 at 3:26 pm

               I don’t disagree, are you suggesting less tertiary institutions and more quality ?
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 3 February 2016 at 3:38 pm

                 I’m suggesting more quality in the institutions we have and possibly more institutions.
                 • tinfoilhat …

                   3 February 2016 at 5:26 pm

                   Does it make sense to have more than two medical schools ?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     3 February 2016 at 5:31 pm

                     Yes just so long as those medical schools communicate with each other and thus learn from each other.

                     It’s a good idea because you don’t want to end up with the negatives of having too large a school with the inbuilt bias of a single school.
                   • tinfoilhat …

                     3 February 2016 at 6:14 pm

                     How many do you think would be the right number ?
                   • Draco T Bastard …

                     3 February 2016 at 9:36 pm

                     Generally speaking, I’d like to see one in every major city and possibly some in the larger minor cities. Some larger cities may be better off with two or more such institutions. Schools should be where the population is as much as practicable.

                     This gives access to a broad population base and the ideas that that population would have. With them communicating with each other discoveries made in one are shared with all the rest.
   • Draco T Bastard 6.3

     3 February 2016 at 2:28 pm

     Student debt is not a ‘crushing burden’.

     Yes it is. Just ask the students.

     It is an entirely fair system…

     No it’s not. The only fair system is a completely free education. The people would then pay for it through the taxes that they pay.

     The benefits of an education accrue to society and not the individual.
     • Stuart Munro 6.3.1

       3 February 2016 at 3:13 pm

       There may be some exceptions – commerce & law degrees are not inevitably pro-social.
     • weka 6.3.2

       3 February 2016 at 3:14 pm

       To be fair some people don’t find their student debt to be crushing but NN probably doesn’t know any of the many that do or he is wilfully ignorant about the ones he does.
       • Colonial Viper 6.3.2.1

         3 February 2016 at 3:22 pm

         The government starts taking money away from low wage earners with a student loan at a $19,000 income threshold.

         That, honestly, is pretty shit.

         So with a 4 day a week job on the minimum wage, clearly not enough to live on to begin with, that worker would have even less because of the mandatory repayment threshold.

         Talk about working poverty, thanks to National and Labour. (Labour had set the threshold at a pathetically low level too, but National made it even worse by a couple of grand of course).

         Of course if you are earning a six figure salary, or close to it, student loan repayments aren’t going to restrict your ability to buy groceries, and you will have it paid off pretty quickly too.

         But that’s what being in the top 10% is all about.
7. Whispering Kate 7

   3 February 2016 at 12:46 pm

   First thing we said when the unemployment figures came through today is “it has to have been rigged”. Secondly in our personal situation the reason our ex-pat kid in the US has never come home to stay permanently is that she scans the wages/salary levels on a regular basis and says she couldn’t live on what she would be offered. Also, that job security is worse than useless here, with stink employment protection. Also she regularly scans the real estate here and is staggered at the cost of homes. Food is expensive too in comparison. Homes which are poorly built, mainly not double glazed, kitchen/bathroom fittings just rubbish – we are an under-paid, over-priced housing country and I am pretty sure our situation is common with families throughout NZ.
   • Puckish Rogue 7.1

     3 February 2016 at 1:20 pm

     🙂
   • Macro 7.2

     3 February 2016 at 1:35 pm

     Yes same here! We waved good bye to our eldest daughter and g’kids when the Nats changed the ACC provisions for head injury in 2009 – about 100 highly qualified people upped sticks and flew to Australia in search of employment there. They will never return. They can buy a large 4 x 2 home in Oz for half the price here and get paid way more, with extra benefits and super on top.
     • Whispering Kate 7.2.1

       3 February 2016 at 2:40 pm

       Ours is coming home with her partner in three weeks for one of their frequent holidays and has been away in Europe, China and the US with her job for seventeen years now. We don’t begrudge her not being home one jot, she doesn’t have student debt and why for heavens sake would she come home when she has a beautiful high quality home in the US (427 US dollars) and has not had to worry over job security (so far) but she has sensibly negotiated good contractual conditions of employment. NZ has missed out on her excellence and skills and she is a stat of the brain drain.

       We do absolutely nothing to encourage our young people to stay here – if we do not offer our young people an honest salary which is commensurate with the cost of living, then of course they will go off shore and find it there.
       • Macro 7.2.1.1

         3 February 2016 at 4:19 pm

         We do absolutely nothing to encourage our young people to stay here – if we do not offer our young people an honest salary which is commensurate with the cost of living, then of course they will go off shore and find it there.

         So very true. I remember with deep irony the Nats 2007 election slogan on billboards across the country.

         Stop waving your loved ones goodbye

         Yet it was precisely their meddling with ACC which led directly to the loss of my son-in-laws business and forced him and his family off-shore.
         So very, very sick that one.
   • Brendon Harre -Left wing Liberal 7.3

     3 February 2016 at 1:49 pm

     Agreed I have many overseas relatives in that position. Further where I am from -Canterbury the government provides very little vision for building a competitive urban based economy. If you are not part of the rural industry and market town economy -which actually employs very few, the National party are not interested.
     • Draco T Bastard 7.3.1

       3 February 2016 at 3:34 pm

       If you are not part of the rural industry and market town economy -which actually employs very few, the National party are not interested.

       Labour’s been guilty of that to a large degree as well. They may have been waking up to that fact in 2k7/8 but seem to have lost it since.

       We need to build industries here and stop over-investing in just a few. As an example of such over-investment farming in NZ should be no more than enough to feed everyone in NZ. Exporting farm produce, usually raw, doesn’t actually increase our wealth. In fact, it lowers it as we export the resources needed to maintain those farms resulting in requiring importing cattle feed and fertiliser.
8. Ad 8

   3 February 2016 at 12:48 pm

   Labour’s trajectory back into an alternative government in 2017 will depend on continuing to pleasantly surprise us with solid social capital generation. It needs enough building blocks to tell the voting electorate that it’s worth making a change from 5.2% unemployment, low but sustained economic growth, and a spectacularly popular and smart Prime Minister.

   This tertiary policy is a start in that direction.

   There’s little evidence we are headed for any economic collapse sufficient to change the government by itself; losses in one sector appear to be offset by growth in others. And Little ain’t going to win it on charisma. He has huge ground to make up.

   Labour can only convince the unconvinced to vote for them with a Whittaker’s Chocolate of “Good Honest Government” with believable promises more useful for our lives than National’s record.
9. Wills 45 9

   3 February 2016 at 1:56 pm

   Yes, I have to agree with some of the more savvy pundits out there. Every time Labour and the Greens announce a crisis the opposite happens. Unemployment being the latest crisis to be turned on its head . Why is Labour not in tune with the real economy here. They are becoming a laughing stock!
   • Anne 9.1

     3 February 2016 at 3:01 pm

     Why is Labour not in tune with the real economy here. They are becoming a laughing stock!

     Says Wills 45.

     Unemployment has always – I repeat always – dropped at this time of the year due to the high levels of seasonal employment. Come back and try and make the same statement around April/May of this year eh?
     • Wills45 9.1.1

       3 February 2016 at 5:15 pm

       Labour should keep it up then and by April May it will be lower again. Grant Robinson is not in tune with the real economy and is advising the caucus badly. Between wellington public service issues and gay rights he is just too busy. Out of his depth. Nice guy but not finance material….
10. Sirenia 10

    3 February 2016 at 4:02 pm

    Employment can mean employed for only one hour a week. Hardly real employment and certainly not enough to survive on. Yet person considered employed for stats and Government purposes.
    • Stuart Munro 10.1

      3 February 2016 at 6:02 pm

      Treasury operate from a pitifully low objectivity base.

      Anyone actually governing wants robust numbers that err if anything on the side of scepticism – not the Key kleptocracy of course – they’re only in power for what they can steal.

      Objective unemployment is certainly in double figures. A government that was better than a waste of space would engage with reality, not lie to us.
11. Tautuhi 11

    4 February 2016 at 4:19 pm

    Re Overseas Deficit

    Under the Natzis in 6-7 years our overseas deficit has grown from $10,000,000,000.00 to $120,000,000,000.00 this is like my borrowings going from $10,000.00 to $120,000.00 and they make out they are good economic managers?

    If Labour or the Greens had borrowed like this National would be screaming blue murder. By my calculations that is a rise from $2,222.00 per head to $26,666.00 per head of population, where is the money being spent?

    Are we heading down the path of the Celtic Tiger or Greece?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS