I’m confused

Written By: - Date published: 10:00 am, October 20th, 2010 - 32 comments
Categories: bill english, Economy, john key, overseas investment, wages - Tags: , , ,

Trying to get my head around the economic arguments going on. Hearing contradictory things. Who’s telling the truth?

ls Labour’s new overseas investment policy Stalinism that will ruin the economy, as Key claimed on Monday and Tuesday?
Or is the same as the existing law, as Key claimed on Monday and Tuesday?

Are we in a time of constraint when workers aren’t getting wage rises and teachers will have to lump it, as Key and Tolley said on Monday and Tuesday?
Or are we in a bizarre fantasy world where wages are growing faster than ever despite a recession and rising unemployment, as English claimed on Monday and Tuesday?

Is the economy growing faster under National than it did under Labour, as English is claiming?
Or is GDP per capita down 2% since National came to power, as Stats NZ figures show?

Have prices not being rising thanks to miraculous and unidentified National policies that someone determine the cost of vegetables?
Or did inflation go up 1.1% last quarter, led by vegetable increases, and did by savings just decrease in value 2.2% when National put up GST?

Guess they think we’re stupid.

On the last topic, check out Keith Ng’s post at Public Address, reprinted here this morning. Reckon Keith’s point 3 on the inflation bullshit is telling:

3) If English really wants to stake his government’s reputation on keeping down prices, he’ll need to resign in exactly three months, when the impact of GST flows through to the inflation statistics and they go through the roof.

English claiming credit for low inflation even though he must know the next figures will show an inflation spike. Shows desperate, short-term political tactics. No real economic strategy.

32 comments on “I’m confused ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ianmac 1
    20 October 2010 at 10:40 am

    Good idea Zetetic to gather the contradictions together. Seems a bit strange that the Nat strategists would script it in those terms.

    • Sean 1.1
      20 October 2010 at 11:24 am

      Not that strange Ianmac. The National party is throwing so much misinformation that they figure that no commentator will have the time to deconstruct each of the statements in the way the voters can absorb.

      As far as I can tell, it is the tone of the message (always to be on the front foot) rather than the content of the message which is important.

      Just my guess.

      • Shane Gallagher 1.1.1
        20 October 2010 at 11:42 am

        @Sean:

        I think you are right – Labour needs to be faster off the ball – there is a lack of well-informed talent on the front bench to immediately counter NACT’s insane claims. I know it is hard – but there needs to be a team looking at the stats and predicting what NACT are going to say (it should not be too difficult!) and have the counter argument to hand – but they need to be really well organised. I just don’t think they have got themselves organised yet.

      • bbfloyd 1.1.2
        20 October 2010 at 12:54 pm

        i’m starting to echo in my own head with this one, but the “message” doesn’t have to make sense as long as it is broadcast by a compliant, syncophatic fourth column.. the opposite is true for labour, or indeed any “left” leaning parties. to get them to report accurately what is said, and without the usual partisan editorialising makes it almost pointless to utter a word in public…

  2. burt 2
    20 October 2010 at 11:11 am

    I’m confused as well. Surely Goff should just produce stats that show the volume of sales to foreign investors under Labour and compare that to the volume of sales under National. Lets get clear about the history on this topic then we would all know who’s full of BS.

    • roger nome 2.1
      20 October 2010 at 11:19 am

      Burt – despite being an old fella you do have a remarkable air of innocence about you. The world changes dear. Hegemonic discourse within an organisation/institution also changes in reaction to it. I know this world can be confusing because of these realities, but it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try to grapple with them.

      Goff isn’t Labour and Labour isn’t Goff. It’s not like in National where the cabinet is selected in an authoritarian fashion, by the leader. In Labour the cabinet is voted in by caucus. Goff must therefore reflect the desires of caucus. That’s what democratic institutions are like.

      • Jim MacDonald 2.1.1
        20 October 2010 at 5:59 pm

        Good point.

        It is Labour, and under MMP, the left-leaning and progressive parties, who will work towards and make a case for winning Elections 2011.

        The Left is less enamored with being persuaded to get out and vote for just a Smile and Wave.

        Leadership in Goff is important but is not the sole factor. The quality of the policies and team of MPs forming Government will be just as influential and important.

    • Bright Red 2.2
      20 October 2010 at 11:24 am

      the point of a new policy, burt, is that it is going to be a change from history.

      The land sales under the last Labour government are not relevant to the new policy. Indeed, Parker has said too much land was sold under the last labour government and that’s one reason the law needs reforming.

    • Colonial Viper 2.3
      20 October 2010 at 11:32 am

      Hundreds of thousands of square km of land approved for sale during the last Labour Government were foreign owned forests sold to other foreign owners. They were not sales of NZ owned assets.

      In other words, burt and co. a running with another statistically exaggerated right wing beat up. Time to get on with the story – the economic sovereignty of New Zealand, something the Nat Neo-cons don’t care about.

    • bbfloyd 2.4
      20 October 2010 at 12:47 pm

      burt… we already know who’s full of bs… “ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee”

    • Draco T Bastard 2.5
      20 October 2010 at 1:39 pm

      Yes burt, we know you’re confused.

  3. Stan 3
    20 October 2010 at 11:30 am

    I’m also confused. I heard English in Parliament yesterday claiming credit for holding down the rate of petrol price rises. Didn’t realise that National’s influence stretched as far as the international oil market. Maybe they do have a grand plan after all……. Maybe the Nats really are the economic wizards they claim to be….. Maybe they are trying to pull the wool over our eyes…. What one is the most likely?

    • Lanthanide 3.1
      20 October 2010 at 12:39 pm

      Petrol price went up by 7 cents on 1st October, due to GST and excise tax increase.

      captcha: objecting

      • Armchair Critic 3.1.1
        20 October 2010 at 9:56 pm

        Road Users Charges also went up, without a hint of protest this time. Gotta conclude that last lot of protests, trucks jamming Queen Street etc. was just astroturf.

    • bbfloyd 3.2
      20 October 2010 at 12:59 pm

      Stan… you are right on both counts… bill gets his advice from his uncle saruman the white, and yes, they are attempting to “pull the wool” over our eyes. although it feels to me like the tactic is to flood our airways, and aural passages with masses of liquid excrement.. that would account for the queasy feeling, i assume..

  4. Tel 4
    20 October 2010 at 11:33 am

    I’ve chuckled to myself as John Key accidentally stumbled over an economic Elephant in the room if ever there was one, and he was quick not to linger on the topic: Land prices in NZ. A waterfront piece of land in Te Atatu Peninsula that sold for $35,000 in 1984 is now valued at approximately $950,000. That’s an increase in value of 2700%. While waterfront land is probably at the extreme for increases in value over time, it is no less sobering when I look at “affordable” entry level properties. If my earnings had kept pace with the increase in land values, I’d be happy today to be earning wages from a newspaper round.
    I agree. No real economic strategy.

    • felix 4.1
      20 October 2010 at 11:43 am

      “No real economic strategy.”

      Sure there is. Trouble is it’s a strategy with the goal of concentrating more and more wealth in fewer and fewer hands.

    • Colonial Viper 4.2
      20 October 2010 at 11:46 am

      Yes property prices need to fall by another 20-25%. And there will be financial pain involved for large asset holders.

  5. randal 5
    20 October 2010 at 2:25 pm

    dont worry mate.
    its the rich what gets the prunes and its the poor what gets the shits.

    • Jim MacDonald 5.1
      20 October 2010 at 6:09 pm

      Speaking of prunes …

      New Zealand is likely to see the economy pick up, John Key said.

      Well, summer fruits are coming too. Get your hands on some and blow him a few raspberries.

      • Jim MacDonald 5.1.1
        20 October 2010 at 6:17 pm

        Sorry .. was typing quick …

        New Zealand is likely to see the economy pick up in the summer, Grasshopper John Key said.

Links to post