Masters of Finance? 2

Written By: - Date published: 1:39 pm, May 20th, 2015 - 95 comments
Categories: Economy - Tags: ,

MastersOfFinance2

National continue their 75+ years record of not being able to deliver the sort of economic growth for NZ that Labour do…

Source: RBNZ

95 comments on “Masters of Finance? 2”

  1. Enough is Enough 1

    Booming world economy v GFC & Christchurch Earthquake….

    • Enough is Enough 1.1

      Just to clarify, I think the Nats are a terrible government.

      I just think these comparisons are fucking stupid.

      An alternative (devils advocate) analysis as evidenced by electoral results is the country supports Labour when we have money to spend, and National when times are tough and we need more prudent managers of the economy.

      • Gosman 1.1.1

        True enough. The UK would have a similar comparison if you compared the Blair/Brown Labour Government to the last five years under the stewardship of the Conservatives. The point being the general populous (or at lease the significant part that decides elections) has the view that Labour left the finances of the State in a mess and that is why the right leaning parties come in to fix it up.

        • Kelly-Ned 1.1.1.1

          Not the case in NZ.
          When National took over we had had a series of black budgets under Labour.
          How much of the financial crisis has been compounded by the ‘austerity’ measures.
          If governments stop spending the economy grinds down.

      • Sable 1.1.2

        Yet we don’t have “prudent managers”. Instead we have Nationals pork barrel politics. An ardent desire to turn this country into a banana republic. A satellite state to be sucked dry by the increasingly desperate USA.

    • Tracey 1.2

      don’t forget the earthquake saw an injection of $2-5bn into our economy from an outside source (re-insurers) which helped with stimulus in Christchurch which wouldn’t have been there without an earthquake.

      Of more interest to me is the lampooning of the allegedly economically illiterate Green contenders for male co-leader for not knowing the current rate of inflation but no such lampooning for master of economic management, Bill English for

      “Finance Minister Bill English says he does not know what effect the new rules on taxing capital gain on residential properties and new disclosure rules from non-resident buyers will have on the rising Auckland property market. ”

      Either he is worse than the Greens (upon whom expectations of economic literacy are lower than English) or it was so ruched it has no background upon which to predict impact.

  2. Ben 2

    You seem to be forgetting the global recession that was in the middle of the last 7 years.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1

      In NZ, Labour governments have always achieved greater per capita GDP than their National contemporaries.

      You always have an excuse. It’s lame. Where’s the personal responsibility?

      • John 2.1.1

        So you’re saying US$42,000 GDP per capita (NZ in 2013) is LESS than US$31,000 GDP per capita (in 2007).

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1

          Cherry picking years and currencies? Are your physical characteristics as reminiscent of dogshit as your arguments?

  3. Karen and Grant Mannall 3

    Christchurch earthquake equals 40 billion dollars of extra work paid for by insurance companies equals extraordinary item gift for G D P figures.
    Nationals performance would be even worse without the Christchurch disaster!

  4. Colonial Rawshark 4

    GDP is an utterly hopeless measure of how any government is leading an economy. And are we really back to banging the drum of moar economic growth = better? What about sustainability using a steady state economy?

    • Bunji 4.1

      To be fair I think GDP is fairly rubbish too, but these things are what the Nats say are important, so if they can’t get those right…

      As Robert Kennedy put it – GDP measures all but that which we hold most dear. But other measures of economic “success” are a whole lot more difficult. If you try and factor environmental and social factors in there as well it gets worse.
      But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try.

      At the very least they should measure GDP per capita growth – simple and means you can’t fudge the figures by just adding people.
      But really you want to measure the change in total capital – environmental, social as well as economic. So if you dig up all the oil & coal and sell it off, and leave the environment a mess you take into account that the country doesn’t have the oil/coal to sell again and also that the lower living standards people have from the degraded environment ie you take into account the losses, not just the profits from selling natural resources.

      But yeah, the banners are merely measuring National by their own standards – and with their own simplicity.

      • Enough is Enough 4.1.1

        ‘their own simplicity’….heh

      • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.2

        Exactly Bunji. They fail according to their own criteria.

      • Colonial Rawshark 4.1.3

        I can see the point of hoisting the NATs up on their own petard, but really all Labour is doing is reaffirming to the electorate that Labour buys into the same orthodox economic ethos – more growth is good, more GDP is good, running surpluses are good.

        • sabine 4.1.3.1

          I think that for most people the banner make sense.

          X amount under red
          x amount under blue

          done.
          This is how people vote. Remeber? National the fiscally responsible party that will make all our lives betterer than it was under the nanny state when Labour was at the helm?

          That is what people voted for.

  5. John 5

    This deserves an award for brainless idiocy.

    Because only a brainless idiot would would make a comparison of the years before and after the global financial crisis, and pretend it didn’t happen.,

    • mickysavage 5.1

      Well National pretend the GFC did not happen all the time, every time they say Labour left the country with a decade of deficits. Do you criticise them too?

      • Enough is Enough 5.1.1

        Well they do it too.

        Great comeback MS

        And just to be clear the decade of deficits was projected pre GFC

        • mickysavage 5.1.1.1

          Um are you sure about this? Link please. My recollection is that the “decade of deficits” was announced in 2008 after the start of the GFC.

          • Enough is Enough 5.1.1.1.1

            Not pre “start” of GFC, pre “full effects” of GFC.

            I could have been clearer.

            My point is the PREFU did not lay the blame for the decade of deficits on the GFC so why would you expect the Nats to when there is an easier target.

            (Jeepers, I can’t believe I am in here defending Bill English)

            • sabine 5.1.1.1.1.1

              then don’t.

              I am not blaming National for a decade of deficits due to the GFC.
              I am blaming National and Bill English for pretending that they could and would achieve a surplus, that things will get betterer to win an election instead of being honest and saying it’s not gonna happen because of a. b. c.
              I am blaming National for spending money on a flag change when we are out of money.
              I am blaming National for spending money on troops against Isis.
              I am blaming National for spending money on vanity projects while ignoring the needs of the country.

              They ran on their fiscal responsibilty and their financial savy and promised a surplus, better raises etc etc. Now they get to eat crow, and frankly they should.

              the have heeped scorn and abuse on so many of our most vulnerable members of society, i think it is just fair that some of us actually hold them accountable.

              • b waghorn

                “”I am blaming National and Bill English for pretending that they could and would achieve a surplus, that things will get betterer to win an election instead of being honest and saying it’s not gonna happen because of a. b. c.””
                I don’t think national have ever really cared if they hit surplus , but its been a terrific excuse to slash services and screw down on the poor.

              • Ffloyd

                Sabine. High five! I first went right off key (although even then thought he was a incompetent tosser) when they spent so much money on the gg residence. I have heard 40ml but stand to be corrected as this amount seems to be exorbitant. Wonder who got the contract?
                Since then the list goes on. Money for 1% nothing for us losers.

            • Puddleglum 5.1.1.1.1.2

              the PREFU did not lay the blame for the decade of deficits on the GFC

              Are you sure?

              In the PREFU section on ‘Weaker Growth as Global Economy Adjusts to imbalances’ there is this comment:

              Since our forecasts were finalised at the end of August, there have been further developments in the global financial crisis, particularly in the US. These developments increase the downside risks to these forecasts.

              And in this section it is stated that:

              Growth is forecast to be positive in the final quarter of 2008 thanks to the recovery from the drought and tax cuts, but will remain subdued throughout most of 2009 as negative influences continue to affect the economy. As the world economy recovers, the domestic economy picks up and inflation and monetary conditions ease, growth will return above trend later in the forecast period, driven initially by increased exports (Figure 1.1). With economic activity forecast to be lower than in the Budget Update, core Crown tax revenue is expected to be $3,148 million lower in aggregate over the next four years.

              In reading the Executive Summary and other parts of the PREFU it seems to me that global economic conditions (referred to as the ‘global financial crisis’) are repeatedly mentioned as an important contributing factor in their forecasts.

              I agree that domestic “imbalances” are also mentioned as ‘unwinding’ – but the GFC is a big part of predicted reductions in growth and therefore tax revenues and increases in spending (on benefits, Kiwisaver, etc.).

      • Stuart Munro 5.1.2

        The structural decade of deficits lie is one of Gosman’s most pathetic fictions.

        V: I’ve not come for what you hoped to do. I’ve come for what you did.

        Labour did not deliver deficits. Bill English did.

      • John 5.1.3

        You mean like Labour criticising National for the deposit guarantee scheme that Labour set up?

        I bought a whole lot of shares in 2007. They plummeted disastrously under Labour, and have gone up significantly and continuously ever since National came to power.

        But I’d have to be an idiotic simpleton on par with bunji to think that was solely down to who was in power.

        • mickysavage 5.1.3.1

          So are you saying that bunji and the entire front bench of the National Party should be criticised for drawing ridiculous conclusions on who should be to blame for certain events?

          • John 5.1.3.1.1

            I haven’t heard the whole front bench of National blaming Labour for the global financial crisis.

            There were plenty of Labour candidates last election blaming National for running deficits while they ran surpluses – effectively ignoring that the GFC ever happened. But obviously the voting public saw the ridiculous comparisons for what they were.

            If you want votes, first you have to be seen as living in the real world – not a delusional one.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.3.1.1.1

              Labour always get greater per capita GDP than the bought party. The bought party always has a bunch of Quislings like you lining up to shift the blame, and then you pretend to be into personal responsibility.

              If you ask me, you’re lying trash.

            • mickysavage 5.1.3.1.1.2

              Que? National trots the “its all Labour’s fault every chance it gets”.

              Labour does not blame National for the GFC. It criticises National for making unattainable promises to get the books black into credit, for giving tax cuts to the wealthy the country cannot afford, for selling off our profitable assets and for having no growth strategy apart from more dairy. National can be blamed for continuously running deficits for the fact that it gave unaffordable tax cuts.

              • John

                It’s funny when people backing Labour, (who want to run BIGGER deficits for LONGER), criticise National for running deficits.

                It comes across as absurd.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  It’s even funnier when lackwit tr*lls (just like you) pretend that their delusions have some connection to what the Left would have done.

                  What’s the matter Johnny? Couldn’t you manage a reality-based argument? Your personal responsibility is a bunch of impotent lies, eh.

                  • John

                    That’s about as idiotic as your claim GDP per capita was higher under Labour – see
                    http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_pcap_cd&idim=country:NZL:AUS:CAN&hl=en&dl=en

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Imagine I am speaking to you in a patient tone, as though you are a child.

                      Your graph, poppet, demonstrates that, in $US, the rate of per-capita GDP increase has slowed under National.

                    • John

                      Obviously another person ignorant that there’s been a global financial crisis.

                      And now backtracking on the patently false claim that GDP per capita was higher under Labour.

                      Keep peddling – you’re going backwards fast

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Average 3.7% GDP growth over nine years of Lab5, against National’s record. This is in line with New Zealand history. Hardly surprising when you consider that unemployment is always higher under National.

                    • John

                      As I said – now you’re backtracking.

                      Previously you claimed GDP per capita was bigger under Labour.

                      Now it’s growth rates.

                      And you still show extreme ignorance by failing to acknowledge there’s been a global financial crisis.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Still you don’t seem to grasp the facts: under all economic conditions experienced thus far, annual per capita gdp growth is lower when the Masters of Finance occupy the Treasury benches.

                      This time, your excuse is the GFC, and, poppet, the GFC didn’t force the Masters of Finance to slash government revenue.

                    • mickysavage

                      Why is it that when it comes to analysing Labour’s economic performance there was no GFC but when it comes to National’s economic performance there is nothing but GFC.

                    • John

                      Really?????

                      The Labour years were BEFORE the GFC so it’s pretty obvious why it’s not linked to Labours performance.

                      [I get tired with RWNJs saying that the decade of deficits was because of Labour decisions and not because of the GFC. For your information the GFC started in 2007 and in 2008 Clark and co were in full adaption mode. Post another idiot comment where you deny this without pristine proof and I will start to treat you as a troll – MS]

                    • John

                      MS says “I get tired with RWNJs saying that the decade of deficits was because of Labour decisions and not because of the GFC.”

                      Time to get reading lessons, or some new glasses –

                      I said “The deficits are because of the GFC, and would have been there regardless of whether Labour or National was in power.”

                      And you really think the GFC had and impact on the growth and debt stats under Labour before it even happened (which is 90% of the period under discussion).

                    • Colonial Rawshark

                      The deficit aren’t “because” of the GFC, John, the deficits are there because NZ’s economy is fragile, unbalanced, and undiversified. The deficits also continue because National is both visionless and gutless, combined with typical right wing short term opportunism.

                      But since you don’t understand anything about real economics, it never occurred to you that this was the case.

                    • John

                      Because of the GFC –
                      – other countries buy fewer of our products, so there’s less tax on company profits
                      – fewer workers are required to make those products, so there’s less paye
                      – the (now unemployed) workers have less to spend, so there’s less gst
                      – less tourists come from countries suffering from the GFC, so they spend less, and the whole cycle continues in the tourism sector with less gst, less company profits, fewer workers, less paye.
                      – and significantly more spent on benefits

                      And you don’t think the deficit is caused by the GFC. Yeah right.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      you’re not paying attention, John. The GFC is but one external environmental factor. Its the internal factors that successive governments have fucked up, creating a narrow economy which lacks depth and diversity. Open your eyes.

                    • John

                      You’re missing the point.

                      When ALL your overseas clients are suffering from the GFC and EVERY company in EVERY country slashes their spending budgets, it doesn’t matter what you produce .

                    • Colonial Viper

                      as usual, wrong again. If National truly believe that, they should stop wasting our oxygen, fuck off, and let people who can make a real difference for ordinary NZers take charge.

                • Colonial Rawshark

                  The whole idea of government running a surplus is absurd. I would far prefer that households and SMEs run the surplus instead of the Crown – i.e. that ordinary people get to have a decent income, get to save more, get to run their businesses at a profit.

                • Stuart Munro

                  No mate – it goes to competence. Bill English promised surpluses – cannot deliver them – not just once or twice but seven times in a row. The non-delivery of surpluses by Bill has become a statistical certainty.

                • mickysavage

                  It’s funny when people backing Labour, (who want to run BIGGER deficits for LONGER), criticise National for running deficits.

                  Idiot. What evidence do you have that Labour wants to run deficits? FFS last time we failed miserably according to your idiot analysis.

                  Ideally the state pays its way and puts some money aside for a rainy day. Labour achieved this. Shame the nats can’t.

                  • NicTheNZer

                    Labour wants to run deficits it just doest know it yet. I have been explaining this to you for weeks now and you said the issue was lying, not that deficits were a problem (which they are not). Are you revising that position?

                    • mickysavage

                      Modern Labour tends to want to run the economy on Kensian lines. When things are good stash money away. When things are bad open up the purse strings.

                      The last Labour Government was happy to start spending. There was a plan to have a mini budget at the end of 2008 if they were reelected. I am not disagreeing with you.

                      I am disagreeing with John’s claim that the decade of deficits was because of the fifth Labour Government. And it irks that he suggests that National should be cut some slack because of the GFC but not Labour.

                    • John

                      mickeysavage says “I am disagreeing with John’s claim that the decade of deficits was because of the fifth Labour Government. ”

                      I think you’re arguing against something that I never said.

                      The deficits are because of the GFC, and would have been there regardless of whether Labour or National was in power.

                      In the 2000s, New Zealand was spending 115% of what it earned, every year, year after year.

                      That is a totally unsustainable position and where Labour stuffed up was they didn’t do a thing about it.

                      Under Labour private debt skyrocketed 166% from $60b to $160b, and they didn’t do a thing to stop massive house price inflation, not just in Auckland as is the case now, but across the other 70% of houses as well.

                      What did Labour do to stop it? Nothing.

                      At least this govt has tightened up on claiming depreciation, speculators, LAQCs, low deposit loans, bigger bank reserves etc.

                    • mickysavage

                      John

                      “The Labour years were BEFORE the GFC so it’s pretty obvious why it’s not linked to Labours performance.”

                      Disagreed. The GFC started during Labour’s term. The GFC had everything to do with the downturn and the “decade of deficits”.

                      “The deficits are because of the GFC, and would have been there regardless of whether Labour or National was in power.”

                      Disagreed. National’s “fiscally neutral” tax cuts basically sucked a billion dollars out of the state’s books each year. There would have been deficits for a while but they have been much worse because of National’s tax cuts.

                      Crown control over private debt? FFS when we suggested people should use eco friendly light bulbs there was hell to pay. Blaming us for not strong arming people into borrowing less is a bit rich.

                    • NicTheNZer

                      John’s comment was dead on to begin with. There would have been similar sized deficits regardless if labour was elected. Labour needs to explain why the deficits are necessary and stop playing a game of irrelevant political football with the constant carping on about what they could get away with before the GFC.

                    • John

                      Mickey – Labour didn’t so much as lift a finger while they watched a housing bubble caused by skyrocketing debt, and a country spending 115% of what it earned every year.

                      The current govt has put in place numerous measures to curtail private debt and housing bubbles.

                      And Labour complains it’s not enough.

                      Which makes your weak excuses for not doing anything look hollow and hypocritical.

                    • Colonial Viper

                      theres no need for the government to “stash money away for a rainy day.”

                      Why would there ever be a need for the government to stash away electronic ones and zeroes that it can enter by keyboard any time that it wants to? How on earth do you “stash” digital digits, anyway?

                    • John

                      Meanwhile back in the real world, a $1b tax cut for six years doesn’t add up to a $66b debt.

                    • Colonial Rawshark

                      The “real world”? Don’t make me laugh John. I agree that the NATs needed to deficit spend, but their lack of a credible long term vision for NZ has been shocking. Under their leadership NZ does all it can to stumble from year to year with no cohesive long term economic planning.

      • Ian 5.1.4

        I am not defending the current government’s record by any means! What I am criticising is this clap trap language that infers deficits are inherently bad and that running surpluses are inherently good. This is implied in the language Labour has used and indeed campaigned on and in this original post.The fact that Labour ran a series of surpluses is not in itself good or bad. Classical and neo-Keynsian economic theory argues that governments should build surpluses when the economy thrives and run deficits when the economy is struggling.

        IF the current regime claim there has been no serious economic crisis post GFC it should be moving towards and running surpluses. We know this isn’t true so we should expect them to run deficits and indeed we should encourage it. We might want to argue over what it is being spent on, of course, but my basic point remains.
        Conversely, IF the previous Labour regime were running surpluses during economic upswings, this should be expected and encouraged. However, IF they were running surpluses during economic recession, they should be admonished.

        The point is, simply comparing Labour’s surplus record juxtaposed to the Nat’s deficit record, devoid of economic context, is disingenuous at worst, and plain ignorant at best

  6. Stuart Munro 6

    In fact Labour weren’t too hot economically either – little realised growth in terms of capacity or productivity, few to no new jobs, little effort to address problems like housing or the balance of payments, much less winding back the employment ‘reforms’ of the black decade.

    But they were basically competent, unlike the screaming heap that National is. Solid Energy is a fair analogy for National’s management of the economy – they wrecked it without even making a profit.

    • mickysavage 6.1

      “Few to no new jobs”

      They had the lowest unemployment rate in the western world.

      • Enough is Enough 6.1.1

        And still do have one of the lowest.

        • Colonial Rawshark 6.1.1.1

          We still have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the western world because National have held off on implementing austerity and govt debt reduction measures.

      • Stuart Munro 6.1.2

        Massaged numbers – tightening Winz policies and lies about ‘the lowest ever unemployment rate’ that anyone alive in the 1980s knows were patently false.

  7. Upnorth 7

    ummm i think you all need to read the correct data. i am very very very happy in nz.

    i earn 70k a year – debt free and own a house in central auckland. 2 kids 50 years old and not one hand out or any inheritance.

    tell me what is wrong?

    • McFlock 7.1

      Clue: what’s wrong is not that people are doing well.
      What’s wrong is that many people are struggling, hungry, homeless.

      How much was your student loan, and how much were your training/course fees?
      How much were the “voluntary” fees your parents shelled out to your school?
      What about your parents – did they get any assistance, or a state house?

      Or are you one of the infintesimally small few people who earn well over the average wage while having zero qualifications?

    • Bunji 7.2

      And how are your kids going to buy a house?

    • Gosh. And you’re so typical, too 😉

      I’m wondering if the reason why 3 million Kiwis don’t earn $70k, live in central Ak etc. is that we live a world that requires mass poverty and unemployment in order for the economy to function so that people like you can be the exception to the rule.

      • Draco T Bastard 7.3.1

        Yep, it’s rare for the people who benefit from the poverty that they create to see the cause.

    • Draco T Bastard 7.4

      What’s wrong is that you believe a lie. You and you’re parents got lots of help from the government. You just don’t want to see it.

    • Weepus beard 7.5

      You are a kick-the-ladder-out kind of person. There are too many of you and that’s what’s wrong.

    • Upnorth 7.6

      moved to auckland 12 years ago. One of 7 kids from a labour voting family. All info is correct. Just saved

  8. Bill 8

    So given that fossil fuel use tracks economic activity, at 1.3% growth, National were about 2/3rds less bad for our future than Labour.

    • Colonial Rawshark 8.1

      THIS

      • Weepus beard 8.1.1

        When did Colonial Viper become a raving right winger?

        I must have missed this because I thought he was socially responsible, like the rest of us.

        • Colonial Viper 8.1.1.1

          are you accusing Bill as well? After all it was his idea i was backing 😈

    • adam 8.2

      You forgot the sheep and extra cows Bill 🙂

    • NicTheNZer 8.3

      Disagree with this line of thinking. There is no reason fossil fuel use must track GDP growth. The government should invest in employing people to create a sustainable economy. If it does this on a large enough scale then it’s quite possible for GDP to grow and the economy to become sustainable (with lower energy use) at the same time.

      On the other hand if the government wants to cause a recession or depression then it’s going to be unpopular and they will quickly be out of office. That will be curtains for plans to move onto a sustainable path no doubt.

      The economy is not going to by itself onto a sustainable path. The government must intervene and buy up outputs towards it.

      • Bill 8.3.1

        Well, there’s no reason why it must, but it does.

        As for growing an economy while aiming for sustainability…from these six eggs I have, I want to make an omelet while wanting for six chicks to hatch.

        Meanwhile,most of the western world is being plunged into recession and depression, in part, due to policies pursuing austerity. Those governments haven’t been kicked out and ,in fact, have been re-elected.

        • NicTheNZer 8.3.1.1

          Sorry, that kind of thinking doesn’t cut it. Explain why if you have some sustainability policy (say reforestation) the government can’t pay for it to happen.

          • Bill 8.3.1.1.1

            The government can pay for such things. That’s not a biggie.

            But if you want a growing economy, then that means more production and consumption. And that’s profit driven, not ‘lets be nice to the environment’ driven. If you find that objectionable (as I do) then you’ll have no option but to adopt a market abolitionist position.

            Then, with the profit motive gone, we can look at steady state or ‘environmentally mindful’ economic models.

            • NicTheNZer 8.3.1.1.1.1

              Closer but you are not there yet. GDP has three main components, consumption, investment and government spending. So growing GDP does not mandate growing consumption. Also not all consumption is a measure of physical consumption it also counts service spending and all kinds of sustainable consumption. There is no solid link between growth of GDP and growth of the physical demands of that economy. In considering how to deal with this issue there also needs to be a distinction between markets with and without government intervention including regulation for socially desirable outcomes.

            • NicTheNZer 8.3.1.1.1.2

              Closer but you are not there yet. GDP has three main components, consumption, investment and government spending. So growing GDP does not mandate growing consumption. Also not all consumption is a measure of physical consumption it also counts service spending and all kinds of sustainable consumption. There is no solid link between growth of GDP and growth of the physical demands of that economy. In considering how to deal with this issue there also needs to be a distinction between markets with and without government intervention including regulation for socially desirable outcomes.

              • Colonial Viper

                “There is no solid link between growth of GDP and growth of the physical demands of that economy.”

                other than energy use tracking closely with GDP you mean? And in the rest of the world that typically means coal and oil being burnt.

                • NicTheNZer

                  No, including energy use tracking with GDP. If you think of an alternative real economy (a sustainable one) then the payments for that can obviously be arranged in essentially any manner. Arguing that it has to be that way then is also claiming there is no real alternative economy possible. The fact Fossil fuel use tracks GDP is just a coincidence due to the world running a non-sustainable economy but that can change.

                  It’s also not true for many countries but industrial production being sent offshore is a large component of that, so it’s not a clear cut example.

                  • Colonial Viper

                    “The fact Fossil fuel use tracks GDP is just a coincidence due to the world running a non-sustainable economy but that can change.”

                    ???

                    I’m referring to the current physical world economy and the energy inputs its activity is entirely predicated on, not a future science fiction one.

                    • NicTheNZer

                      Claims about science fictions and utopia as side, I was discussing with Bill how to grow GDP while shrinking the ecological footprint of the economy. When he says that we must first abolish markets and first instate some other (yet to be defined) system he is the person advocating for inaction.

                      Paid work (and profits) is a powerful incentive and should be used to take action on climate change now.

                    • Colonial Rawshark

                      At the end of the day the only answer I can see is for a fifteen to twenty year war-time like effort to move NZ 90% off fossil fuels and also towards autarky in strategic areas. We will burn a lot of fossil fuels and consume a lot of resources in the process to do so – but at least they will be available at this time.

                      After this next fifteen year window passes, it’ll be too late to do anything more than localised/regional makeshift initiatives to try and make life survivable and decent.

                      National is 1/10 towards what is needed. Labour is 3/10 towards what is needed. The Greens are 3.5/10 towards what is needed.

                      Ah well, currently those are the choices we have been given.

  9. NicTheNZer 9

    Bunji your first post is focusing on the wrong issue, your second on the right issue. Government spending adds directly to GDP by accounting so if the deficit was lower in any of the last seven years then GDP would also have been lower by the exact same amount. Yes if labour wants to grow GDP at a decent rate in future they will need to run a significant deficit for many years.

  10. Atiawa 10

    Great work today OAB. Another one to line up.

  11. Sable 11

    The reality is the neo liberal policies embraced by new Labour and National have led to this mess. They are both culpable for the misery people endure.

Recent Comments

Recent Posts