Nats’ debt pile hits $50b

Written By: - Date published: 6:23 am, February 21st, 2012 - 210 comments
Categories: debt / deficit - Tags:

For the first time in history, net government debt has passed $50 billion. New Zealand’s net international liabilities, the amount New Zealand owes the rest of the world, is also skyrocketing: $140 billion now, $197 billion in 2016. John Key used to say we had a growth problem, not a debt problem. With GDP per capita down 2% under National, we now have both.

210 comments on “Nats’ debt pile hits $50b ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. infused 1
    21 February 2012 at 6:51 am

    And Labours solution? Spend More! Lets give people on the dole $50 more a week!

    • Eddie 1.1
      21 February 2012 at 7:13 am

      Labour was going to spend $221b this term compared to $220b by National. Labour’s tax policies ended up getting debt down faster.

    • ianmac 1.2
      21 February 2012 at 10:03 am

      Funny how the Nact rhetoric has been “Labour just wants to borrow, borrow, borrow.”
      I thought that Bill has been borowing millions every week. That Emperor Bill has no clothes.

      • Fortran 1.2.1
        21 February 2012 at 1:56 pm

        Think you got it wrong – “Labour want to spend, spend,spend”

        • Lanthanide 1.2.1.1
          21 February 2012 at 3:33 pm

          Spending in and of itself is not bad. It’s spending money on things that give very poor or negative return that is bad. Like Roads of Notional Significance and such.

        • mik e 1.2.1.2
          22 February 2012 at 10:39 pm

          footrot labour have always run the country better than national look through stats NZ hisTory.
          Debt levels National have had much larger debts going back to 1935, prior to that conservative governments always have borrowed more.Labour governments end up earning the country more and paying off debt replacing worn out infrastructure that national neglect to make their books look good but even then National only look after the anointed few such as yourself.

      • travellerev 1.2.2
        21 February 2012 at 2:19 pm

        This is just pure scam. They’re doing a Greece on us so they can loot us in one foul swoop.

      • seemorerocks 1.2.3
        23 February 2012 at 2:18 pm

        We had 10 years of fiscal discipline under Labour – the Labour wants to “spend, spend, spend” is National spin.
        What they wanted to spend on was on things that might have (in 2008) stimulated the economy – such as research and development.

        We have seen a huge increase in government debt under National – during which time we are constantly being lied to.

        Try to find any reference to our debt problem in the corporate media.

    • Frank 1.3
      21 February 2012 at 2:54 pm

      Hang on a mo’, Infused; National has racked up a $50 billion debt and you default to Rightwing Responses #1 and #2 – it’s the fault of Labour and beneficiaries?

      One question: when does it start to be the current government’s responsibility? Is there a timeline we can follow?

    • mick 1.4
      21 February 2012 at 7:08 pm

      Thats not a response !
      Thats just a childish comeback !
      The Key Solution has been tried of over thirty years ,we all know “asset sales” isn’t the answer .
      You don’t sell “assets” that are returning more than they cost to own ,that just obvious .
      It’s like selling your house to reduce your mortgage .

    • Vicky32 1.5
      22 February 2012 at 5:30 pm

      And Labours solution? Spend More! Lets give people on the dole $50 more a week!

      If that had been true (and I assure you it wasn’t) we people on the dole would have been delirious with joy!

      • Maggie May 1.5.1
        22 February 2012 at 6:10 pm

        Man oh man, Vicky32 you show yourself to be that divorced from the reality of bieng on a benefit.

        You just have to be one of John Keys favored few. Somehow you think these people trying to live on a benefit can afford to pay for a landline and broadband connection.

        • Vicky32 1.5.1.1
          22 February 2012 at 6:16 pm

          You just have to be one of John Keys favored few. Somehow you think these people trying to live on a benefit can afford to pay for a landline and broadband connection

          Lolwut? I am on an unemployment benefit man!
          I have a landline (I could never be without one as I can’t afford mobile phone costs) and I don’t have broadband. I can’t afford it, I have dial up. Try reading what I wrote, please, before slagging me off.

  2. ron 2
    21 February 2012 at 7:14 am

    Another moronic contribution, Infused.

    But let’s look at the idea of investing in a our economy. Actually doing something – as opposed to the Tory approach of….well, who’d know what their approach is – they don’t do anything. Oh, that’s not quite right. Corporate welfare seems to be o.k. with this lot but not social welfare.

    There is plenty of evidence from the previous depressions that investing in social programmes is a good way to ensure the economy at least keeps ticking over.
    And this time around plenty of reports including this one: http://social.un.org/index/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=v0LQqd2FT3k%3d&tabid=1561 suggest that social/work investment is a better way of coping with this recession than constant austerity measures.

    • Rob 2.1
      21 February 2012 at 12:22 pm

      Ron , if austerity is spending less, what you are proposing is spending more, do you not think that is an issue in a high debt environment?

      • Pascal's bookie 2.1.1
        21 February 2012 at 12:35 pm

        I dunno Rob, but a survey of US based economists (hardly likely to be a hotbed of socialism or what have you) shows they think the 09 stimulus package has worked and been worth doing.

        You can look up the results of austerity policies an the UK and portugal for yourself.

        If you have better examples for austerity, (ie, ones where it can be argued to have worked), feel free to discuss them.

      • Pascal's bookie 2.1.2
        21 February 2012 at 12:35 pm

        Survey results here : http://bit.ly/wprmC8

      • Ron 2.1.3
        21 February 2012 at 1:13 pm

        I was about to answer, Rob, but Pascal’s bookie has it covered. plenty of evidence to suggest that investment in approriate parts of the economy works.

        • Rob 2.1.3.1
          22 February 2012 at 12:59 pm

          Ok , went to the link and its a very quick and vagely interesting two question survey answered by some academics, not something that I would bank on. I was in the US at the time of the 750 B first dribble out. In Wis where I was, the actual “rubber hitting the road” impact of the stimulus payments came in the form of massive discounting on consumer durable items delivered by manufacturers through dealers. So a Ford 150 truck 35% off with payment terms, new snow mobiles cheaper etc etc.

          It was very underwhelming and acheiving nothing to what you are stating they acheive. It was very untargeted and came across as a big fire sale.

          I think looking back at whether the stimulus payments in the US or Aus for that matter worked vs non stimulus strategies like austerity will be very hard to quantify. It reminds of the post Y2K environment when the businesses that had gone to great expense of ensuring that all their IT systems were Y2K compliant announce they had gone through the date change unscathed at the same as all the businesses that did not nothing announce that they also came through the date change unscathed.

          • Pascal's bookie 2.1.3.1.1
            22 February 2012 at 1:20 pm

            …not something that I would bank on.

            Yeah, it’s a tough call.

            The ‘on the record opinions of economists from the top US universities’ vs ‘what Rob the internet guy claims to have seen one time in one place’. Clearly those academics didn’t take your in depth scholarship into account when deciding what to think. Perhaps you should get in touch.

            It was very underwhelming and acheiving nothing to what you are stating they acheive.

            Not sure what you are getting there. I only pointed to what some economists from top US universites thought.

  3. muzza 3
    21 February 2012 at 7:17 am

    Former director of Australasian institute of credit unions really knows his way around financial balance sheets both retail and shadow

    http://www.johnpemberton.co.nz/html/debt_graph_info.pdf

    New Zealand government official stats show $318 billion NZ originated private institution credit money. They then treat as assets and deduct what has been invested overseas and come up with what they call Net International Investment Position which appears much less alarming despite that money competing to find profit in an international financial system where the international debt is also unrepayable from the day its born.
    Even if the foreign investments from NZ where able to be repatriated in quick time they would come back to only the wealthiest few who control them and not benefit wider society as implied. Just more smoke and mirrors;
    http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/ParlSupport/ResearchPapers/3/4/6/00PlibCIP121-New-Zealand-s-International-Investment-Position.htm

    $318 billion debt based money supply at annual interest rate of 7% equals $22 odd billion interest repayment that is essentially rent upon a revolving line of credit that circulates as our money supply.
    Given most of that interest finds its way back to the same largest owners of larger international banks who own largest stake holdings in Australian banks who own NZ banks, it puts to shame the 1.3 billion they give back in tax and shout from the roof tops as being so beneficial to the prosperity of the nation!

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      21 February 2012 at 8:11 am

      Debt-free, interest-free, Government issued money please.

      • Ben 3.1.1
        21 February 2012 at 8:14 am

        +1 trillion

      • muzza 3.1.2
        21 February 2012 at 9:25 am

        Yeah that would be the obvious answer, unless you had self interest in protecting the debt flows, or were going to benefit by NZ going bankrupt, which we will!

        Iceland had Moodys upgrade them recently, just to show that you dont have to live the way we do. Not seen or heard too much attention given to it in Nz ???

      • Rob 3.1.3
        21 February 2012 at 12:24 pm

        CV, please explain how Debt-free, interest-free, Government issued money works please. Pre WW1 germany had some pretty good comparisons to that idea I recall.

        • Draco T Bastard 3.1.3.1
          21 February 2012 at 1:35 pm

          Easy, government issues the money through a Universal Income and business loans, government collects the money through taxes.

          • Rob 3.1.3.1.1
            22 February 2012 at 1:01 pm

            So the Govt absorbs all and pays all the interest charges on the money it borrows to give away interest free to the population. You really honestly believe that it is sustainable and wise???

            • Draco T Bastard 3.1.3.1.1.1
              22 February 2012 at 1:16 pm

              Debt-free, interest-free, Government issued money please.

              What interest?

              And, yes, the government printing and collecting the money is sustainable unlike the present system where the private banks print it and charge interest which means that it can’t actually be paid for.

      • Clashman 3.1.4
        21 February 2012 at 12:56 pm

        “They” will never let it happen.

  4. Sanctuary 4
    21 February 2012 at 8:15 am

    The near instant deflection attempt by a right wing troll of this thread is interesting, especially when combined with DPF’s dialling up of Kiwiblog’s role as a talking points distributor of crude smears in the last few days (for example in his quite appallingly tasteless attempt to smear Trevor Mallard yesterday) and a whole pile of out-of-the-blue (or should we say out-of-the-ninth-floor?) and rather desperate attempts to attack the Greens.

    The internal polling must be terrible for the Nacts. On the evidence I can see, they are running around like scared rabbits.

  5. Bill 5
    21 February 2012 at 8:17 am

    Everything going according to plan then. Cripple the economy – create a crisis – introduce swingeing cuts/austerity which cripple the economy even more while redistributing wealth upwards. Grabs the money and run.

  6. coolas 6
    21 February 2012 at 9:07 am

    Someone must be channelling Robert Muldoon. He was brilliant at accumulating debt that left the country bankrupt leaving the Lange Govt with no choice but to sell assets.

    History never repeats – Yeah Right.

    • mikesh 6.1
      21 February 2012 at 1:53 pm

      Muldoon had to borrow to maintain the value of the dollar. I think that was something he had to do in order to comply with the Bretton Woods agreement.

  7. Vivienne 7
    21 February 2012 at 9:20 am

    And the Lange govt did not need to sell assets.

    Actoids took over the Labour Party.

    Now they, well it, is swinging the dog!

    • Draco T Bastard 7.1
      21 February 2012 at 1:45 pm

      No, Act aren’t swinging the dog. National would be doing the same thing even if they had a full majority. In fact, if they had a full majority they would probably be acting faster. They know damn well that they’ve only got a short time span to deliver our wealth to their rich mates which is why every single opposition party needs to be clear – after the next election, all previous state owned assets will be renationalised without compensation. That won’t happen though as most of the opposition also do exactly as their corporate master tell them.

  8. Ron 8
    21 February 2012 at 9:30 am

    @coolas that TINA meme is old and discredited.
    Of course, there were major issues that needed addressing in the economy but the Lange government had any number of options that did not include hocking of assets. As Vivienne says – assets sales were part of the proto-ACT agenda that drove the economy into yet more trouble later on and is destroying it now.

  9. Wonker 9
    21 February 2012 at 9:42 am

    Really just the continuation of the trend started in 2008 pre the election of the National government.

    Cullen’s last fiscal forecast showed:

    Residual cash position worsening from +2B in 2008 (Actual) to -6.8B by 2012 (-31.6B residual financing requirement met in large part by borrowing as below)

    Gross debt increasing by around 22.3B to 53.7B or 24% of GDP

    Net debt increasing by 10B to 29B or 13% of GDP

    http://treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2008/024.htm

    Of course since that time we’ve had NZ’s largest and most financially catastrophic natural disaster and the worst global financial/economic crisis post the Great Depression.

    Quibble about tax cuts for the rich if you will. Others might quibble about the ramping up of expenditure beyond revenue forecasts under Cullen’s last three years of office.

    • Blighty 9.1
      21 February 2012 at 10:13 am

      spending under labour was the same as % of GDP when they left as when they started: 31%.

      Under National, it’s 35%.

      “Net debt increasing by 10B to 29B or 13% of GDP”

      Um, it’s $21b more than that.

    • muzza 9.2
      21 February 2012 at 11:26 am

      And still not one word about an audit of the RBNZ/Treasury, nor any journo asking why the hell are we borrowing from abroad!

      Nor the majority of those who post on this site!

  10. vto 10
    21 February 2012 at 1:20 pm

    FIFTY BILLION DOLLARS !

    Who the hell do they expect is going to repay that and have they asked those people if they are happy to be dumped with that debt?

  11. Draco T Bastard 11
    21 February 2012 at 1:31 pm

    Keith Rankin: The Global Debt Crisis

    These charts show, for every year from 2001 to 2010, private sector surpluses matched by public sector deficits. This means the private sector (firms and households together) are net savers (ie net lenders), meaning they attempt fewer goods and services than their incomes entitle them to. (These private surpluses accumulate to create a “global savings glut”.) For the private sector to succeed in its attempts to run large surpluses, the public sector must comply by running large deficits. By definition, the combined surpluses of the private sector must equal the combined deficits of the world’s governments. The reality is that, in most years, households and businesses lend to governments because there are limited “investment opportunities” in the private sector.

    The reality is that the economy begins and ends with the government. Savings are a delusion and so is the right-wing meme that private business is the core of the economy. Private profits are a dead weight loss to the government. The more profit private business has the more deficit the government has. Now you know why this government has blown out the deficit – it’s to increase profits. Of course, they’ve only increased them to the rich and cut them to everyone else.

    The government is us, the people.

    Time for some rationalisation of the economy. The government prints the money at 0% interest, the government collects the money through taxes. If there’s a deficit, taxes will be increased.

    • mikesh 11.1
      21 February 2012 at 2:11 pm

      This is the “paradox of thrift” that Keynes referred to. However, Keynes was mistaken in thinking that governments had to borrow in order to run deficits. It would be better for governments to create the necessary money for that purpose themselves.

      • Draco T Bastard 11.1.1
        21 February 2012 at 5:18 pm

        Keynes was still working with the gold standard and so the accumulated money, being a physical object, had to be incentivised back into circulation and that meant borrowing at interest. He also had the example of Germany’s failed attempt at printing fiat currency. Then there’s the point that Keen following Minski has that Keynes was misinterpreted.

        Actual realistic taxes and preventing such accumulation never even entered the conversation. In fact, the exact opposite has occurred.

      • mik e 11.1.2
        22 February 2012 at 11:00 pm

        Michael Joseph Savage and social credit proved Keynes half right and half wrong.
        What Keynes exposed was that economies needed stimulating in recessions because banks refused to lend but flooding the market with capital would unblock the freeze .Social credit took it 2 steps further one printing money 2 lending it to small enterprises and Individuals which meant that money went round the economy many more times than just bailing out the banks.
        On top of that Labour 1935 Nationalised the bankrupt banks refurnishing them with printed money as well, economic history has proven this the best way to free up markets again .forFor a long term solution.Unlike the US who have failed several times with the great depression the savings and loan debacle and now the corporate welfare approach as well as the allow to fail approach all have been unmitigated disasters,Showing the free market is nothing more than a game of snakes and ladders.Centrally planned economies are doing far better.

  12. starlight 12
    21 February 2012 at 2:25 pm

    JK joined the nat party 3yrs before he came to nz,with a plan that is aligned with globalisation
    which is happening in greece,now their sovereignty is at stake,behind all of what is happening
    is goldman sachs,the push is real,the plan is real and it represents a dire danger for the
    people of the land worldwide.
    The way that key and govt have been behaving ought to sound alarm bells for nz’ers
    the continual dumming down of services,the stripping of jobs,the sell off of strategic
    assets,the mind boggling spending on frivilous desires and mates and corporates,the
    sell off of tax payer owned assets to overseas interests,the sale of crafar farms to the
    chinese govt,because thats who penxign are,it all talley’s up to jk helping his wall st
    mates because he is an insider and always will be.
    His main job to begin with was to fool the people and for that he gets top marks,
    but the sleepy hollow is awakening and realising that they have been hoodwinked,
    fooled and used to keep this modern day robber in power.

    • travellerev 12.1
      21 February 2012 at 3:34 pm

      Now that would be a conspiracy theory and everybody knows our government would never do that and there are no international powers that be and John Key is just a stupid nice guy with an accidental $ 50 million most of which are shares in the BofA which is partly owned by Goldman Sachs who only tried to help the Greek government to get in the EU.

      • Gosman 12.1.1
        21 February 2012 at 4:00 pm

        How did Goldman Sachs help the Greek government attempt to get into the EU?

        • Draco T Bastard 12.1.1.1
          21 February 2012 at 5:21 pm

          I believe it was by helping Greece to falsify their economic position making them look better off than they were. Basically, a confluence of corruption and the reason why private business and government needs to be opened up.

          • phillip ure.. 12.1.1.1.1
            21 February 2012 at 6:26 pm

            as draco said..they helped greece cook the books..

            ..i have links if you don’t believe it..

            phil-at-whoar.

            • Gosman 12.1.1.1.1.1
              21 February 2012 at 10:08 pm

              I’d be interested in seeing the links that show that Goldman Sach’s helped the Greeks enter the EU.

              • travellerev …
                22 February 2012 at 4:55 am

                Here you go: BBC mud stream media and no Cowboy hat boy this is not for you but for the people confused and distracted by your incessant stream of smearing and misinfo.

                • Gosman …
                  22 February 2012 at 5:18 am

                  Ummm,,,,,

                  A few points you may have missed.

                  This transaction took place in 2002. Greece joined the EU well before this (They even joined the Eurozone before this).

                  It only involved 2.8 Billion Euros, a fraction of Greek Sovereign Debt.

                  Did you not listen to the first comment made on that piece – “The European crisis is not the child of the sex we had with Goldman Sachs”?

                  Did you not listen to the journalist’s comment about 1:45 seconds in when he stated the Greeks (not Goldman Sachs) made a decision that rather than cutting spending and repay borrowing, (all traditional right leaning policies it must be stated and what they are being forced to do now), they would try and hide the debt.

                  The piece also states that the Goldman Sachs deal was legal at the time.

                  Regardless of this it has nothing at all to do with Greek getting membership of the EU.

                  • travellerev …
                    22 February 2012 at 3:01 pm

                    No idjit, into the Euro; THE FUCKING CURRENCY.

                    And this is ladies and gentlemen how cowboy hat boy obfuscates and derails and that is what he is paid to do either that or he sits on his ass all day on the taxpayers penny to waste everybody’s time. What a drip dick.

                    But by all means Gos be my quest, make an idjit off yourself go back to Kiwiblog and be an idjit with the rest of them and when the time comes when all y’ídjits are going bankrupt because your mate John Key, that nice money dealer, has you paying through the nose for all his nice borrowing I’ll think off you and have a good laugh.

                    Ahh, I feel a whole lot better now.

                    • Gosman …
                      22 February 2012 at 3:37 pm

                      Then the commenters should have stated the Euro rather than the EU.

                      Even given that the transaction happened after the entry of the Greeks to the Eurozone so didn’t help them enter it at all.

                      It is rather sad that all you have in your arsenal of evidence against the evils of Goldman Sachs is a piddling (in terms of total Greek Sovereign debt) transaction that the Greek government asked for and which Goldman Sachs asked the European regulators if the product they were selling was legal and got an affirmative answer.

                      Still good to see the Greeks having to finally front up to their failed left wing policies and take a dose of austerity.

                    • insider …
                      22 February 2012 at 3:38 pm

                      So what you are saying is that because you cannot correctly distinguish between the EU (European Union) and the Euro zone or Euro area and teh Euro currency, despite the difference being pointed out numerous times over the last week and you being led by the nose to the issue by a very pointed question a couple of comments before (‘I’d be interested in seeing the links that show that Goldman Sach’s helped the Greeks enter the EU’), it is Gosman’s fault, and pointing out your repeated error/ignorance is a diversion?

                      That ladies and gentlemen is why looney dutchwomen should not be allowed unaccompanied access to the internet.

                    • Te Reo Putake …
                      22 February 2012 at 3:57 pm

                      Much as hate to make either of you right wing loons happy, Gossie is correct. The Goldman Sachs deal was after Greece adopted the Euro currency in 2000 and was for a relatively small amount. The significence of it was that it made the Greek debt look just good enough under EU audits to allow the further villainy to take place.
                       
                      Ev, you need to own the fact that you said EU, when you meant Euro. Gosman thrives on little slips like that.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    22 February 2012 at 3:12 pm

                    The piece also states that the Goldman Sachs deal was legal at the time.

                    Of course it was legal, the bankers had changed the law previously to make it legal. clever eh.

                  • mik e …
                    22 February 2012 at 11:02 pm

                    Groseman Greece was put under investigation in 2002

  13. Frank 13
    21 February 2012 at 3:05 pm

    At the least Treasury report is printed on recycled paper:

    This report is printed on paper that is manufactured from 100% recycled post consumer waste in a
    Process Chlorine Free (PCF) process independently certified by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC). The mill operates under the ISO14001 environmental management system.

    (No offence to Green policies on recycling.)

    $50 billion in debt… Why is it that every time voters allow the Nats anywhere near the Treasury benches, we end up billions in debt?!

    And why is it that the public perceive the Nats as “fiscally prudent managers” when they borrow & spend like heroin addicts?

    Ever since Ruth Richardson’s “Mother of All Budgets” which crippled our economy for a decade, I’ve come to the conclusion that National couldn’t run a sausage sizzle for profit without borrowing $100 to sell sausages for $75.

    The word ‘incompetant’ doesn’t begin to cover their inability to manage an economy.

    http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/02/20/authors-of-our-own-mis-fortune/

    • Gosman 13.1
      21 February 2012 at 3:06 pm

      Do you like echo chambers Frank?

      • phillip ure.. 13.1.1
        21 February 2012 at 3:18 pm

        are you just a troll..gosman…?

        ‘amusing’ yrslf with a bit of contrarianism..eh..?

        phil-at-whoar.

        • muzza 13.1.1.1
          21 February 2012 at 3:37 pm

          Gosman does not even understand the reality behind the ponzi scheme monetary supply, yet claims to have worked in the banking industry, which actually explains his lack of ability to comprehend simple “inverse pyramid” monetary structures!

          Lets give him a chance, and see if he replies with a question or a diversion…

          Gosman – Why can’t the RBNZ issue bonds to the Treasury at zero/v low interest, instead of borrowing from abroad, at interest, which NZ inc can NEVER repay?

        • Gosman 13.1.1.2
          21 February 2012 at 3:56 pm

          Classic Phil.

          BTW how come you aren’t posting at Kiwiblog at the moment?

          • phillip ure.. 13.1.1.2.1
            21 February 2012 at 6:30 pm

            why don’t you post here the gloating comment you posted at kiwiblog..gosman

            ..about how you are here..’amusing’ yrslf..

            ..shall i post it for you..?

            phil-at-whoar.

            • Gosman 13.1.1.2.1.1
              21 February 2012 at 7:02 pm

              Ah so you are visiting the site but not commenting like you usually do. Why is that Phil? Has the cat got you tongue (metaphoically that is)?

        • Ianupnorth 13.1.1.3
          21 February 2012 at 5:08 pm

          One of the biggest here

  14. felix 14
    21 February 2012 at 4:54 pm

    I’ve got an idea.

    Let’s ignore the subject of the post and just discuss whatever Gosman’s into instead.

    • Gosman 14.1
      21 February 2012 at 5:08 pm

      Oh goody Felix you finally showed up.

      Fact – The National led Government’s policies have led to a better economic outcomes over the past three and a bit years than any left leaning Government would have achieved.

      Deal with it.

      • Ianupnorth 14.1.1
        21 February 2012 at 5:10 pm

        Gossy, as stated yesterday, you are a knob, a trolling knob, comes and spouts junk and disappears.
         
        Yes mate, and those in poverty are so much healthier; those hip replacements are really helping all the community – like hell, obesity is rising, another public health time bomb ignored by your mates in blue.

        • Gosman 14.1.1.1
          21 February 2012 at 5:16 pm

          I thought we were discussing the $50 Billion Government Debt.

          How come you are bringing issues with health into this?

          • Ianupnorth 14.1.1.1.1
            21 February 2012 at 5:18 pm

            Because yesterday you attempted to argue you were correct – to be fair this is the first example I have noted where you didn’t just troll and run; but you were well and truly shown up to have no decent argument.
             
            Your throw away line above

            Fact – The National led Government’s policies have led to a better economic outcomes over the past three and a bit years than any left leaning Government would have achieved.

            has absolutely no credibility – it is another unsubstantiated generalisation.

            • Gosman 14.1.1.1.1.1
              21 February 2012 at 5:22 pm

              Really??? You think it is unsubstantiated generalisation do you?

              Felix, what do you think?

          • Jackal 14.1.1.1.2
            21 February 2012 at 5:23 pm

            Here we go again… Gosman the idiotic ignoring the facts sitting right in front of his face.

            If you want to pretend the social implications to National’s destructive policies don’t exist, and focus purely on the financial aspect of their failures, answer me this:

            How is National increasing the net government debt by 190% a good economic outcome?

            • Gosman 14.1.1.1.2.1
              21 February 2012 at 5:27 pm

              I never stated it was good. I did state that they have done better than any left leaning Government would have done. Fact – deal with it.

              • Jackal …
                21 February 2012 at 5:34 pm

                Can you give an example of any leftwing New Zealand Government that has increased our debt that much?

                The net debt under the last Labour government increased by only 5.3% over three terms. National are looking deliberately negligent.

                • vto …
                  21 February 2012 at 6:41 pm

                  Yes thats a good point mr jackal. One measure of economic competency is surely changes in debt and on that measure National are USELESS.

                  How is that not right mrs gosman?

                  • vto …
                    21 February 2012 at 6:43 pm

                    “my claim is that right leaning policies lead to better economic outcomes than left leaning ones”

                    except in the above measure ay.

                    any others you wish to try?

                  • Jackal …
                    21 February 2012 at 7:06 pm

                    Thanks vto. In fact all of the economic measures I’m aware of show that National are completely useless at financial management… everything is going backwards.

                    Of course I don’t have access to the elites bank accounts. I presume that’s the “better economical outcome” Gosman is referring to.

              • thatguynz …
                21 February 2012 at 8:16 pm

                How exactly is that fact?  You’re arguing an actual against a theoretical.  The FACT however is that the ACTUAL is piss-poor.
                 
                Unfortunately we ALL have to deal with it.

            • Ianupnorth 14.1.1.1.2.2
              21 February 2012 at 5:28 pm

              I can’t quite lay my hands on the thread from last year on the relative performance of NZ govts since the 80’s, needless to say the blue ones created less jobs and created more debt, the opposite of Gossy’s ‘belief’

              • Frank …
                21 February 2012 at 5:41 pm

                Ianupnorth, allow me, good sir,

                Labour: the Economic Record 2000 – 2008
                http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/labour-the-economic-record-2000-2008/

                The data is from some very reputable socialist sources; IMF, OECD, Reserve Bank NZ, Treasury NZ, Stats NZ, World Bank.

                The data is very inconvenient to right wing disciples; it shows Labour paying down debt; unemployment dropping; GDP rising, etc. (All of which Gosman will ignore/evade/deflect.)

                Gosman;

                You said: “I did state that they have done better than any left leaning Government would have done. Fact – deal with it.”

                What “facts” are those?

                What are the sources of those “facts”?

                Are they legitamate “facts”, or collected from a Weetbix packet?

                Which left-wing government are you referring to?

                Which governments are you comparing? In which country?

                You’ve made a blanket statement – back it up.

                • Gosman …
                  21 February 2012 at 5:47 pm

                  I’ve replied to McFlock below. Lot’s of academic papers from peer reviewed journals apparently which provide links between economic performance and economic freedoms. I’m sure there’s hours of fun there for you.

                  • Frank …
                    21 February 2012 at 5:57 pm

                    Okay. Obviously you have no response to make.Because you can’t.

                    • phillip ure.. …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:39 pm

                      re ‘facts’:..gosman is one of that sub-section of trolls..called ‘pluckers’…

                      ..they are called this because they never have any links/evidence…

                      ..for the fantastic/fantasist-claims they make…

                      ..they just pluck their ‘facts’ from the orifice nearest the back of their knees…

                      ..hence..’pluckers’…

                      ..i find derision/laughter is the best way to deal to them…

                      ..they just feed off anger…

                      ..those ‘pluckers’..

                      ..phil-at-whoar.

                    • Gosman …
                      21 February 2012 at 7:00 pm

                      There was a response and also a link Frank and Phil.

                      BTW Frank if you were really interested in a discussion with me you wouldn’t have banned me from your own blog. I find it a bit rich you demanding I reply to your inane questions here when you won’t allow me the ability to do so on the site you control.

                      BTW never did find out from you Phil why I haven’t seen you at Kiwiblog recently. Any reason you aren’t there at the moment?

                    • felix …
                      21 February 2012 at 7:51 pm

                      Banning you is exactly what anyone interested in discussion would do.

                      Still haven’t managed to answer my question from last night I see.

                      Never will either.

                      Never do.

                      Boring.

                      Twat.

                • Wonker …
                  21 February 2012 at 6:31 pm

                  Seen this before. You’ve pulled together some good information but the analysis (actually is there any?) isn’t sophisticated. Only an ideologue could interpret your independent variable / dependent variable(s) relationship(s) as cause and effect.

                  Your example re paying down debt. Even the data shows that this had started to occur in the mid-1990s and so was a trend across governments. And please see my post above re Cullen’s last fiscal forecast which showed Govt debt increasing sharply from 2008. Cash deficits and rising debt were forecast over the entire forecast period prior to either the full effects of the global financial / economic crisis hitting our shores or the Canterbury earthquakes.

              • McFlock …
                21 February 2012 at 5:45 pm

                Yep – here is the comparison of national vs labour governments, and here is a basic comparison of the last nat and lab governments in particular.
                     
                So on the face of it, Gosman can’t even demonstrate a naive correlation in support of his fantasy.

                • Gosman …
                  21 February 2012 at 5:48 pm

                  Ahh… check below. Lot’s and lot’s of articles for you to digest McFlock. Get back to me with any criticisms you have once you have read them.

                  • McFlock …
                    21 February 2012 at 5:55 pm

                    None of them seem to mention New Zealand. Done.

                    • Gosman …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:08 pm

                      I’m pretty sure I’ll find one or two mentions of NZ in that list of articles McFlock. However it is beside the point because my claim is that right leaning policies lead to better economic outcomes than left leaning ones generally not just in NZ. Now this is the argument, (because it is my position), that you stated there was no empirical data that even slightly backed it up. Have you finished reading those papers then?

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:11 pm

                      “However it is beside the point because my claim is that right leaning policies lead to better outcomes than left leaning ones generally not just in NZ”

                      vs 

                         
                      “Fact – The National led Government’s policies have led to a better economic outcomes over the past three and a bit years than any left leaning Government would have achieved.”

                      Tool. 

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:12 pm

                      By the way, if you do find an article than mentions NZ in an at all relevant way, this is hat grown-ups call “providing supporting evidence”.

                    • Gosman …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:46 pm

                      You really don’t get it do you McFlock?

                      You don’t understand the point of my whole Fact- deal with it statement.

                      I was almost starting to think you were an intelligent person there for a minute.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:57 pm

                      It’s you who fails to realise that there is no similarity between your idiocy here and our discussion yesterday.

                    • Gosman …
                      21 February 2012 at 7:12 pm

                      Not entirely the discussion we had yesterday at least not directly. More along the lines of I made an unsubstantiated statement which I am unlikely to back up much in the way of evidence and then claimed it was fact. I mean how would it be really possible to state what say Labour would have done differently to National and the impact this would have had with any degree of confidence? Highly improbable that this is even possible I would say. The fact – deal with it was something I learned from Felix. I must thank him.

                  • Frank …
                    22 February 2012 at 10:32 am

                    BTW Frank if you were really interested in a discussion with me you wouldn’t have banned me from your own blog. I find it a bit rich you demanding I reply to your inane questions here when you won’t allow me the ability to do so on the site you control.

                    Gosman – a few weeks ago you stated that you had been banned from my Blog. At that stage that was a lie. (One of two you told that day.)

                    I’ve simply changed you from being a liar to telling the truth.

                    Hint: don’t annoy website admin. You will not win that game.

                    • mik e …
                      22 February 2012 at 11:57 pm

                      Goose name the countries I’ve been reading about economics before you even got nappies.NZ stats show since 1935 when national was formed New Zealands economy has done much better under labour governments about 30% GDP on average.
                      I’ve studied world economies, left wing governments do better on average with steady growth inclusive style as opposed to the flash in the pan selfish style growth followed by longer recessions of right wing governments.
                      Now going back in history the same pattern is plainly visible in the past the Roman empire had left and right leaders the Egyptian empire had left and right the same pattern arises.Steady growth on the left flash in the pan on the right the quick buck mentality.
                      The study I’ve done is not from some skewed right wing think tank but from many many university economics books which I have bought over the years many of which cost $200 to $300 per copy.I didn’t pay that much for them’ but students just throw them away being a speed reader I don’t take long to read them.

      • McFlock 14.1.2
        21 February 2012 at 5:13 pm

        Got any stats to support that as fact, or at least a reasonable prediction, rather than parrotiting a tory religious tenet?

          
        I did think about correcting the “parrotiting” typo, but it seems incredibly apt for gos.

        • Gosman 14.1.2.1
          21 February 2012 at 5:18 pm

          Oh, I don’t need a little thing like ‘facts’ McFlock. I mean it is obvious to anyone who has ever looked into economics that right leaning Governments tend to do better economically over the long run than left leaning ones.

          • Ianupnorth 14.1.2.1.1
            21 February 2012 at 5:19 pm

            I see, typical RWNJ – only believes the evidence when it suits them!

          • McFlock 14.1.2.1.2
            21 February 2012 at 5:20 pm

            Well, you would be able to point to some retrospective studies that demonstrate you’re making a logically reasonable extrapolation of the known data, then.
              

            • Gosman 14.1.2.1.2.1
              21 February 2012 at 5:24 pm

              LOL!

              But then we would just get into a discussion of correlation versus causation McFlock.

              How about we come to a happy compromise that you have your way of looking at the world and I have mine.

              • McFlock …
                21 February 2012 at 5:27 pm

                To argue correlation vs causation, you need a correlation. You haven’t even provided that. And all I’m after is evidence that you’ve put forward a reasonable claim, rather than just jerked off to a picture of John Key.

                • Gosman …
                  21 February 2012 at 5:40 pm

                  BTW here’s a list of papers apparently showing a link between economic freedom and economic performance. Many of them are even peer reviewed. I know you think that is important. Knock yourself out.

                  http://www.freetheworld.com/papers.html#working

                  • Jackal …
                    21 February 2012 at 5:51 pm

                    Yeah! Waste your time with another wild goose chase. You’re pathetic Gosman.

                    • Gosman …
                      21 February 2012 at 5:56 pm

                      What, you don’t like reading facts Jackal? Or perhaps you don’t like reading facts that conflict with your preconceived ideological based view of reality. That’s cool. I mean it can be hard to accept that there is more than one way at looking at the world. Much easier just to stay within ones own intellectual safety zone.

                    • Jackal …
                      21 February 2012 at 7:12 pm

                      You obviously have no humility at all. I read facts all the time… particularly those that come from reliable sources. Your previous links have proven you’re not be a reliable source of factual information… as has been repeatedly pointed out. People think you’re full of shit Gosman.

                  • McFlock …
                    21 February 2012 at 5:54 pm

                    You really don’t understand anything, do you?
                      
                    “Fact – The National led Government’s policies have led to a better economic outcomes over the past three and a bit years than any left leaning Government would have achieved.”
                         
                    You really think juxtaposing that with “economic freedom” is the same as child poverty contributing to morbidity and mortality? 
                         
                    Especially when other people have provided clear analyses that National suck at economic management much more than Labour do?    

                    You are an idiot.
                      
                    You are a cargo-cult analyst, repeating nonsensically the latest buzzword you heard a grown-up use.

                    • Gosman …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:03 pm

                      You finished reading those papers yet? You know the one’s you implied contained no empirical data that even slightly supported my view.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:16 pm

                      Flicked through them It’s called “research skills”. If you find a relevant one hidden among the dross, you should link to it.

                    • Gosman …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:33 pm

                      How about this one McFlock? This one mentions NZ at least and looks to include it in the data. It might even be empirical data but I’m not sure. Can you have a look and let me know?

                      http://www.freetheworld.com/papers/berggren_review.pdf

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:57 pm

                      Flicked through it. The NZ mention was fleeting, and provides no basis for your “extrapolation” to claiming that National governments are economically better than Labour. 
                        
                      In fact, this wee section

                      The results suggest that increased income equality is related to a lower GDP per capita, lower growth, and lower economic freedom. Scully (2002) estimates a structural model and reducedform models and shows that economic freedom is beneficial for both economic growth and equality because it has a significant negative effect on gini coefficients.  

                       

                      seems to indicate that (because income inequality in NZ is getting worse) National are not increasing economic freedom and are therefore worse economic managers than Labour even by your measure.

                        
                      You absolute arse. Once again you failed to read your own fucking source, and expect me to do your homework for you.
                      I’m done here – you can’t even put together a coherent case that you understand the English language, let alone basic logic.
                        
                      Fuck off. I’m done here.

              • McFlock …
                21 February 2012 at 5:42 pm

                BTW, correlation isn’t a matter of “you have your way of looking at the world and I have mine”. Your way of looking at the world is not even slightly supported by empirical data.
                  

                • Gosman …
                  21 February 2012 at 5:49 pm

                  You finished reading those articles then McFlock?

                  • McFlock …
                    21 February 2012 at 5:57 pm

                    Lol – have you?

                    • Gosman …
                      21 February 2012 at 5:59 pm

                      Well of course not. But then again I’m not stating something as blunt as “Your way of looking at the world is not even slightly supported by empirical data.”

                      Obviously since you made this statement, you have checked all these papers and confirmed that there is in fact no empirical evidence in them.

                    • wtl …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:05 pm

                      Actual no. Mcflock isn’t saying that there is no empirical evidence in the papers. He is saying ‘your way of looking at the would’ is not backed by empirical data. Since you’ve pretty much acknowledged that you didn’t base your ideas on empirical data (i.e. you didn’t actually read all those papers), he is pretty much bang on.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:08 pm

                      Gos, out of the approximately 200 articles in that dump, none seem to deal with economic freedom in NZ, let alone any analysis of the relative worth of National and Labour governments.
                           

                      Unlees you can find some relevance to the discussion in an article like The 1997-98 Asian Crisis: A Property Rights Perspective, I’ll just assume that once again you’re trying to use words that are bigger than you are.
                         

                    • Gosman …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:11 pm

                      How do you know I haven’t read any of the papers wtl or base it on any empirical data? I have never made this claim.

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:15 pm

                      “How do you know I haven’t read any of the papers wtl ”

                       
                      Fuck, now you’re not even trying to hide the fact you’re shifting the goalposts and putting words in other people’s mouths.

                    • Gosman …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:17 pm

                      McFlock,

                      I very much doubt you have gone through those articles and identified that none deal with NZ. I suspect you have done a seach for New zealand and as you didn’t find it in the title just assumed that it is not mentioned.

                      Regardless that is not what is being discussed here. You stated my position is not supported by empirical data even slightly. My position is that right leaning economic policy leads to better economic outcomes than left leaning ones. I then extrapolate that to the NZ context it is true but it is based on the first position.

                      Now would you care to revise your statement that my position is not supported even slightly by any empirical data or would you like some more time to read the articles?

                    • McFlock …
                      21 February 2012 at 6:27 pm
                          
                        
                      “My position is that right leaning economic policy leads to better economic outcomes than left leaning ones. I then extrapolate that to the NZ context it is true but it is based on the first position.”
                         

                      So Gossy’s new misunderstood word of the day is “extrapolate”. 
                        
                      Here’s the thing, dick. To “extrapolate” form point A to point B, you need to demonstrate point A. Not just link to an article dump and hope that you’re correct. Actually fucking demonstrate point A. 
                         
                      Secondly, the extrapolation doesn’t work if closer evidence contradicts point B. So you need to argue somehow that e.g. the analysis here at The Standard is somehow invalid.
                         
                      “Now would you care to revise your statement that my position is not supported even slightly by any empirical data or would you like some more time to read the articles?”
                        
                      Now THAT would require to to present some empirical data to support point B, or empirical data that supports point A PLUS a plausible justification for your “extrapolation” to point B. If you manage to do that, I will revise the stament. But not until then.

                      EDIT: oh, and I also scrolled down the titles and skim-read the abstracts looking for anything vaguely relevant.

          • Colonial Viper 14.1.2.1.3
            21 February 2012 at 5:24 pm

            right leaning Governments tend to do better economically over the long run than left leaning ones.

            Except for Japan, Germany, South Korea, Singapore, Finland, Denmark, Norway, China, Brazil, Russia…but all the other ones I guess

            • Gosman 14.1.2.1.3.1
              21 February 2012 at 5:25 pm

              Whoosh! Did you see that fly over your head C.V. ?

              • mik e …
                22 February 2012 at 11:07 pm

                Goose read NZ stas history and weep Nationals economic history fares worse on just about every economic stat since 1935 except for a recent blip in the murder rate .

          • Jackal 14.1.2.1.4
            21 February 2012 at 5:27 pm

            Keep reading that comic book Gosman.

            • Ianupnorth 14.1.2.1.4.1
              21 February 2012 at 5:29 pm

              And guess what Gossy, the residents of most of those countries have better health care, better education and better public services

          • Frank 14.1.2.1.5
            21 February 2012 at 5:54 pm

            You mean, like George Bush turning Clinton’s budget surplus into a wacking great budget deficit?

            “The story of today’s deficits starts in January 2001, as President Bill Clinton was leaving office. The Congressional Budget Office estimated then that the government would run an average annual surplus of more than $800 billion a year from 2009 to 2012. Today, the government is expected to run a $1.2 trillion annual deficit in those years.” – http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/10/business/economy/10leonhardt.html

            Or the NZ National government turning Labour’s budget surplus into another great big humungous debt? Even the NZ Herald had to admit Cullen’s surpluses – with back-handed “compliments”,

            “Michael Cullen’s massive Budget surplus is indicative of political squirrelling rather than sound economic management.

            The sight of the Finance Minister rubbing his hands in glee is disconcerting for anyone with an understanding of macro-economics.

            A Government Budget surplus is usually regarded as a good thing in contrast to a Budget deficit. A deficit means the Government will have to borrow and eventually either raise taxes and/or reduce spending.

            A Budget surplus indicates a Government is funding its expenditure from its revenue. “ – http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10471235

            Damned inconvenient, how these left wing governments upset the apple cart by running surpluses.

            Now, would you like to back up your claim that “it is obvious to anyone who has ever looked into economics that right leaning Governments tend to do better economically over the long run than left leaning ones”??

            Or are you going to deflect again?

            • Gosman 14.1.2.1.5.1
              21 February 2012 at 5:57 pm

              You finished reading those academic papers then Frank? Man you are fast. I might have to reassess my view about you.

            • felix 14.1.2.1.5.2
              21 February 2012 at 8:03 pm

              “Or are you going to deflect again?”

              I think you have your answer.

              • Frank …
                22 February 2012 at 4:10 pm

                I was never in doubt, Felix. I’m hoping to lay a few bets on the TAB or iPredict – I’ll never have to work again! 😀

  15. BLiP 15
    21 February 2012 at 4:59 pm

    Was John Key ever involved with the finance industry before he was made Prime Minister?

    • starlight 15.1
      21 February 2012 at 9:23 pm

      Absolutely,he was up to his armpits,involved in the asian crisis,sub-prime crisis,he also was
      involved in the 1990’s crash on our dollar,where the treasury had to phone NY and ask him
      and his mate to stop it.Have a look at john key aotearoa.

  16. felix 16
    21 February 2012 at 5:26 pm

    Oh look, Gosman ruins another thread already.

    Is there some reason he’s allowed to do this every day? Is it just to get the comment count up?

    The novelty off seeing him drag out his contradictions for days on end then disappearing has pretty well worn off.

    [lprent: He usually keeps it roughly on the topic area and doesn’t do any of the other things that I “notice” in moderator role. If I’d been worried about the comment numbers then I’d have just let the dumb trolls have open slather back in 2008. Have a look at the graph about comments at that period. It was going exponential ]

    • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16.1
      21 February 2012 at 5:32 pm

      You’d miss him if he weren’t here though, Felix.

      • felix 16.1.1
        21 February 2012 at 5:36 pm

        Nah it was fun for a while but he’s not even pretending any more.

        Boring.

        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16.1.1.1
          21 February 2012 at 5:50 pm

          You two do seem to have a very special relationship.

          • felix 16.1.1.1.1
            21 February 2012 at 6:05 pm

            He’s in love with me. It’s a bit creepy.

            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 16.1.1.1.1.1
              21 February 2012 at 6:10 pm

              I suspect that, deep within your heart, there is a little part that will always belong to Gosman.

              • felix …
                21 February 2012 at 7:57 pm

                Then you know a lot less about me than you imagine.

              • Colonial Viper …
                21 February 2012 at 8:01 pm

                I suspect that, deep within your heart, there is a little part that will always belong to Gosman.

                Perhaps the fatty diseased cholesterol laden plaques?

    • Dv 16.2
      21 February 2012 at 6:13 pm

      Any way Gosmans comments are self defeating as i have found most of them not worth reading so i dont.

      • Lanthanide 16.2.1
        21 February 2012 at 6:19 pm

        I don’t read them either.

      • Warren 16.2.2
        22 February 2012 at 2:37 am

        The problem is that any topic with a plethora of Gosman’s “contributions” usually puts me off reading ANY of the discussion. He is clearly here to cause mischief, rather that to debate. A few comments I could skip over, but when 40% of the comments are from Gosman, another 40% refuting his rubbish, that pretty much trashes the entire topic AFAIAC. Which may not be acccidental either.

        His posts are argumentative for the sake of argument, not enlightenment, and the prolific nature of them is WAY over the top.
        I don’t see The Standard as an entertainment vehicle for Gosman, or any other troll.

        • felix 16.2.2.1
          22 February 2012 at 3:33 am

          Yes this is the problem. And I don’t think it’s accidental in any way.

          He is deliberately rendering large amounts of good work redundant every day and for some reason the mods are ok with that.

          • Gosman 16.2.2.1.1
            22 February 2012 at 5:58 am

            Good work??? You obviously don’t mean many of your comments whuch tend to be snide and pointless diversions. Case in point your waste of time effort to try and claim I was putting words in McFlock’s mouth.

            Why waste your time on this when all my comment was over was his unsubstantiated claim that National party policies are killing children? He later admitted he had no actual evidence for but for some reason you stated was a fact – deal with it. If you had left my original pertinent comment alone then the thread would not have been diverted (other than McFlock attempting and failing to defend his comments).

            If you don’t want threads going the way you think they go then don’t make the sort of dumbass comments that you do and which I occassionally ape to make a point.

            Many of the leftists posters think they should be able to get away with making stupid and illogical statements without being pulled up on them. If you want that then ask for stronger moderation until that time it is still going to happen.

            • felix 16.2.2.1.1.1
              22 February 2012 at 10:57 am

              I was referring to the good work of the authors of this site who raise important issues for discussion. They’re wasting their time enabling comments while you’re here.

              But seeing as you brought it up, you still haven’t answered the question: With your “kiwis like killing children” comment were you:

              a) sarcastically aping McFlock or

              b) stating your own opinion?

              • Gosman …
                22 February 2012 at 12:13 pm

                I told you already. It was a reductio ad absurdum position. In no way did I state that McFlock was making that statement. I just followed his ridiculous position which he failed to produce any evidence for to it’s logical ridiculous conclusion.

                Given that I have answered your question I have a couple for you.

                Do you accept that your statement along the lines of ‘Fact – deal with it’ was a silly thing to write considering McFlock admitted he couldn’t produce any relevant evidence to back his proposition up?

                Do you accept that you are guilty of diverting the focus of debate by fousing on irrelevant points such as trying to state that I am putting words in people’s mouth when it is simply your misunderstanding that is the problem?

                I very much doubt you will answer because it isn’t your style. You are big on demanding answers, (which I generally answer), yet not big on answering them. In essence you are a kind of reverse Troll, or perhaps that should be House Troll.

                • felix …
                  22 February 2012 at 12:15 pm

                  Glad you finally answered.

                  That answer demonstrates that all of your other responses in that thread were pure trolling and lying.

                  Thanks for that.

                  • Gosman …
                    22 February 2012 at 12:44 pm

                    So no answer to my questions Felix. Kind of confirms my view of you.

                  • Gosman …
                    22 February 2012 at 12:46 pm

                    It only confirms it in your own warped mind Felix. There were no lies from me in that thread. Certainly none such as your infamous ‘Fact – deal with it’ one.

                    • felix …
                      22 February 2012 at 1:02 pm

                      Sure there is.

                      For one thing you implied that McFlock said half the country likes killing children. You just admitted doing this above.

                      Then you spent the rest of the thread lying that you hadn’t implied that at all. Every single one of those comments is invalidated and proved a lie by your answer above.

                      It’s clear for all to see that yu’ve only admitted to it now because your tiny robot brain has finally realised is that the only possible other interpretation actually makes you look far worse.

                      McFlock is right. You’re not even smart enough to be a troll.

                    • Frank …
                      22 February 2012 at 4:07 pm

                      Actually, Gosman, you’ve been caught out on several occassions mis-representing what others have stated. You’ve also been caught posting outright fibs as well. So try not to get too precious, eh?

                    • felix …
                      22 February 2012 at 10:41 pm

                      But Frank, it doesn’t count if you just ignore being caught out and move on to telling lies on another thread.

                • vto …
                  22 February 2012 at 12:21 pm

                  Gosman, back up there somewhere, you said this “Fact – The National led Government’s policies have led to a better economic outcomes over the past three and a bit years than any left leaning Government would have achieved.”

                  Jackal put the following question to you in relation to this which you have not answered (surprise surprise)…

                  There are many measures which can be looked at to assess who is the most competent economic manager and one of them is the state of govt debt after a period in office… The last labour govt reduced debt and this national govt have increased debt – to record levels. So on this particular measure of fact, the right wing national government are blimmin’ USELESS.

                  Fact. Deal with it.

                • McFlock …
                  22 February 2012 at 12:22 pm

                  “considering McFlock admitted he couldn’t produce any relevant evidence to back his proposition up?”
                      
                  Lie.

                  • Gosman …
                    22 February 2012 at 12:36 pm

                    Yeah you did.

                    Here for example –

                    ‘Wait a few years, dude. Stats take a while to be collated’

                    and here –

                    ‘…The actual evidence has yet to be fully compiled.’

                    and here –

                    ‘…I need the latest stats, which aren’t available. It might very well be accurate, we just don’t know for sure’

                    • McFlock …
                      22 February 2012 at 12:59 pm

                      Direct evidence vs “relevant” evidence, Gos. There’s a lot of relevant evidence we mentioned. The direct data isn’t available yet.
                             
                      It’s like a court case – there’s actual evidence (e.g. DNA testing) vs circumstantial evidence. But if the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming, it still can demonstrate a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
                            
                      As it is, I have “admitted” that the direct evidence hasn’t been produced yet. But I’ve justified my statement with a lot of relevant evidence. The question of whether you’re purposefully shifting goalposts, or just being a deluded moron, is open to speculation.

                    • Gosman …
                      22 February 2012 at 1:21 pm

                      No, you attempted to argue that you felt it was in some way relevant. In short it was your opinion only. Really no different from me stating that I feel that free market economic policies lead to better economic outcomes than non free market economic policies. I don’t mind if you share your strongly held opinion but then to try and argue that it is backed by facts as if there can be only one right way of looking at things is ridiculous. On top of that your view was offensive to approximately half the voting population. If you wish to demonise such a large section of society go ahead. Just don’t expect people won’t call you out on it.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 February 2012 at 1:30 pm

                      “No, you attempted to argue that you felt it was in some way relevant.”
                        
                      vs
                              
                      “McFlock admitted he couldn’t produce any relevant evidence to back his proposition up”
                        
                      So, according to you, I admitted the evidence I supplied wasn’t relevant at the same time as arguing that it was?
                           
                      Fuck you’re a tool.

                    • Gosman …
                      22 February 2012 at 1:47 pm

                      No, you attempted to argue then you basically admitted that you would have to wait until you had the statistics from the past few years before you would be able to prove it. It took you a while to get to that point though.

                      You could have saved yourself the hassle and just come out and stated at the start ‘ Well there is no strong evidence for my belief but I have a strong opinion that it is the case”. Would have saved you an hour or so yesterday.

                      Alternatively you could have just ignored me calling BS on your offencive and unsubstantiated claim. You chose to respond so more fool you really.

                    • McFlock …
                      22 February 2012 at 2:00 pm

                      A:

                      “No, you attempted to argue then you basically admitted that you would have to wait until you had the statistics from the past few years before you would be able to prove it. “

                                

                      is very different from B:
                              

                      “McFlock admitted he couldn’t produce any relevant evidence to back his proposition up”

                      A implies a lack of direct evidence that will directly demonstrate the claim, even to a simpleton like you.
                         
                      B implies no basis whatsoever for making the claim.
                         
                      There is nothing new about A – my case has always been on the basis that it was a reasonable statement to make given what we know now about the relationship between poverty and child mortality.
                         
                      B is a lie.
                        
                      Tool.

            • McFlock 16.2.2.1.1.2
              22 February 2012 at 12:06 pm

              “Why waste your time on this when all my comment was over was his unsubstantiated claim that National party policies are killing children? He later admitted he had no actual evidence for but for some reason you stated was a fact – deal with it. If you had left my original pertinent comment alone then the thread would not have been diverted (other than McFlock attempting and failing to defend his comments).”
                  
              Yesterday I thought you were purposefully being an idiot and merely pretending to believe the above.
                
              Then last night I put on the anorak and dishwashing gloves and had a look at your comment on Kiwiblog that phil had referred to (as an aside, KB lived up to expectations and had some nice racist comments, just as a bit of jizz icing on the turd cake). You really seem to be oblivious to the fact that your ego’s writing cheques your IQ can’t cash. 
                  
              I’m not going to get into it all again, but Gos – you’re not a troll. You’re just a tool.

              • wtl …
                22 February 2012 at 12:21 pm

                That comment (on Kiwiblog) pretty much shows that he isn’t here to make any kind of real contribution, but rather just to cause trouble (as I side note, it is the THIRD comment I’ve seen where he (deliberately?) got the date of the infectious disease study wrong). I agree with the others here: DNFTT

                • felix …
                  22 February 2012 at 12:37 pm

                  I know I’m guilty of feeding it, but I think your point is worth making again.

                  He has repeatedly admitted – proudly – that he’s here to troll and disrupt.

      • Vicky32 16.2.3
        22 February 2012 at 6:38 pm

        Any way Gosmans comments are self defeating as i have found most of them not worth reading so i dont.

        Nor I! They’re very repetitive…

    • Lanthanide 16.3
      21 February 2012 at 6:19 pm

      Don’t feed the troll.

  17. mick 17
    21 February 2012 at 7:22 pm

    John Key was the head of Foreign Exchange for Merrill Lynch in 1987 when a run on the Kiwi dollar was engineered .The Kiwi Dollar lost 46% in value in 24 hours because of the transactions that crossed John Keys desk ON THAT DAY . He personally amassed wealth from the engineered collapse of the Kiwi Dollar and then returned to NZ after his actions.
    Is this the type of man you trust with your future ?
    Would he put his future ahead of yours ? 
    If you get caught lying in Court your evidence is regarded as suspect ,how many times do we need to catch John Key lying before we regard him as “suspect” ?

    We need to actually know the history of the people we trust with our welfare ,to many people rely only on the sound bites presented by the media leading up to the elections. This has to change ,for our children’s sake ! I for one would like my grand children to want to live in New Zealand .

    • Gosman 17.1
      21 February 2012 at 7:43 pm

      Ummmm…. I’m pretty sure John Key was in NZ in 1987 working for Elders Finance. I remember because I went there for job experience around this time.

    • insider 17.2
      22 February 2012 at 1:32 pm

      46% devaluation in a single day? No doubt with such a precise figure you’re able to quickly point out that day and the before and after values and the currency you are measuring its value against…

  19. starlight 19
    22 February 2012 at 11:03 am

    An internet search of ‘goldman sachs men in the eurozone’ displays some alarming
    information.
    Belgium— Kareel van miert, ex international adviser to Goldman Sachs.
    Germany— Otmar Iseing, Helped create euro,adviser to Goldman Sachs
    Mario Draghi, New head of the central bank,former managing
    director of Goldman Sachs international.
    Ireland —– Peter Sutherland, non executive director of Goldman Sachs international.
    France——Antonio Borges,Goldman Sachs insider.
    Italy———Mario Monti,New Prime Minister,ties to Goldman Sachs
    Greece——Lucus Papademous,Petros Christodoulou,head of Greece’s debt
    also a Goldman Sachs man,all of the above are Goldman Sachs men.

    New Zealand—John Key, Goldman Sachs man and insider,still employed.

    Given that under the Key administration NZ is at risk of following down the
    same path as the above country’s,where key has created massive debt without
    care or concern,our country is definatley under a Goldman Sachs attack.

    • Gosman 19.1
      22 February 2012 at 11:54 am

      Wow!

      I too have worked for Goldman Sachs. Perhaps I’m a deep cover operative and don’t even realise it.

      When exactly did John Key work for Goldman Sachs again?

      • insider 19.1.1
        22 February 2012 at 12:45 pm

        John key = goldman Sachs; it’s a fact = deal with it 😉

        • Gosman 19.1.1.1
          22 February 2012 at 12:52 pm

          Goldman Sachs = The devil incarnate in corporate form. It’s a fact – deal with it

          • felix 19.1.1.1.1
            22 February 2012 at 1:10 pm

            You idiots do realise that not every piece of information carries the same weight, right?

            If someone says “the sky is blue, deal with it” that isn’t actually a license for you to say with equal truthiness “the sky is made of pink monkeys, deal with it”.

            Morans.

            • McFlock 19.1.1.1.1.1
              22 February 2012 at 1:17 pm

              Although their behaviour does go some way to explaining Treasury predictions.
                   
              If you put a thousand monkeys in front of a thousand typewriters for long enough, then one of them will eventually make an accurate six month GDP forecast…

          • Frank 19.1.1.1.2
            22 February 2012 at 4:29 pm

            Still good to see the Greeks having to finally front up to their failed left wing policies and take a dose of austerity.

            -Gosman

            Only you can welcome people’s lives being wrecked. Taking “a dose of austerity” means people losing their jobs, their savings, and often their homes.

            Every so often, Gosman, your utter lack of anything remotely approaching compassion comes through in your own words.

            How ironic that you live in a society that still has some measure of caring for each other – and yet you show no such humanity to others.

            No wonder ACT – the party that is your natural “home” polls under the margin of error; requires dodgy stitch-ups to win a seat in Parliament; and has very low (if any) support amongst women.

            It takes a measure of sociopathy to hold an inhumane philosophy such as ACT espouses. Perhaps the same lack of human empathy that allowed the Khmer Rouge to rampage through their own country.

            Tell me, Gosman; straight up; do you have any feelings at all for the people whose lives are wrecked by political and economic forces that they have very little control over?

            • Gosman 19.1.1.1.2.1
              22 February 2012 at 4:40 pm

              Greece still has a social safety net which provides a modicum of protection for the less fortunate.

              When it comes down to it they had a choice Frank. Ever since they threw off the Military dictatorship they constantly voted for dodgy Governments who promised them easy prosperity with little cost and which didn’t deal with the inherent corruption in their society until it was too late.

              I have sympathy for people who don’t have the freedom that the Greek people had to get rid of their corrupt and incompetent politicians who bribed them on a regular basis.

              I also have sympathy for people in really poor countries who have nothing protecting them at all. I have no problem with the concept of welfare just not the semi-socialist state that many European countries have become.

              Now you can argue that Western nations aren’t really democratic of course but that opens up an entirely different argument and one I don’t recommend you go there.

              BTW I’m still waiting to read your blog posting on the Gdansk ship workers and how throwing off Soviet Communism benefitted them.

            • muzza 19.1.1.1.2.2
              22 February 2012 at 4:58 pm

              Those such as Gosman and Insider can’t get their heads around is that on plant earth there is various species which make up what is often be referred to as the biosphere.

              All they “know” is fake contructs such as modern economics and finance, which in fact they don’t understand at all in reality. To them the suffering of human beings, environment etc is nothing more than an nuisance which a cost has to be assiged to, and to be destroyed or stolen using the fake contructs mentioned , along with the fake legal environment, judiciary, police etc, all ably assisted by “helpful” politicians!

              Quite why people waste energy responding is beyond me Frank. They feed off the energy required to muster a response…why lower yourselves!

              • insider …
                22 February 2012 at 5:04 pm

                Thanks. I feel so much better for knowing that. All is peace now where once was darkness. Whoever would have guessed there was this amazing thing called a biosphere on plant earth? Next you’ll be telling me that my TV doesn’t literally have ghosts in the machine.

                • muzza …
                  23 February 2012 at 7:30 am

                  Nah, just that your posts come across on about the same level as Gosmans, which would make them some of the least relevant and time wasting on here..

                  Perhaps, like Gosman you just do it for money, or a social fucktard who people don’t really want to admit they know, I don’t really care..

                  Glad you feel better though, seriously!

  20. Reagan Cline 20
    22 February 2012 at 6:12 pm

    John Key can helm for the time being – trying to steer a course under sail. Direction fixed, destination unknown. A $30 billion debt is like the weather. The motor could be stuffed if we don’t repair and refuel it.

  21. seemorerocks 21
    23 February 2012 at 2:14 pm

    Thanks for bringing this to our attention. When I try the googling I can find diddly-squat.
    I did this article which talked about a govt debt level of 71.7 billion

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/5106876/Government-debt-rises-to-71-6-billion

    With all the secrecy is there any reason why we shouldn’t be confused?!

  22. starlight 22
    23 February 2012 at 7:38 pm

    Key and english’s active use of tax payers dollars on luxury and needless exhorbatant luxuries
    started just after gaining office,the BMW’s heralded the start of millions of dollars taken
    from the tax payers of nz.
    Joseph Stiglitz a nobel prize winning economist points out that merill lynch was one of
    the major US banks involved in scandals as 2001-2002 proceeded,(the roaring ninetees,why
    we are paying the price for the greediest decade in history,penguin 2003,pg 140).
    In reviewing the financial deriliction of the 90’s,Stiglitz observed that the offences of
    enron,worldcom,citigroup and merill lynch put the act of political crookedness to shame.
    Later too it turned out that merill lynch was one of the biggest peddlers of toxic junk bonds
    and derivatives helping trigger the ongoing economic stress of the western world today.
    The history of key and merill lynch mirrors the actions of economic realities here in nz today
    when the so called ‘whizz kid’ of the national party can take the nz economoy from a $6b+
    surplus(recorded in the books) to a $50b + deficit without a backward glance and then
    proceed to make all hard working nz’ers pay for his short-commings.
    The only thing that can save nz and its economy is and early election,if god is looking
    over us,’please find a way’