Pull the other one, John

Written By: - Date published: 8:16 am, March 13th, 2012 - 81 comments
Categories: debt / deficit, Economy, john key - Tags: ,

Key to Mike Hosking: “New Zealand either needs to borrow more or earn more, and I’m in the camp that we need to earn more”

sourced from stats infoshare and the PREFU if you want to see the long-run. Just makes Key’s look even worse.

81 comments on “Pull the other one, John ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. marsman 1
    13 March 2012 at 8:40 am

    Earn more by selling off high yielding State Assets? What a slimeball.
    Borrow more to afford tax cuts for the wealthy? What incompetent slimeballs.

    • Treetop 1.1
      13 March 2012 at 4:01 pm

      “Earn more by selling off high yielding State Assets?”

      Under Muldoon there was “think big” when it came to state assets. Under Key it is “think small” when it comes to gaining revenue from high earning state asset dividends.

      Under both the deficit has grown and grown and grown.

      • shreddakj 1.1.1
        13 March 2012 at 4:05 pm

        The only thing the Nats are thinking big about is how much money they can skim off the top of the NZ People and into their mates’ back pockets.

        • Marjorie Dawe 1.1.1.1
          13 March 2012 at 5:29 pm

          Maybe we should start asking for evidence to show where the money is going.
          Remember those words “Show us the money”!!

  2. tsmithfield 2
    13 March 2012 at 8:53 am

    Well, looking at the graphs, we certainly don’t need to borrow more.

    • Kotahi Tane Huna 2.1
      13 March 2012 at 9:08 am

      Especially since we are borrowing the money from the people who got the tax cut we borrowed the money to pay for.

      In fact, since the combined wealth of the richest Kiwis increased by $7bn between 2010 and 2011, I don’t think we should even consider paying them back.

    • mik e 2.2
      13 March 2012 at 5:28 pm

      Tsm Maybe we could raise taxes on those who don’t pay any.

  3. shreddakj 3
    13 March 2012 at 9:08 am

    The record speaks for itself, National are liars, hypocrites and have no idea what they’re doing or where they’re going.

    • Tombstone 3.1
      13 March 2012 at 9:19 am

      They know what they’re doing alright and voters let them get away with it last election. Brand Key was all about focus on the man, not the policies and certainly not the appalling management of the economy. Voters fell for it hook, line and sinker and Key and his rich mates have been laughing all the way to the bank ever since. Key is a shocker and I agree with others, a liar and hypocrite. He says one thing then acts out another. I don’t want to see Kiwis becoming tenants in our own country but I’m dead keen to flog these farms off to my mates in China – even as individual packages if need be. Two faced liar.

      • Enough is Enough 3.1.1
        13 March 2012 at 10:23 am

        Key knows exactly what he is doing.

        He was brought into the National caucus in 2002 with Don Brash to do exactly this. Brash fell over but Key was given the job his promoters put him in Parliament to do.

        Don’t be fooled by the fact everyone is suffering. ‘Everyone’ was never somehing he was told he had to worry or care about.

        This has been a 10 year project that was always going to come to fruition in the Nat’s second term.

        They will not see a third term but that does not matter to them. By that time the 10 year project will be more or less completed. The state sector will have shrunk, the state assets will be in the hands of corporate investors, the benefit system would have been dismantled, ACC will be privatised, schools will be private in drag. The net wealth of the top 5% will have increased by at least 100% at the same time the people falling below the poverty line increases to levels not seen since the depression, possibly ever.

        This is the most dangerous government in New Zealand’s history. Yes worse than Douglas or Ruth. time to stand up and fight

        • shreddakj 3.1.1.1
          13 March 2012 at 11:16 am

          So it’s like the bastard child of Muldoon and Ruth Richardson? Slash and burn neoliberal economics combined with the funnelling of state funds into projects (like their private-monopoly-establishing fibre optic plan, the building of private prisons and private charter schools) that will put more money in the pockets of their rich mates. Does that just about sum it up? Actually it’s a lot worse than that I think but it’s probably a start.

        • starlight 3.1.1.2
          13 March 2012 at 11:21 am

          You are right it was a long term strategy,remember the ‘secret’ recordings,in it key and
          english say they will go easy in the first term,then in the second term they will lauch
          their offensive on nz and it is offensive,thats all that can be said about the irrepairable
          damage key and english are inflicting on nz.
          Did nz see any benefit from ruthless richardson,shitley,muldoon etc? no because
          the nats only know how to line their own pockets and have no desire to look after
          the bulk of nz’ers,they need to be in power though to get their ill gotten gains,that
          is why there are lies,secret plans,corruption and yes they have to haul the starstruck
          in,enter the ‘key’ brand,job done ,nz hi-jacked by the few at the detriment of the masses.
          Key expected to get ‘unbridled power’ he did not,though he is behaving as though
          he did.

        • Kevin 3.1.1.3
          13 March 2012 at 12:38 pm

          You are exactly right in your prediction.The National Party is committed to cleaning out what remaining blue ribbon assets this country possesses, selling them to their crony mates, and bringing the country to it’s knee’s.

  4. Colonial Viper 4
    13 March 2012 at 9:17 am

    The more assets we sell, the more our GDP goes straight into foreign owners pockets.

  5. vto 5
    13 March 2012 at 9:55 am

    So, if Key said this ” “New Zealand either needs to borrow more or earn more, and I’m in the camp that we need to earn more”…..

    then I trust Hosking responded immediately with “Well if you don’t want to borrow then why have you borrowed more than any other government in NZ’s history? Are you not saying one thing and doing another Mr Key?”

    did he? did he? betcha he didn’t. Hosking is useless.

    • tc 5.1
      13 March 2012 at 9:59 am

      Key will not attend any forum where he’s asked tough questions, Hoskins is another shill like Holmes, woodham, smith, Williams it’s what ZB does best.

      Suck up to the govt and dog whistle on their behalf, Hoskins is all hot air and pomp very little substance just rant.

    • rosy 5.2
      13 March 2012 at 8:30 pm

      He could have also responded with ‘best we keep our income earning assets in our own hands then, Mr Key’.

  6. Rob 6
    13 March 2012 at 10:44 am

    Of course we need to earn more, why are you so offended by this comment.

    • aj 6.1
      13 March 2012 at 10:50 am

      Because he is either a hypocrite, a liar, or stupid, or a combination of all three.
      He has presided over a government that has earned less and borrowed shit loads. Despite this, he campaigned since 2008 on earning more and borrowing less, and has repeated this mantra for over three years while doing the opposite.

      • Chris 6.1.1
        13 March 2012 at 11:29 am

        While borrowing has been horrendous the graph shows GDP has increased since National came to power.

        • Hayden 6.1.1.1
          13 March 2012 at 11:42 am

          It’s increased from 7950 to 7800?

          • Chris 6.1.1.1.1
            13 March 2012 at 11:56 am

            National weren’t in power at the start of 2008 Q3 – they took power in November 2008 so effectively 2009 Q1 before they had a chance to do anything.

            • Hayden 6.1.1.1.1.1
              13 March 2012 at 12:19 pm

              That’s a fair cop, but you said “since National came to power” so let’s go for $7850 as a start point. 😛

        • Blighty 6.1.1.2
          13 March 2012 at 1:03 pm

          No it hasn’t.

          National came in in Q4 of 2008.

          GDP per capita then was $7,818. Latest it’s $7,781

          and you should look at the increase in the previous decade to see real growth.

    • Blighty 6.2
      13 March 2012 at 11:05 am

      I think the offensive bit is the bit about him claiming to be all about growth not borrowing and, by extension, that his opponents are for the opposite when he has borrowed more than any other pm and has the worst growth record.

      • Jim Nald 6.2.1
        13 March 2012 at 11:15 am

        Can we start to see a pattern here for his success in his previous career ?

        Fine for that job but wrong person for the PM’s job.

    • Draco T Bastard 6.3
      13 March 2012 at 1:05 pm

      Because, while saying that we need to earn more, Key is selling off our assets that contributes to the earning, Borrowing the most in our history and giving those borrowings to the biggest bludgers – the rich.

  7. Koptahi Tane Huna 7
    13 March 2012 at 10:52 am

    Key isn’t “offensive”, he’s a clear and present danger to the country’s well-being, deserving of a harsh and direct response.

  8. tc 8
    13 March 2012 at 11:21 am

    The most galling aspect is he’s given many soapboxes to keep telling these porkys and lull the sheeple into their trap as we don’t have any serious intelligent independant journalists anymore just lackeys to their cause.

    As an oz colleague remarked…..can’t your media read and understand economic data ? WTF is going on over there……the great neo lib con and sell off assisted by MSM mates with compliant owners.

    • King Kong 8.1
      13 March 2012 at 11:34 am

      When you start calling the NZ electorate “sheeple” you show what really lies at the heart of your political thinking…People of NZ are morons who don’t know what is best for them. Because of this democracy is a waste of time so lets crack on with the totalitarialism that Socialism always decends into.

      • Enough is Enough 8.1.1
        13 March 2012 at 12:01 pm

        King Kong

        there is a multi billion dollar industry called marketing. This industry is run by the very people and corporations that endeavour to extract as much wealth as possible from the poor who can’t in turn afford to participate in this industry.

        Marketing works. People will do what Marketers tell them to do. Only one small sector of society can afford to market though.

        So yes the public are sheep because they aren’t told the truth

      • mik e 8.1.2
        13 March 2012 at 5:21 pm

        KK The missing link is back with heavy handed B/S
        Like unfettered capitalism also descends into totalitarianism KK just look at hisTory.
        A balance between the two is the best for sheeple.
        If the balance tilts to far to the right or leftr it seems to do the most damage

        • Rusty Shackleford 8.1.2.1
          13 March 2012 at 5:25 pm

          “unfettered capitalism also descends into totalitarianism”
          Can you give an example? The fascist regimes were had economies firmly guided by the govt hand. They more resembled the ideal of Keynesian economics, hardly unfettered capitalism.

          • McFlock 8.1.2.1.1
            13 March 2012 at 5:51 pm

            Rusty, you give me an example of unfettered capitalism (or real-world application approaching the ideal, to a level of error to your satisfaction) and I’ll give you a totalitarian result (or real-world application approaching the ideal).

            • Rusty Shackleford 8.1.2.1.1.1
              13 March 2012 at 6:02 pm

              The US, post civil war up till the progressive era, was relatively free market. No central bank or monetary monopoly. Zero income tax and low taxes in general. GDP growth was robust during this time and bank panics, although frequent, were short lived. Wages grew faster in 1880 than at any other point in the proceeding century. Inflation was low, actually trending towards mild deflation. Prices for many consumer goods dropped precipitously and many more goods became available for working class people. I could go on.

              • McFlock …
                13 March 2012 at 6:16 pm

                Fair enough. And there was the little matter of massacres of Native Americans, and the not-infrequent murders of union organisers (or poor people in general, or ranchers vs farmers), not to mention expansion into the Philippines and Cuba.
                   
                And even then the market collapsed into the Great Depression, leading to a number of acts that might have been economically necessary but were judged to be unconstitutional.

                • Rusty Shackleford …
                  13 March 2012 at 6:22 pm

                  Much of the conflict you highlight was committed by govt(remembering, I never said the period was perfectly free market, just more so than today).

                  The great depression was the puncturing of an inflationary boom caused by the fed which had been instituted a decade earlier. The GD was not caused by the relative prosperity of the back half of the 19th century.

                  • McFlock …
                    13 March 2012 at 6:33 pm

                    Government at the behest of the capital that ran it. And most of it was organised by good old fashioned private enterprise: “you provide the pictures, and I’ll provide the war!”
                          
                           
                    Relative prosperity – if you were one of the rich white people. Funded primarily by slaughter of Native Americans and the terrorising of recently “liberated” slaves (gotta love the growth rate of the KKK).
                    Summary executions (aka “lynchings”) done at the local or even non-civic level – just folks getting together in a nice government-free way. As for the GD, not getting into that again – somewhat a digression from a digressive point. 
                       

                     

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      13 March 2012 at 7:20 pm

                      And the problem of capital controlling govt has grown worse as govt power has increased.

                    • McFlock …
                      13 March 2012 at 8:03 pm

                      But Rusty, it’s a feedback loop: Capital provides an advantage in government -> the advantage in government provides leverage for capital to require government intervention -> the intervention is in favour of the capital (i.e. the payoff for dallying in politics) -> more capital provides greater advantage in government and greater incentive to dally. 
                             
                      That’s the point – unfettered markets provide capitalists with an advantage to manipulate the government into serving their own interests. In the long run it’s more brutal and restrictive than a moderately-regulated market. 

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      13 March 2012 at 8:07 pm

                      Fine, let’s scale back to only moderately regulated markets.

                    • McFlock …
                      14 March 2012 at 12:47 pm

                      lol – IMO markets are already too lightly regulated…

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      14 March 2012 at 12:50 pm

                      Let’s take a look at that.

                      What is involved in all transactions? Money. Who controls the money supply and issuance of currency? The government. Money being one side of all transactions, fully 50% of markets are completely govt controlled. And we haven’t even got onto taxes and regulations yet.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 March 2012 at 12:38 pm

                      much lolz! Are businesses prohibited from providing their own fungible token means of exchange? Nope- discount or freebie coupons are an example, as are flight points.
                         
                      But government-issued money is more reliable (both in preserving value and in universal acceptance) in the marketplace than mcdollars or barter, so the vast majority of the population choose to use govt funds. There’s no law saying I have to use coin, is there? But the marketplace chooses to do so, because it’s more efficient than anything private enterprise comes up with.

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      15 March 2012 at 1:05 pm

                      “Are businesses prohibited from providing their own fungible token means of exchange?”
                      Yes they are. Try paying your taxes with a New World coupon book (do they still make those?)

                      “But government-issued money is more reliable”
                      Sincerely, that is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard from someone who claims to be knowledgeable about economics. The value of the $NZ is guaranteed by law to be worth at least 1% percent less in 12 months than it is today. Often it exceeds that amount. The value of the $US IS 1% of what it was in 1929. Almost no other asset class performed that poorly.

                      “There’s no law saying I have to use coin, is there?”
                      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_tender

                      “But the marketplace chooses to do so”
                      The market place has nothing to do with it. Fiat currency is forced on the population by govt. Precious metals were the medium of exchange of choise for millennia. The idea of paper as money, backed by nothing, is a relatively recent invention.

                      Much lolz indeed.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 March 2012 at 2:00 pm

                      Not being able to pay tax with coupons is sort of the point – private currency is not something anybody else has to accept. Legal tender, they do.
                          
                      And reliability of legal tender is more reliable than private currency  – even if it might not be perfect. I still have a couple of vouchers lying around from stores that no longer exist. Governments go under less often than businesses. Valueless is a hell of a lot worse than devalued. 
                                 
                      As a consumer, there’s no law saying I have to use legal tender. As a vendor, I have to accept it if offered, fair enough. But if my private means of exchange, say fly-bys points, were better than legal tender, my customers would only offer fly-bys points. That’s the market in action – I thought you’d know that?
                              
                      As for the evolution of currency, the measure of value is essentially arbitrary. It’s essentially a token of confidence and good faith. Back when money was based on precious metals, the economy was occasionally distorted by rapid changes in supply of those metals (e.g. silver taken to Spain from Central and South America, or Roman gold from Spain) but no change in production of anything else. The resulting inflation was basically the same as the credit crunch – money was no longer based on such a scarce resource, it devalued, and consumer confidence sunk proportionately.
                          
                      A means of exchange is not bartering by token. It is the item of transferable value, and the rest of the economy is benchmarked around it. I can go either way on the gold standard, but can see the point to having the value of the currency linked to a supply the government can control. And the key thing thing that the government has complete control over the supply of is the currency itself.
                       
                       

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      15 March 2012 at 3:01 pm

                      “the measure of value is essentially arbitrary.”
                      This isn’t true. Value emerged out of what quantities of goods could be exchanged for other quantities of goods (and services). The ratios are extremely complex and ever changing. Try bartering for a dozen eggs if all you have to exchange is a tractor.

                      Gold (and other items) emerged as currency independently in disparate regions of the globe because that is what the market demanded. Nobody controlled it, other items could easily have substituted for gold. Fiat money isn’t analogous to this as it is controlled by an institution. If it gets devalued, people can’t easily move away from it into other exchange commodities. Gold they can.

                      “the economy was occasionally distorted by rapid changes in supply of those metals”
                      But, it’s constantly distorted by rapid changes in the supply of paper and electronic money. In far greater quantities. The Reserve Bank could create a trillion dollars before lunch if it wanted to. Try digging up that much gold.

                      “And the KEY thing thing that the government has complete control over the supply of is the currency itself.”
                      You really want him in charge of one side of all transactions that take place?

                    • McFlock …
                      15 March 2012 at 7:03 pm

                      Value emerged out of what quantities of goods could be exchanged for other quantities of goods (and services). The ratios are extremely complex and ever changing.  

                       But whether a dollar buys a pound of gold or 1/1000th of an ounce is arbitrary. What counts is that it is a yardstick against which everything else is measured, not that it is nailed to the price of precious metals or a weight of salt.
                       

                      Fiat money isn’t analogous to this as it is controlled by an institution. If it gets devalued, people can’t easily move away from it into other exchange commodities. Gold they can.

                      Yeah, in order to move into another medium of exchange they’d either need a forex market or even maybe a gold trader at the local mall. Such things would never be seen /sarc

                      If fiat money were so hard to get away from, why is it that   in most warzones when the local currency is worthless black markets operate on cash like USD, Euros or RMB?
                      And fiat currency is electronically transferable around the planet. Gold isn’t.  

                      Historically, gold and silver rushes have been large enough to distort economies. If a government doesn’t want to distort the economy today, it slows the generation of money. In the old days, it would have had to spend a lot of money preventing people from digging it up themselves. E.g. the largely futile attempt to stop conflict diamonds entering the global market doubles as a way for the controllers of diamond supply to preserve the value of their commodity. But it simply doesn’t work.

                       
                      And if you knew the RBA, you’d know that it’s Bollard who controls the money supply in NZ. With specific objectives to maintain currency value – although I’d also tack in other economic benchmarks. And I’d sure as shit trust a politician (who can be kicked out after 3 years) rather than say a De Beer or a Zaharoff or a Hearst or any other upstanding crook businessman.
                       
                       

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      15 March 2012 at 7:24 pm

                      “But whether a dollar buys a pound of gold or 1/1000th of an ounce is arbitrary. ”
                      It isn’t arbitrary. Money is a commodity. Just like gold, socks or beans. You can price commodities in quantities of other commodities. Try trading a basket of vegetables you grew to your neighbor for his car and see what he says about prices being “arbitrary”.

                      The peg of the dollar to gold is arbitrary, but I’m not advocating for that. The govt can continue to issue worthless scrip if it wants to. Just don’t stop free people from issuing their own currencies.

                      “…in order to move into another medium of exchange they’d either need a forex market or even maybe a gold trader at the local mall.”
                      There is a gold trader at my local mall. I’m not exactly sure what your point is.

                      “If fiat money were so hard to get away from, why is it that in most warzones when the local currency is worthless black markets operate on cash like USD, Euros or RMB?”
                      Because those currencies are simply less debased than the local currency. Still debased, just less so.

                      “Historically, gold and silver rushes have been large enough to distort economies.”
                      When? Historically, fiat money has and continues to distort economies.

                      “the largely futile attempt to stop conflict diamonds entering the global market”
                      Conflict diamonds are a politically supported ruse to keep the price of diamonds high. Diamonds aren’t actually that rare.

                      “And if you knew the RBA, you’d know that it’s Bollard who controls the money supply in NZ. With specific objectives to maintain currency value”
                      He is a paragon of Friedmanite economic theory. A mmonetarist through and through.

                      He doesn’t do a very good job of maintaining the value of the currency. He is mandated to devalue it by at least 1% a year. That is not stable pricing. It’s theft.

                      “I’d sure as shit trust a politician rather than say a De Beer or a Zaharoff”
                      I don’t trust any of them. I’d rather see the means of exchange decentralised.

                    • McFlock …
                      15 March 2012 at 9:22 pm

                      The peg of the dollar to gold is arbitrary, but I’m not advocating for that. The govt can continue to issue worthless scrip if it wants to. Just don’t stop free people from issuing their own currencies.

                       
                      Governments don’t stop people from inventing or using other means of exchange (barter, fly-bys, other national currencies). They just ensure that there’s at least one means of exchange that is universal within their territory, thus enabling more efficient commerce.
                       

                      There is a gold trader at my local mall. I’m not exactly sure what your point is.

                      My point is that other means of exchange are already available, and yet almost everybody in NZ uses NZD. Not because they are forced to, but because it gives us the freedom to move from store to store to get the best deal. Similarly, in warzones etc people move to other currencies freely. There is choice to move to other means of exchange all the time. But the fact that a national currency is guaranteed to be accepted anywhere in the territory makes NZD the most efficient means of exchange, so people choose that.
                      Or should Countdown be forced to accept NW coupons?

                       
                       
                      “Historically, gold and silver rushes have been large enough to distort economies.”
                      When? Historically, fiat money has and continues to distort economies.

                      As opposed to “decentralised”  currencyspeculation within countries, not just internationally.
                       

                      Diamonds aren’t actually that rare.

                      My point exactly. So linking the value of means of exchange to any commodity means that preserving a relatively constant value of the means of exchange relies on the ability of your decentralised market being able to restrict the supply of that commodity (or maintain production levels, in the case of oil).

                        
                      He doesn’t do a very good job of maintaining the value of the currency. He is mandated to devalue it by at least 1% a year. That is not stable pricing. It’s theft.

                      But it’s more stable than currency values determined by a sharemarket equivalent.
                       

                      “I’d sure as shit trust a politician rather than say a De Beer or a Zaharoff”
                      I don’t trust any of them. I’d rather see the means of exchange decentralised.
                       

                      Of course, “free markets” naturally form oligarchies like Hearst and so on. Capital advantage breeds capital advantage.

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      16 March 2012 at 12:45 pm

                      McFlock, the first man to call someone a right wing nut job when they don’t subscribe to his special little view of the world is also the first to vehemently defend neo-liberal policy when his special little view of the world is threatened.

                      “Capital advantage breeds capital advantage.”
                      Tell that to Kodak.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 March 2012 at 1:28 pm

                      McFlock, the first man to call someone a right wing nut job when they don’t subscribe to his special little view of the world is also the first to vehemently defend neo-liberal policy when his special little view of the world is threatened.

                      Seriously?
                      Where did I defend that?
                               
                      And more to the point, is your position that inflation affects government money, but not your “decentralised” limited means of exchange?

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      16 March 2012 at 1:55 pm

                      Central bank activism is monetarist/neo-liberal policy. The first governor to really get involved in economic cycles was none other than Don Brash.

                      “…inflation affects government money, but not your “decentralised” limited means of exchange?”
                      I never said that either. People are likely to flee from a private currency that is losing its value. Working people can’t really flee from the dollar because what are their alternatives? Some buy gold or other commodities or other currencies but most don’t have the knowledge or wherewithal. They just accept inflation as a matter of course when they don’t really have to.

                    • McFlock …
                      16 March 2012 at 2:18 pm

                      Central bank activism as the only mechanism of economic management, and solely obsessed with NAIRU as an economic target is monetarist/neo-liberal policy. The first governor to really get involved in economic cycles was none other than Don Brash.

                       FIFY.
                       And Brash had to work to the description in the RBA – change that and you have a Reserve Bank that works in concert with the rest of the economy.
                       

                      “…inflation affects government money, but not your “decentralised” limited means of exchange?”
                      I never said that either. People are likely to flee from a private currency that is losing its value. Working people can’t really flee from the dollar because what are their alternatives? Some buy gold or other commodities or other currencies but most don’t have the knowledge or wherewithal. They just accept inflation as a matter of course when they don’t really have to.

                       People flee from a public currency when the cost of losing its value exceeds the benefit that universal tender gives them. But the public money supply is so stable that I can’t use my McD’s free burger coupon to pay for petrol. Maybe one day you’ll be right and government will fuck up so badly that I can (but that will probably be “run for the hills” time anyway).
                         
                      You really expect people who walk past gold-traders and currency exchanges in their local mall (but still lack the “knowledge or wherewithal” to use them) to have the “knowledge and wherewithal” to speculate on internal currency fluctuations like day-traders (who are hardly ever successful, anyway)? I’m not sure you’ve thought this through.
                            

                       

                    • Rusty Shackleford …
                      16 March 2012 at 2:35 pm

                      Ermm, the RBA came in at the height of the neo-liberal reforms.

                      “change ‘that’ and you have a Reserve Bank that works in concert with the rest of the economy.”
                      What is ‘that’? The RBA? How will changing the RBA make the Reserve bank work “in concert with the rest of the economy’.

                      I can’t believe you’re actually defending central banking. You’re probably in the minority on this site, and certainly in the minority amongst anyone who has ever studied the issue who isn’t a corporatist shill. Central banking works diametrically opposed to free citizens and works directly for the rich and large companies.

                      I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised by internal inconsistencies from you at this point.

                      “the public money supply is so stable”
                      Stable compared to what? I wouldn’t call a 70% devaluation since 1970 stable. No other asset or commodity has performed that poorly.

                      And stop calling coupons an alternative to money. I honestly thought you were being facetious the first time you brought it up. Try issuing your own currency and see what happens to you. There is NO currency competition in NZ. If you issue paper money as a medium of exchange, even if it is backed by a corresponding asset, you will go to prison. End of.

                      “Maybe one day you’ll be right and government will fuck up so badly that I can (but that will probably be “run for the hills” time anyway).”
                      Erm, well yea. That is kind of my point.

                      “to speculate on internal currency fluctuations like day-traders”
                      Good job! You thrashed that straw man to pieces! I almost feel sorry for him.

                      Currency fluctuations are caused by central banking practices. ie fiat money. If we had gold as our currency people with savings would be richer today than they were a year ago. Simply through deflation. Not even looking at appreciation in the value of the commodity. People wouldn’t need to speculate. Speculation is a by product of the inflation endemic in the issuance of a monopoly fiat currency.

                    • McFlock …
                      17 March 2012 at 12:22 am

                      Rusty, if you can’t identify the subject of a pretty simple paragraph, I’m not surprised you’re a tory.
                                    
                      Firstly, the RBA did come in as part of 4Lab. That does not make it bad. So did nuclear free legislation. I’m sure Roger Douglas was nice to a small child around that time, too. What makes RBA of the late 80s a truly crap idea is that it was solely obsessed with inflation as a target, rather than including GDP and unemployment. Add targets for those two – as a start – and it becomes quite interesting in a good way.  Hence the “that” – change the description that the RB works to in the RBA, i.e. the fixation on inflation. Meaning as soon as the economy starts growing, we don’t have the RB trying to slow everything down because unemployment is falling.
                               
                      Your obsession with central banking is typical of a knee-jerk “govt bad, therefore central banking bad” response, rather than actually looking at the whole subject. I don’t see the inconsistency from what I ight have said previously, but feel free to provide a link.    

                            

                      “the public money supply is so stable”
                      Stable compared to what?

                       Again, your inability to understand English. Preceding sentence you failed to quote: “People flee from a public currency when the cost of losing its value exceeds the benefit that universal tender gives them.” So the the value the public money loses (its instability) is smaller than the economic benefit people gain from being able to use it everywhere in NZ. Unless of course you can find me a law in NZ that prohibits me from issuing a promisary note that can be redeemed at any time for a given quantity of gold or potatoes.
                       

                      I wouldn’t call a 70% devaluation since 1970 stable. No other asset or commodity has performed that poorly.

                       
                      Not one asset? In the world? How about those transrail shares bought in the 1990s? DotCom bubbles? Real estate bubbles?  Zimbabwe farmland? Enron shares? A 1975 mini cooper? A monohull oil tanker built at the same time?   
                          
                      And you assume that “decentralised” money isn’t equally vulnerable to inflation and speculative devaluation.

                      If you issue paper money as a medium of exchange, even if it is backed by a corresponding asset, you will go to prison. End of.

                      Source? I’ve not heard that one before. Coupons count, IMO, because they are tokens that are exchanged for goods or services. Like dollars.
                       

                      “Maybe one day you’ll be right and government will fuck up so badly that I can (but that will probably be “run for the hills” time anyway).”
                      Erm, well yea. That is kind of my point.

                      What, that if government cash screws up I WILL be able to use McD coupons instead of dollars? But that petrol stations simply choose to not accept McDs vouchers today because they aren’t allowed?
                       
                       

                      Currency fluctuations are caused by central banking practices. ie fiat money. If we had gold as our currency people with savings would be richer today than they were a year ago. Simply through deflation. Not even looking at appreciation in the value of the commodity. People wouldn’t need to speculate. Speculation is a by product of the inflation endemic in the issuance of a monopoly fiat currency.

                      So gold prices are guaranteed to go up forever? People who invested in property over the last few years experienced the opposite. People speculate about gold. Companies expanding mines into lower-yield areas are speculating that the new high prices will remain in place long enough for the more expensive mining practices to still make a profit.
                         
                      And when you talk about “decentralised” money, are you talking gold or just everyone issuing script promising to be of the value of a certain quantity of whatever-the-fuck?
                             

      • rosy 8.1.3
        13 March 2012 at 8:36 pm

        Or we’ll just start taking their democracy off them in little bits – ECan, CERA, super-city set-up, employee rights. Clearly the party in power doesn’t think much of democracy.

  9. The Baron 9
    13 March 2012 at 11:22 am

    Graph 1. “hey what else happened since 2008, beyond this govt’s control, that could explain this??!”

    Graph 2. Didn’t the labour party essentially promise to borrow even more than this over the next five years, had they have won? Aren’t you one of the voices, Zetty, that have screamed any number of times for fiscal stimulus to drive wage growth? Where do you think that stimulus would have come from?

    Oh that’s right, the solution to both is the magical money tree that Phil Goff found!

    You’re a partisan, hypocritical hack Zetitic. This strategy of outrage on finances still doesn’t work because the electorate isn’t full of the idiot public that you take them to be.

    • shreddakj 9.1
      13 March 2012 at 11:28 am

      1. That global recession that our Dear Leader assured us we were “roaring” out of.
      2. They said they were going to borrow to maintain the economy, which they would have done. That’s called being honest. Nact are borrowing to pay for things which destabilise the economy, like tax cuts for the rich.

    • Bored 9.2
      13 March 2012 at 11:37 am

      As usual Baron does not actually address the real issues, so some questions:

      Graph 1. “hey what else happened since 2008, beyond this govt’s control, that could explain this??!” yes the financial crisis….to which a prudent government might have responded how? (Try cancel tax cuts, examine carefully bail out facilities to SFC etc perhaps).

      Graph 2. Didn’t the labour party essentially promise to borrow even more than this over the next five years, had they have won? As above, when an unexpected event occurs perhaps a little prudence would dictate a different course of action like cancelling planned spending or shoring up income? Not having promised unaffordable tax cuts would have helped perhaps?

      Baron in his usual pillock way has postulated a “Labour equivalent” for the time Nact have governed whilst completely ignoring the reality the graphs demonstrate. That I suggest is a complete disregard by Key and English for prudence and an extreme hurry to place the burden of debt on the citizens for the benefit of a very few of their wealthy supporters.

  10. starlight 10
    13 March 2012 at 11:29 am

    Huey,duey,luey could manage this economy better,key is borrowing $380 mil a week,he got caught out by borrowing more than he needs,a probe here please, also a probe into the fact
    that he is a shareholder in the bank of america where he is borrowing the money from,if
    he is borrowing more than needed,who is getting the benefit of those surplus funds?

  11. Bill 11
    13 March 2012 at 11:33 am

    …I’m in the camp that we need to earn more”

    You do get it, that the ‘we’ camp John claims to be a party to isn’t any camp seeking solutions with regards NZ, don’t you?

    The ‘we’ who have to earn more money are Johnny Boy and his ‘rip, shit and bust’ mates. And they’re setting it up nicely. And will be doing just fine soon enough…

  12. Kevin 12
    13 March 2012 at 12:40 pm

    By the way Hoskings is not that bright and Key finds it easy manipulating him.

  13. (A different) Nick K 13
    13 March 2012 at 12:42 pm

    John Key made a lot of money, therefore he must be doing the right thing for the country. I trust him and his cheesy smile over statistics any day.

  14. Blue 14
    13 March 2012 at 2:03 pm

    When you give massive tax cuts right as a global recession hits, one of two things can happen.

    1. The tax cuts have a huge stimulatory effect, larger than has ever been recorded previously, boosting confidence and leading to a mass wave of consumption and investment while everyone is simultaneously nervously eyeing the rest of world to see if economic collapse is imminent.

    2. The Government is starved of revenue as consumption falls, jobs are cut, and exports plunge, leaving the Government to borrow lots of money and spin some bullshit about how the recovery is going to happen any moment now and they will be able to pay off the debt.

    Spending a billion on bailing out South Canterbury Finance investors probably didn’t look like such a great move after the Christchurch earthquakes hit either.

    Oh, to have had Michael Cullen as Finance Minister for another term.

    • shreddakj 14.1
      13 March 2012 at 3:17 pm

      “One of two things can happen”

      Both of those things happened, almost. Nact cut taxes and starved revenue even further. This had zero stimulatory effect on the economy though, so that part of your scenario 1 didn’t happen at all. Then the government had to borrow a truckload because they had castrated the revenue stream, and didn’t put any of the money into schemes that would stimulate the economy. So they did everything just about as bad as they possibly could have. The worst of all worlds.

  15. Mark 15
    13 March 2012 at 2:54 pm

    Just a question.. how much did the massive tax cuts cost.. if we can call that a cost rather than a theft reduction.
    And on what income bands did the greatest “cost” occur..
    What have the taxpayers done with the extra money they have been “given” 

    • shreddakj 15.1
      13 March 2012 at 3:19 pm

      If I recall correctly, the latest round of tax cuts are leaving the government’s coffers about 2 billion dollars a year out of pocket. If John Key’s net worth is anything to go by, they’ve been busily increasing their own personal empires.

  16. Rusty Shackleford 16
    13 March 2012 at 3:36 pm

    Notice how there’s no correlation between govt spending and GDP? You could extrapolate that out for decades and this axiom would remain.

    • McFlock 16.1
      13 March 2012 at 3:41 pm

      And how do you get government spending from either of those graphs, Rusty?

    • Bored 16.2
      13 March 2012 at 4:24 pm

      Even for you Rusty that is quite possibly the most stupid statement I have seen for a while. And it does not even relate to information on the graphs.

    • Draco T Bastard 16.3
      13 March 2012 at 6:00 pm

      Government deficit closely matches private surplus. I think that’s the most telling statistic about the delusional economic theory we use.

  17. Rusty Shackleford 17
    13 March 2012 at 4:42 pm

    The govt doesn’t spend the money it borrows? Interesting.

  18. McFlock 18
    13 March 2012 at 4:57 pm

    Debt = spending – income, where income < spending.
          
    If you, say, cut income but maintain constant spending, then debt increases.
            
    So if you cut taxes and your spending remains the same, your debt goes up. 
       
    There is insufficient data in the graphs supplied to speculate on government expenditure levels. But don’t let that get in the way of your economic catechism. Freedom of religion, and all that.

  19. law 19
    13 March 2012 at 6:21 pm

    Long term trend is an interesting look… seems the growth in debt has been on a steady increase since 2007 despite massive surpluses

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/New_Zealand_overseas_debt_1993-2010.svg