Reserve Bank predicts economic growth under new government

128 comments on “Reserve Bank predicts economic growth under new government ”

• Comments are now closed

1. Aaron 1

   9 November 2017 at 3:20 pm

   Labour always runs a capitalist economy better than the capitalists, there are multiple layers of irony here of course but it’s not hard to do because National basically runs a plunderers economy. For evidence I remind people that out of the last 4 governments the 84 Labour (Act in disguise), 90 National and 08 National governments presided over downgrades in our national credit rating while only the Clarke government maintained our rating. There’s more evidence out there, those who want to find it will look…

   Part of the problem is that National Party governments don’t usually have a vision for the country although this recent government is so far off that particular scale that it has made previous National governments look quite visionary. Essentially if your only interest is simply to get into power you’ve achieved your vision the day you win the election and everything else is just PR management after that.
   • tracey 1.1

     9 November 2017 at 3:27 pm

     Thanks for comment. Nat govts are very much status quo managers herding wealth toward specific and numerically small targets
   • SpaceMonkey 1.2

     9 November 2017 at 3:50 pm

     National are crony/klepto (or turbo) capitalists. Labour/NZ First are social/responsible capitalists.
     • cleangreen 1.2.1

       9 November 2017 at 8:43 pm

       True statement Space monkey. 100%
     • Stephen Doyle 1.2.2

       10 November 2017 at 8:52 am

       And there’s the difference. National looks at the bottom line only, Labour governs for people, not solely for financial gain.
   • 3stepstotheright 1.3

     9 November 2017 at 4:42 pm

     “I remind people that out of the last 4 governments the 84 Labour (Act in disguise), 90 National and 08 National governments presided over downgrades in our national credit rating while only the Clarke government maintained our rating.”

     That’s misleading, at best. Dishonest at worst.

     Fitch and Standard and Poors both downgraded NZ’s status in the first months of 2009, including as early as January, which you can hardly blame on a government who hadn’t even delivered a budget by that stage.

     https://www.nzdmo.govt.nz/about-us/credit-ratings
     • tracey 1.3.1

       9 November 2017 at 7:01 pm

       But Joyce is demanding a budget after only one month
       • Sam aka clump 1.3.1.1

         9 November 2017 at 7:15 pm

         Just means Moody’s credit officer was rubber stamping aaa rated dog shit.
       • cleangreen 1.3.1.2

         9 November 2017 at 8:48 pm

         Yes Tracey 3stepstotheright is incoherent about ‘time and dates’,

         He/she must be reading off a National party manuscript here.

         We all know the rating agencies all change a countries rating as government changes dont we and not after months.
         • 3stepstotheright 1.3.1.2.1

           9 November 2017 at 9:54 pm

           “He/she must be reading off a National party manuscript here.”
           I quoted the source.

           “We all know the rating agencies all change a countries rating as government changes dont we and not after months.”
           Correct. Two agencies downgraded NZ’s rating after Labour were kicked out in 2008. But wasn’t that my point?

           Thanks anyway.
       • 3stepstotheright 1.3.1.3

         9 November 2017 at 10:00 pm

         No, he’s asking Robertson to confirm he intends honouring his promises. Robertson is just one of many Labour ministers contemplating about faces and broken promises they are going to have to admit to.
         • Sam aka clump 1.3.1.3.1

           10 November 2017 at 12:18 am

           One promise I suspect Robertson will keep is those 10 bridges. Just because.
         • tracey 1.3.1.3.2

           10 November 2017 at 8:57 am

           Really? Why will they have to admit when Key English and Joyce never did? Genuine question btw cos I think ur right their feet will be held to the fire (rightly so) but less than the previous 9 years.

           If an Opposition MP demanded detailed numbers from Key or English only a month after a coalition was announced you would be scornful. I do hope this new found desire for honesty, transparency and accountability flows through to next time Nats rule cos it sure isnt reflected in the 44% who just voted for them.
           • 3stepstotheright 1.3.1.3.2.1

             10 November 2017 at 10:27 am

             Robertson is only being asked to stand by his OWN numbers. He is inheriting a string, growing economy. Why is it so hard for him to stand by figures he published just a matter of weeks ago?
             • tracey …

               10 November 2017 at 11:23 am

               I don’t know, why is it so hard for Joyce and English to admit that the BIG hole was not supported by anyone else AND if they were referring to a zero budget being bad, that English ran zero budgets in 2014 and 2015?
             • reason …

               11 November 2017 at 6:43 pm

               English has cooked the books ….. to an extent that would make Merrill blush ….

               Keys old firm … aka ‘ the blundering herd’ …….

               They ended up losing $46 Billion ….

               They would have loved Bills accounting tricks …..

               Creating ‘assetts’ in the Govt accounts through duress debts…. putting beneficiary in $1000 per week motels because of Govt housing failure…

               Gold plated billshit …
         • Frank Macskasy 1.3.1.3.3

           12 November 2017 at 8:18 am

           You mean, broken promises like not raising GST? Like that one, 3steps?

           Or that the 2009 and 2010 tax cuts were “fiscally neutral” and would involve “no new borrowing”? Like that one, 3steps?

           Or that there would be no cuts to social services and the state sector, 3steps? Is that the one you mean?

           Your criticism if the new coalition government is risable. They’ve only been in office for what, a month? Your suggestion of “broken promises” should be directed more at your party – National. They’ve a whole list of them.

           But no doubt you have justification for each one, eh?
     • reason 1.3.2

       11 November 2017 at 6:20 pm

       GFC …… Caused by greedy dishonest merchant bankers …. like John Key.
   • Bob 1.4

     9 November 2017 at 8:26 pm

     “Labour always runs a capitalist economy better than the capitalists, there are multiple layers of irony here of course but it’s not hard to do because National basically runs a plunderers economy.”
     Can I ask what data you have to support this?
     From what I can see, we just had 9 years of Labour, followed by 9 years of National. That should be a good place to start looking for data right? Lets see how they both left the economy:
     Labour: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2008/027.htm
     National: http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2017/025.htm

     Labour leaves the country in structural deficit for the next 10 years with increasing expenses and decreasing revenues, while Nation leaves the country with increasing revenue and decreasing expenses…what do you consider a well run economy?
     • One Anonymous Bloke 1.4.1

       9 November 2017 at 8:35 pm

       One that doesn’t have record homelessness and double the rate of malnutrition, especially in the context of the wealthiest individuals making off like thieves.

       In 2008, Treasury talked about drought and the price of fuel, about the GFC deregulation clusterfuck. It’s nice of you to imply that the NZLP controls the weather and the international price of oil, but are you saying they were working with the Federal Reserve when Glass-Steagel was repealed? Or perhaps they helped invent credit default swaps?

       Do tell, it’s sure to be entertaining. This is the rainy day you’ve been saving up for, eh.
       • Sam aka clump 1.4.1.1

         9 November 2017 at 8:39 pm

         How Bobs National Party/Act Party Dogma works:

         Bullshit detector: “Labour leaves the country in structural deficit for the next 10 years with increasing expenses and decreasing revenues, while Nation leaves the country with increasing revenue and decreasing expenses…what do you consider a well run economy?”

         English translation: You don’t need to know anything about trading or investing so long as you can borrow $250k-$500k to buy a franchise or home, we will let you sell our junk content for $20 a pop to people who have zero clue about trading or investing.

         Me: Average citizen be warned.
       • cleangreen 1.4.1.2

         9 November 2017 at 8:55 pm

         yes OAB

         I dont think using Treasury advice is really worthy of consideration there.

         As the treasury have been infiltrated with Goldman Sachs ex staffers now.

         They will be pushing for another National Government that they can profit from again themselves with all the inside information they may obtain there.

         Treasury have made some terrible calculations in the last nine years.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 1.4.1.2.1

           10 November 2017 at 6:28 am

           Context is a thing, you know.
       • 3stepstotheright 1.4.1.3

         9 November 2017 at 9:56 pm

         Any malnutrition that does exist in NZ is squarely the fault of parents. But I very much doubt you actually understand what real malnutrition really looks like.
         • Sam aka clump 1.4.1.3.1

           10 November 2017 at 12:16 am

           The rational behind that is this:

           1. Deprieve Kids of abiltity to outperform the parent (which didn’t win National any coalition favours)

           2. Get the people angry at parents (which didnt’ really win any favours either)

           The plus side is that there will not be any more harassment of solo parents on welfare (other then some already in the system) after its cleansed of National Party Dogma.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 1.4.1.3.2

           10 November 2017 at 6:26 am

           Obviously double the number of parents decided not to feed their children properly under National. Do they do it out of spite?

           What is it about the National Party that brings out the worst in people? You should know.
           • tracey 1.4.1.3.2.1

             10 November 2017 at 8:59 am

             Personal responsibility and accountability applies to the poor and low paid NOT to National Cabinet Ministers.
           • 3stepstotheright 1.4.1.3.2.2

             10 November 2017 at 10:20 am

             Poor nutrition. There’s plenty of welfare being paid out. Parents need to make better choices.
             • tracey …

               10 November 2017 at 11:24 am

               Do you think Bennett and Collins should have resigned from parliament due to their breaches of the law and in Collins case leading to death threats against an innocent public servant? That would be what someone who understands personal (and professional) responsibility would do, right? Or is it just the poor who have to pay the price?
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               10 November 2017 at 12:34 pm

               There’s no need to repeat your mantra. Just answer the question.
         • Brigid 1.4.1.3.3

           10 November 2017 at 2:04 pm

           “Any malnutrition that does exist in NZ is squarely the fault of parents.”
           What evidence do you have that this is so?

           Because if this is true, then you must ask the question; “Why do parents willfully starve their kids these days, but didn’t (presumably) when you were a child?”
           Assuming the parent is being willfully negligent, how does the child go about providing for its self?

           What do you suggest is a remedy that will see that no child is starved?

           Nah. Never mind. As you were etc.
           You couldn’t give a damn about malnutrition in NZ, or anywhere, eh.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 1.4.1.3.3.1

             10 November 2017 at 2:20 pm

             Also, what caused the alleged poor parenting rate to double over the last nine years.

             Edit: also, should a random sample of poor parents be given legal aid to sue individual bigots and sadists for defamation?
         • Incognito 1.4.1.3.4

           10 November 2017 at 9:44 pm

           But I very much doubt you actually understand what real malnutrition really looks like.

           Do you know what it looks like?
         • Frank Macskasy 1.4.1.3.5

           12 November 2017 at 8:22 am

           Any malnutrition that does exist in NZ is squarely the fault of parents.

           Yeah, right, blame those at the bottom of the social -economic heap. It means you don’t have to take responsibility for your own Party’s inept policies; wasted resources; unaffordable tax cuts; and failures.

           It’s telling that NZ never had the kind of poverty we’ve experienced under the neo-liberal regime, 3steps. But you’re not willing to look at that, are you? You identify too closely with the Right and free market dogma to think things through.

           So you go to Plan B: blame others.

           Funny though, you Righties demand Personal Responsibility from everyone else except yourselves. I wonder why that is?
     • Kevin 1.4.2

       10 November 2017 at 10:25 am

       http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10548753

       I will even highlight the relevant bit for you:

       —

       Having condemned his predecessor for many years for paying off debt too quickly, English said: “I want to stress that New Zealand starts from a reasonable position in dealing with the uncertainty of our economic outlook.”

       “In New Zealand we have room to respond. This is the rainy day that Government has been saving up for,” he told reporters at the Treasury briefing on the state of the economy and forecasts.

       —
     • reason 1.4.3

       11 November 2017 at 6:53 pm

       Increased corruption, inequality, pollution …… and debt.

       A arsonists Fire economy …. + cows
2. Zorb6 2

   9 November 2017 at 3:21 pm

   Quite possible the acting Governor wants to become the next appointed Governor of the Reserve Bank.
3. roy cartland 3

   9 November 2017 at 3:38 pm

   Stimulus, not austerity, promotes growth. (And not stimulus meaning giving banks more money, but increasing wages and social services. And not growth meaning more numbers on a Bank’s account, but actual useful productivity.)

   Simple.

   https://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2012/oct/04/adding-liquidity-fiscal-stimulus
   https://www.salon.com/2015/07/05/noam_chomsky_austerity_is_just_class_war_partner/
   https://jackrasmus.com/2016/04/18/imf-and-troika-want-still-more-austerity-from-greece-the-wikileaks-revelation/
   • tracey 3.1

     9 November 2017 at 7:12 pm

     Shhhhhhhh. Growth is the answer. If we all just keep waiting they are SO sure it will be the answer
4. mauī 4

   9 November 2017 at 3:48 pm

   It’s not that hard or complicated is it, lift wages of low wage earners so they can actually spend in the economy and have the state invest in infrastructure and new job creation. Hey presto you get growth.

   The right would never do this because their backers want low wages so they as business owners can make bigger profits and because they believe any state intervention is communist, and they have an irrational fear of that.
   • 3stepstotheright 4.1

     9 November 2017 at 4:16 pm

     “The right would never do this because their backers ”

     National have been doing exactly that. Real wages have risen by over 20% in the past 8 years, taxes have been cut, and there has been substantial investment in infrastructure. We have also seen the minimum wage increased virtually every year.
     The result…one of the highest growth rates and employment rates in the OECD.
     • tracey 4.1.1

       9 November 2017 at 7:02 pm

       Real wages might have risen by 20% but the median wage hasnt.

       Beware relying on OECD chummy cos it also has us doing poorly in other areas…
       • Sam aka clump 4.1.1.1

         9 November 2017 at 7:19 pm

         Those numbers are only useful to credit agencies and lenders. National get confused by OECD numbers as much as they get confused by credit ratings. Some time on opposition benches will serve there minds well.
       • 3stepstotheright 4.1.1.2

         9 November 2017 at 10:01 pm

         Real wages are calculated after deducting inflation. And before the benefit of tax cuts. Choke on it.
         • Sam aka clump 4.1.1.2.1

           10 November 2017 at 12:06 am

           bread milk and butter sold at $5 should be priced lower just to fit your well thought out, well researched, and oh so well laid out calculations.
         • tracey 4.1.1.2.2

           10 November 2017 at 9:00 am

           But not house prices, right?
           • 3stepstotheright 4.1.1.2.2.1

             10 November 2017 at 10:25 am

             Why should they be? Owning a house is not a necessity. Eating is.
             • Brigid …

               10 November 2017 at 2:11 pm

               Having a house to live in is a necessity. Therefore someone owns it.
               FFS Stop being so dumb.
             • reason …

               11 November 2017 at 7:12 pm

               3stepstotheright 4.1.1.2.2.1; “Why should they be? Owning a house is not a necessity. Eating is.’Why should they be? Owning a house is not a necessity. Eating is.'” …. This comment resonates with the stupidity of a former village idiot known as maninthemiddle …..

               who needs a roof over their head ?

               Of course the single biggest expense for most should not be included when measuring inflation …

               Other nasty idiotic posters understand this logic ….
           • 3stepstotheright 4.1.1.2.2.2

             10 November 2017 at 11:11 am

             http://stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Households/HouseholdEconomicSurvey_MRYeJun17.aspx

             “Despite increases in both household income and housing costs, the ratio of housing costs to household income has not changed significantly from a decade ago,”

             There is a lot of bullshit spread about housing costs by the left, Tracey. The facts tell a very different story.
             • tracey …

               10 November 2017 at 11:26 am

               ” the ratio of housing costs to household income has not changed significantly from a decade ago,” Does that mean it was acceptable “a decade ago”?
             • Sam aka clump …

               10 November 2017 at 11:42 am

               I don’t particularly feel like looking up sources at the moment, or use other people’s name to get my pet theories across. But here are the effects a MODERATE rise in the minimum wage generally has. It raises the unemployment rate slightly (0.5% points or less), it reduces GDP slightly, it pushes the pay for middle tier positions down, closer to the new minimum wage, and it raises consumer prices a bit. It certainly isn’t the end of the world, and often times the benefits to the working poor far out weigh the harm done to the non-working poor, the middle class and everyone else (presumably the upper class). Because you’re massively redistributing wealth between the middle class and the poor, the effect on different sectors of the economy will be WILDLY different. A defense contractor with few minimum wage employees and no directly link to consumer demand won’t really be effected too much, while a cheap-labor intensive business with high price elasticity might be significantly harmed.

               If the going wage is say $20 and the minimum wage is $15, raising the minimum wage to $16.50 an hour has no effect on employment or wages. So…technically its possible.

               If you are saying raise the wage above minimum wage? Then yes there’s a net loss of jobs.

               Some people do benefit, people who’s wages rises and don’t get fired.

               Interestingly this tends to hurt small businesses more than larger ones. Larger businesses are more likely to face collective action by workers to bargain for higher wages and so in general already have higher wages. Larger businesses in general have better human resources than smaller businesses, so when the wage increases they can just make their employment selection process more strict and only hire more productive workers. Smaller businesses don’t usually have the same screening abilities and are more likely to make the choice between hiring someone who it might not be worth to pay the increase minimum wage, or just leaning on their existing workers for more effort.

               It also has a lot to do with the nature of the nation in questions economy in general.

               The reason this becoming a real issue is that people don’t see any other way to increase stagnate wages of the rest of the 90% of the population. In the last 30 years the top 10% rather than give raises did two things instead. they put a significant amount of it in bolt holes. Screwing the property market.

               So in giving employer benefits the management and top 10% did give a lot of money toward their own WEALTH in terms of most corporations percent of operating budget. In order to recupe this money the idea was also pushed to offer easy credit to employees and there by giving the impression of having more money to consume, but in reality owing that money back to their employers.

               Both right and left political spectrum in New Zealand for instance believe that the cost of housing and easy credit are both the real problems pushing wage inequality.

               But neither side can agree on how to deal with this.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 10 November 2017 at 11:45 am

                 It raises the unemployment rate slightly

                 Citation needed. Explanation for why said citation doesn’t agree with other published research and actual experience, also needed.

                 In short, your information is wrong.
                 • Sam aka clump …

                   10 November 2017 at 11:57 am

                   I left myself a loophole.

                   Like I said… If the going wage is say $20 and the minimum wage is $15, raising the minimum wage to $16.50 an hour has no effect on employment or wages. So…technically its possible.
                 • 3stepstotheright …

                   10 November 2017 at 12:04 pm

                   https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/02/18/cbo-minimum-wage-jobs/5582779/

                   It’s all about degrees. If there is no cost to jobs by any rise, why not make it $500 an hour?
                   • Sam aka clump …

                     10 November 2017 at 12:17 pm

                     If
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     10 November 2017 at 12:42 pm

                     @ 3maninthesteps Whereas we know that a fifty-nine percent raise in twenty months is a reasonable amount, from Seattle’s experience.

                     So I applied that experience to NZ and it means that the MW can go to $25 per hour by July 2019.

                     I’ll take it as read that you reckon it can’t for some emotion that you’ll quickly rationalise into what you fondly imagine is an argument, and then you’ll search out someone on the internet who agrees with you.

                     Don’t bother. The government is too ‘pragmatic’ to go anywhere like that, but it sure puts $20 per hour into perspective.
                   • Sam aka clump …

                     10 November 2017 at 12:50 pm

                     And some arguments insist $25 MW given the Trumps policies around Obama care. Going out of state for Health care might help the yanks.
                   • Tracey …

                     11 November 2017 at 8:13 pm

                     OR we could throw it over to evidence based thinking and raise it as high until it will have the negative effect you predict. Now, what is that? Another 3.5 per hour or 500 ph as you suggest.
             • reason …

               11 November 2017 at 7:25 pm

               Over the last decade house prices have more than doubled … have wages as well? .

               Tracys real life experience tells the true story … “”In addition, when I bought a house in Auckland in 1992 it cost me 3 x my salary. When I sold my house in October 2016 it was worth over 20 x my salary. How can you say real wages rising 20% is a good thing in relation to buying a home? What with accommodation being the single largest cost to most NZ workers?”

               3steps showering this thread with kiwiblog grade bullshit …………. He’s like a drunk aggressive princess penguin
               • Tracey …

                 11 November 2017 at 8:14 pm

                 Thanks. Even before its banning it didnt address that point about housing v wages in 30 years
     • One Anonymous Bloke 4.1.2

       9 November 2017 at 8:40 pm

       …which makes the suicide, homelessness and malnutrition rates even more disgusting and shameful.
     • Frank Macskasy 4.1.3

       10 November 2017 at 7:33 am

       National have been doing exactly that. Real wages have risen by over 20% in the past 8 years, taxes have been cut, and there has been substantial investment in infrastructure. We have also seen the minimum wage increased virtually every year.

       Citations?

       Your history of telling half-truths and outright lies is well known.
       • Kevin 4.1.3.1

         10 November 2017 at 10:35 am

         National left wages exactly where they like them, low.

         http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/4869938/Low-wages-advantage-for-NZ-English
       • 3stepstotheright 4.1.3.2

         10 November 2017 at 10:48 am

         You’re a bit sensitive aren’t you Frank? Don’t like being shown up to be a liar, do you?

         Do I really have to provide citations for tax cuts? Our rises in the minimum wage? How stupid are you Frank.

         BTW, suck this up:

         April 2008:
         Minimum wage $12.00/hr
         Tax $4,881 (19.5% effective rate)
         ACC $350 ($1.41%)
         Net Income $19,798
         Real Net Income (2016$) $22,718

         April 2016:
         Minimum wage $15.25/hr
         Gross income on MW $31,807
         Tax $4,486 (14.4% effective rate)
         ACC $385 (1.21%)
         Net Income $26,836
         Real Net Income (2016$) $26,836

         Courtesy of https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2016/03/real_net_minimum_wage_now_11_higher_than_under_labour.html. (Seeing as you’re starting to post your own blogs as supporting your arguments!!).
       • 3stepstotheright 4.1.3.3

         10 November 2017 at 11:09 am

         Ah, the Real Wages claim…I misspoke…it was household incomes, and things are even better than I suggested…

         http://stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/Households/HouseholdEconomicSurvey_MRYeJun17.aspx

         “Average annual household income has risen more than 40 percent since 2007, increasing at twice the rate of inflation, Stats NZ said today”

         And with house prices up, and therefore a tax free capital gain to add to their retirement savings, households have had a real income windfall!

         You misspoke? You mean you were wrong when you told me to choke on it? I see you have now turned to averages. How about you start posting the numbers in relation to the median wages, household income and so on.and see how that looks.

         I look forward to the apology. You might want to read the policy about Authors – tracey
         • tracey 4.1.3.3.1

           10 November 2017 at 11:30 am

           You need to address my moderation note before making any further comments or you will receive a ban.
           • Bill 4.1.3.3.1.1

             10 November 2017 at 12:23 pm

             Sorry Tracey. I hadn’t realised you had moderated when releasing comments from pending.

             I’ll leave all future ones there.
             • tracey …

               10 November 2017 at 12:56 pm

               All good Bill, unless you are a mind reader, in which case shame on you 😉
   • tc 4.2

     9 November 2017 at 5:00 pm

     Correct and it shows the stupididy and hypocrisy of nationals hollowmen dogma.

     They hate state intervention until they break it then they beg for it as being ‘too big to fail’. AirNZ, Banks, AAMI etc
     • ianmac 4.2.1

       9 November 2017 at 7:06 pm

       If National raised the min wage by say 2 cents per year, they could crow that they raised the wage every year. How kind of them. But a dollar per year would really worth crowing about.
       • 3stepstotheright 4.2.1.1

         9 November 2017 at 10:07 pm

         April 2016 – Minimum Wage rose 50c – faster than the average wage (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11597537)

         April 2017 – Minimum Wage rose 50c
         (https://www.govt.nz/browse/work/workers-rights/minimum-wage-in-new-zealand/)

         Where do you get the 2c from? The minimum wage has risen steadily over the past 8 years, and not at the cost of jobs (NZ has record levels of employment).
         • Sam aka clump 4.2.1.1.1

           10 November 2017 at 12:03 am

           I’m just going to copy and past a reply I wrote to some one else on TDB and put it here. You can cry about it later.

           Learning not to repeat history are valuable lessons which is why I tend to lean towards the worst case scenarios. And it’s one of those telling phrases that aren’t always correct. If we look at the last 30 odd years since neoliberalism was brought to New Zealand, radio was still a big part or people’s lives, disco was a fading memory because the cassette tape had taken over. And VHS took off. Since then the Internet has largely taken over those mediums of transmitting thoughts, ideas, and entertainment with Facebook being a central player in all this. Back in 96 when the beginnings of Facebook first appeared dial up modems had captured about half the homes in New Zealand. We can go back and check the exact number but it was huge. That said. It may well be that modes of transmitting thoughts will continue on its technological evolution. With AI taking over computer modelling it should only be a mater of time before we have a working model of a cleaning robot that can work through an earthquake, giving rise to the next wave of tech billionaires/trillionaires.

           We have found some solutions to our problems. In the early half of the 20th century it was typical to have families upwards of 12 children or more. Long story short that didn’t sit well with urban planners who needed to atomise the family unit into to the atomic family (2 parents, 2 kids. Not sure any one listened) I’m not aware if this contributed towards religious beliefs around birth deaths and marriages, particularly in Elvis Presley’s time after being labeled the devil and rock & roll denounced as the devil. So we argued them to stop at having 2 children. But we didn’t have to stop them. All we had to do was 1) educate the woman, 2) woman held jobs, and 3) woman would not want to have to many pregnancies, because they lose income during pregnancies and lose promotions when they get back. So that solved a problem. But it’s not a straight line extrapolation, what has happened in the past.

           Each change brings about a different reaction to what has happened in the past. So I can not tell you looking back on the past 30 years and say what will happen in the next 30 years. It is going to be very different 30 years.

           Guy Fawkes himself is one example as sure as he made himself unpopularity sent to the gallows. We New Zealanders have found some solutions to our problems. The principles of Guy Fawkes day maybe applicable. But it is for us to pick and choose which of the principles are useful to us.

           As I said one of the things New Zealand has done is to educate the woman and that has addressed some what urbanisation. But that creates a shrinking population and we some what falsely assume people don’t want to work so now we import workers just to keep up the vitality of the population for something completely unforeseen and unforeseeable 30 years ago. It’s just completely unpredictable. Kiwis have been experiencing between 1% or 3% economic growth year on year so why would they have thought things would get this bad, that our woman once educated would not want to have any more children. And they are marrying later, and a huge chunk about 30% remain single there entire lives.

           So I do not believe looking back 30 years will tell us the way to move forward.

           Now. We are not responsible for the world that is in turmoil over Anthropogenic Climate Change, massive populations, Africa, the Middle East, maybe India, maybe China. Those are beyond our control and we just watch things as they pan out. But I see the impact of all these developments having a deleterious effect on our living environment. So harmful to the prospects of future generations.

           You can not put 9 billion or 10 billion people on our planet with out discomfort or distress. How ever. Some countries can, and I know China does. Keep migrants out of overpopulated countries. And we along with Australia are a few of those countries who keep migrants out and we are very strict on that. New Zealand is now around 5 million population. I never expected this so soon. I remember when the 2 millionth New Zealander was called out over the radio when I was just a boy. So we needed to import an extra million or 2 million workers. Now we must live with in those limits.
         • One Anonymous Bloke 4.2.1.1.2

           10 November 2017 at 6:30 am

           Hourly rates are a really good proxy for total income in a zero-hours contract environment. Oh yes indeedy. Honest. Stop laughing!
           • 3stepstotheright 4.2.1.1.2.1

             10 November 2017 at 10:20 am

             It wasn’t me who raised the issue. I was simply correcting another poster.
             • Sam aka clump …

               10 November 2017 at 10:42 am

               I cri 😭
         • Frank Macskasy 4.2.1.1.3

           10 November 2017 at 7:39 am

           (NZ has record levels of employment).

           Not accurate.

           Stats NZ has dubious methods of defining unemployment, and the rate is much higher, as the 2013 census showed.

           https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/msm-catches-up-on-unemployment-stats-rort/

           https://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/lies-damned-lies-and-statistical-lies-update/

           But if you’re still willing to go with the official “numbers”, you’ll be happy to compliment the new Coalition government as unemployment continues to “fall”.
           • 3stepstotheright 4.2.1.1.3.1

             10 November 2017 at 10:31 am

             You seriously think I’m going to accept your lies over official data? You can’t even admit you screwed up on your Debt claims. You can’t even recognise when a contributor is referring to the main post! Why should anyone trust anything you write?
         • Frank Macskasy 4.2.1.1.4

           10 November 2017 at 8:35 am

           April 2016 – Minimum Wage rose 50c – faster than the average wage

           Really, 3steps?

           Well that doesn’t say much about how fast the average wage has risen under National, has it?

           #owngoal
           • 3stepstotheright 4.2.1.1.4.1

             10 November 2017 at 10:28 am

             Actually it says a lot about how fast the minimum wage has grown by comparison!

             Foot out of your mouth Frank.
         • tracey 4.2.1.1.5

           10 November 2017 at 9:01 am

           Which is interesting cos Key and English were adamant raising minimum wage woukd cost jobs. Can you show me when they admitted they were wrong about this?
           • 3stepstotheright 4.2.1.1.5.1

             10 November 2017 at 10:24 am

             When did they say that? What you’ll find is that it is about degrees of rise. Large, disproportionate rises can cost jobs. https://www.google.co.nz/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2017/01/07/seattle-restaurant-jobs-keep-growing-with-higher-minimum-wages-after-a-year/amp/. Modest, regular rises boost economic activity.
             • One Anonymous Bloke …

               10 November 2017 at 11:11 am

               Seattle, which first increased its minimum wage to $11 an hour from $9.47……

               $11.00 by April 1, 2015
               $13.00 by January 1, 2016
               $15.00 by January 1, 2017

               So, from $9.47 to $15, in 20 months. A rise of 59%.

               Well, you know where I’m going with this: current NZ minimum wage: $15.75

               15.75 x 1.59 = 25

               Twenty months from now is July 2019.

               Let’s do this 😀
               • 3stepstotheright …

                 10 November 2017 at 11:13 am

                 I don’t have a problem with increases in the minimum wage. Although I’d prefer that to be accompanied by a tax free threshold. But you’ve missed the point about my citation. Look deeper.
                 • One Anonymous Bloke …

                   10 November 2017 at 11:21 am

                   I read the whole thing. I’ve been keeping an eye on Seattle for a few years now.

                   Make your point.
                   • 3stepstotheright …

                     10 November 2017 at 12:07 pm

                     It’s about degrees. The US has huge state wide variances in their minimum wages.
                   • One Anonymous Bloke …

                     10 November 2017 at 12:47 pm

                     When the MW goes up to $20 and the sky doesn’t fall, the government can confidently follow Seattle’s example by raising it even further.

                     Don’t get all weepy though, they won’t raise it to $500 ph just yet. Just enough to destroy your idols.
               • 3stepstotheright …

                 10 November 2017 at 11:16 am

                 https://www.businessinsider.com.au/minimum-wage-around-the-world-2015-5?r=US&IR=T

                 That may help you.
             • tracey …

               10 November 2017 at 11:21 am

               In 2014 this was Key’s response to a $2 an hour suggested rise

               “”It’s pretty well documented around the world that, yes, you can make changes and do that over time but if you think about the mass of employers in New Zealand they’re not the big companies like Fletcher Building or Fonterra they’re actually the hundreds of thousands of small businesses around New Zealand and they simply will employ less staff, fire people or ultimately not take on staff in the future.”

               Bridges chimed in

               “”Labour’s policy to immediately increase the minimum wage to $16.25 would cost at least 6000 jobs … If you want to make people unemployed this is a good way to go about it,” he said.”

               http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/10328036/Labour-pledges-2-rise-in-minimum-wage-to-16-25

               On what basis is $2 an hour large and/or disproportionate?

               In addition, when I bought a house in Auckland in 1992 it cost me 3 x my salary. When I sold my house in October 2016 it was worth over 20 x my salary. How can you say real wages rising 20% is a good thing in relation to buying a home? What with accommodation being the single largest cost to most NZ workers?
5. Grey Area 5

   9 November 2017 at 4:25 pm

   Not surprising that in the Stuffed article Economics 101 (Failed) Joyce gets yet another “show me the money” moment but Minister of Finance Grant Robertson is only referred to.
   • tracey 5.1

     9 November 2017 at 7:10 pm

     Apparently govts except Nat governments have to present budgets a month after an election result…
   • 3stepstotheright 5.2

     9 November 2017 at 10:08 pm

     A Finance Minister who cannot confirm he will keep to his own figures presented just weeks ago is a joke. Grant Robertson is that joke.
     • Sam aka clump 5.2.1

       9 November 2017 at 11:50 pm

       Statements are not facts. If you don’t like what I say as facts. Come at me bro.
     • tracey 5.2.2

       10 November 2017 at 9:03 am

       A finance Minister who failed economics 101 is also a joke.
6. 3stepstotheright 6

   9 November 2017 at 4:49 pm

   From the article:

   “On Thursday, the central bank gave its first take on the direction of the new Labour-led Government, which it stressed was preliminary, and said the impact was “very uncertain”.”

   “The Reserve Bank forecasts do not cover the level of government debt, which BNZ head of research Stephen Toplis said could be “substantially higher” than Labour had suggested.”

   “Bagrie, who predicted in recent days that the Reserve Bank would trim its growth forecasts further, added caution.
   “We are less upbeat than the Reserve Bank on the growth outlook.””

   I watched Robertson in the House today during QT. He really has no idea.
   • garibaldi 6.1

     9 November 2017 at 6:49 pm

     300stepstotheright, you aren’t a tad biased by any stretch of the imagination are you ?
     • tracey 6.1.1

       9 November 2017 at 7:08 pm

       Apparently he/she only likes growth under a Nat govt and develops a moral compass once Labour has some power so that ” misleading…” and “Dishonest” are to be frowned upon.

       Of course it is falsee they are but it is false morality when you only apply it to the other team. Dishonest you might say.
     • cleangreen 6.1.2

       9 November 2017 at 9:06 pm

       Garibaldi 3stepstotheright – is baised.

       He is singing from Steven Joyces song sheet stilll without a wing and a prayer.

       he will soon tell us there was a $1.7 bilion hole in Labours budget. Then we will know he is actually a clone of/or Steven Joyce in drag.

       Joyce is still heavily smarting badly from his fuckup and the loss of the election from his failure as “National Party Election strategist” as his ego is so huge – he is having dificulty handling the failure he is now.

       He will crash and burn if we just ignore his rubbish as he speaks with forked tongue.
       • garibaldi 6.1.2.1

         10 November 2017 at 6:57 am

         Hence my naming him 300stepstotheright.
     • 3stepstotheright 6.1.3

       9 November 2017 at 9:58 pm

       Yep. Just like everyone else posting here!
       • tracey 6.1.3.1

         10 November 2017 at 9:09 am

         Hop over to the Disability post, I am interested in your comments on issues raised there
         .
         • 3stepstotheright 6.1.3.1.1

           10 November 2017 at 10:59 am

           I feel genuinely sorry for Kay. I’m at a loss to understand how her situation is worse under National than previously. I have a close friend who suffered a brain injury 2 years ago, which has affected her speech and meant she has had to give up work, and finds herself in a position not unlike Kay. She (Lynn) is getting huge support from government agencies, her medications and on-going care are all but free, and she is receiving a variety of state support.
           • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1.3.1.1.1

             10 November 2017 at 11:38 am

             I’m at a loss to understand…

             From Kay’s post:

             Until a few years ago I wouldn’t have considered treating people on SLP as a separate group because it wasn’t really necessary. We were actually treated ok for the most, this current nightmare began in 2009. It’s no coincidence WINZ has become a seizure trigger for me (never was before 2009) and I’ve had 5 hospitalisations so far as a direct result of run-ins with them. Chronic illness requires minimising stress and they are not helping the situation for anyone. It would be really interesting to work out just how much their behaviour has cost the public hospital system. I’m currently going without money I know I’m entitled to because it’s not medically safe for me to go anywhere near them.

             What part of this are you struggling with? Trying to think up excuses for voting for it?
             • 3stepstotheright …

               10 November 2017 at 11:41 am

               That doesn’t answer my question. There seems to be an insinuation about WINZ, but no actual hard evidence. I’ve read comments like this before, but my experience, and the experience of others I know, has been very different.
               • One Anonymous Bloke …

                 10 November 2017 at 12:58 pm

                 You and your friends victims are permanently disabled are you?

                 It isn’t my job to explain the various changes to “Social” “Welfare” legislation since 2008 to you.

                 You can find them here. I’m more than happy to take Kay’s word for it. For you though, I’ll need citations and three written references from people who are honest and credible.
                 • tracey …

                   10 November 2017 at 1:00 pm

                   If you reply to this 3stepstotheright without addressing my moderation note above you will be banned.
               • tracey …

                 10 November 2017 at 12:59 pm

                 When you have addressed the moderation comment above, please feel free to outline your experience of WINZ with facts for us. Actually do it on the correct thread would be even better.
           • tracey 6.1.3.1.1.2

             10 November 2017 at 11:45 am

             What stopped you from actually posting this there? Please read my moderation note on this thread before commenting further.

             On Kay’s post it will be great to see you being specific about Lynn’s circumsatnces, family situation, exact govt support.
             • 3stepstotheright …

               10 November 2017 at 12:17 pm

               I have answered your moderation notice. You clearly didn’t read my post. You invited me to comment on Kay’s story. I did. Now stop being a bully. Moderators who throw their weight around because they don’t like being told stuff by people smarter than them are so last century.

               [lprent: I have been giving you a long leash because when you aren’t fondling your ball sack, your brain appears to operate ok and you can write interesting comments. But you also mix it with this kind of ignorant stupidity.

               It always pays to learn the rules of place before you try to demand how they should operate. On this site you simply don’t abuse moderators because then I tend to get irritated with the stupid ball sacks who do that..

               We need authors and moderators around far more than we need some fuckwit troll.

               Banned for 1 month.

               Should give you enough time to read the policy. Yell out if you need more.]
               • Sam aka clump …

                 10 November 2017 at 2:28 pm

                 Noooooooooooooo!

                 Catcha later thoughts https://youtu.be/WWaLxFIVX1s
               • tracey …

                 11 November 2017 at 10:26 am

                 Thanks lynn.

                 For readers, for the record 3steps did not answer my moderation notice.
   • tracey 6.2

     9 November 2017 at 7:03 pm

     Joyce makes him look like a genius though so it is lucky we dodged that bullet.

     Darn I really though the Billshit growth addicts would be happy
   • Frank Macskasy 6.3

     10 November 2017 at 7:50 am

     “The Reserve Bank forecasts do not cover the level of government debt, which BNZ head of research Stephen Toplis said could be “substantially higher” than Labour had suggested.”

     Interesting… so you’re admitting that National has racked up much higher debt than has been previously disclosed?

     By the way, your selective use of the RBNZ state is dishonest.

     This is what the Reserve Bank had to say, which you failed to share with us;

     Higher minimum wages and a new house building programme will boost economic growth, more than offsetting a sharp fall in immigration, the Reserve Bank says.

     On Thursday, the central bank gave its first take on the direction of the new Labour-led Government, which it stressed was preliminary, and said the impact was “very uncertain”.

     However, acting governor Grant Spencer said the bank’s initial assessment was that the combination of a new house building programme, a sharp increase in the minimum wage, lower immigration and higher general government spending would add around 0.5 per cent to economic growth in each of the next three years.

     A fall in gains from immigration was “a net negative” to growth, Spencer said, “but the overall impact of the new government policies is a positive stimulus to aggregate demand”.

     Here’s the citation you also omitted to include: https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/98702380/reserve-bank-says-impact-of-new-government-initiatives-is-very-uncertain

     No wonder you didn’t post the link. Then others would have realised you’re up to your old tricks of cherry-picking information and presenting selected quotes in a mis-informing manner.

     You are not to be trusted with your posting, 3steps.
     • tracey 6.3.1

       10 November 2017 at 9:04 am

       Steven Joyces press sec?
     • 3stepstotheright 6.3.2

       10 November 2017 at 10:07 am

       Frank you are a joke. If you were not so stupid you would have realised that the ‘article’ I referred to was the one the original post was written about!
     • 3stepstotheright 6.3.3

       10 November 2017 at 10:11 am

       “Interesting… so you’re admitting that National has racked up much higher debt than has been previously disclosed“

       No, Frank. The comment in the quote referred to what LABOUR had originally disclosed. About debt on THEIR watch. We’re increasingly seeing the blatant dishonesty of Labour exposed. Which is why you fit nicely as one of their fan boys.
       • Frank Macskasy 6.3.3.1

         11 November 2017 at 1:31 pm

         You’re getting irate, 3steps.

         You don’t like your misinformation to be tested, do you?

         Get used to it.
7. Bill 7

   9 November 2017 at 6:41 pm

   The irony of the fact that Labour parties the world over were formed to deliver socialism by parliamentary means, and that they are now the better caretakers and managers of capitalism…..
   • tracey 7.1

     9 November 2017 at 7:04 pm

     Worse than ironic of course…
8. Bob 8

   9 November 2017 at 8:30 pm

   Tracey, the Reserve bank expects growth, this is true, but it will come at the expense of first home buyers who will be forfeiting their Mortgages through skyrocketing interest rates while the “Rich” get richer by leaving their money in the bank. Doesn’t sound great to me.
   See last Labour term for a perfect example: https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/key-graphs/key-graph-mortgage-rates
   • Sam aka clump 8.1

     9 November 2017 at 8:33 pm

     So banks will lend those deposits. More growth!
   • tracey 8.2

     10 November 2017 at 9:06 am

     I didnt say it was great. But “the economy is growing” is, we are told, by English, by Key by many Nat supporters, a panacea (despite 40 years of contrary evidence) so they ought to now feel better about Labour?
9. greywarshark 9

   9 November 2017 at 9:19 pm

   A bit of a side issue but banking and finance connected. And it may affect NZ too.

   Gordon Brown, UK is encouraging people to sign an open letter to send a message to the G2to clean up the Paradise Papers situation and deal to tax havens.

   Dear friends,

   Eight years ago as UK Prime Minister and chair of the G20, I tried to end the injustice of global tax havens. But as the “Paradise Papers” leak shows, trillions are still being siphoned off to dodge tax in the most shadowy places in the global economy.

   It’s one of today’s greatest injustices, allowing the richest to stand aside while the rest of us pay for health, education, and protecting the most vulnerable.

   But now we have a chance to stop it — through an international agreement that outlaws tax havens and imposes penalties and prison sentences on tax evaders. And the G20, the leaders of the world’s biggest economies, can make it happen.

   Please join me in signing this open letter to Argentine President Mauricio Macri, chair of the G20 — if a million of us sign, I will personally deliver it to him, asking him and other G20 leaders to take urgent action to finish the job we began in 2009. Join with one click: …
10. Sparky 10

    9 November 2017 at 9:45 pm

    Wow social scientists with backgrounds in economics and econometrics think the economy will grow under Labour.

    Well I’m convinced given their great track record on predicting our economic success to date.

    Maybe they might want to take a gander at what TPP style deals like NAFTA have done to the economies of those who are signatories and then factor in the fact that we are a fraction of those nations size with bugger all meat on our bones to handle that kind of economic stress not to mention our relative isolation from most world markets.

    But hey I don’t have a Masters in Economics or Mysticism so what would I know….
    • greywarshark 10.1

      10 November 2017 at 8:10 am

      Sparky
      Don’t diss our informed advisors. You may be absolutely right, but you are being utopian to think that we can just do what is clear to thinking people. How can we just change everything to suit ourselves? We are a country that always wants more than it can earn, we couldn’t handle a Cuba scenario. The nearby USA put them in the naughty corner and wouldn’t trade with them for about half a century.
      NZs don’t have enough resilience to handle that.
    • tracey 10.2

      10 November 2017 at 9:08 am

      But the Nats love growth and the RB when it predicts it. And remember our last PM worked for Treasury, so Treasury must be Ok.
      • cleangreen 10.2.1

        10 November 2017 at 10:25 am

        All past financial zealots worked inside treasury/reserve bank structures as most were helicoptered into the job to ‘skew’ the figures.

        We will find when labour coalition seriously examine the books, they will find many ‘abnomilies’ in the National Party accounting figures and they will be ‘creative accounting’ massaged manipulation of the figures they and 3stepstotheright have consistantly parroted, so now we will wait and see.

        If you saw the asounding wild claims that the last minister of finance were made by the disgraced Steven joyce then we can easlily believe that some fishy figures from treasury/reserve bank are in there also.

        It is a ‘balance of probability’ that rules here now.
11. corodale 11

    11 November 2017 at 8:56 pm

    Award them all hemorrhoid cream, and put up job vacancy notices in the Indian corner stores. We need a central bank ready to play cricket.

    If they are willing to drop-all to get their jobs, then this foreplay is the obvious first step for trying to keep their jobs.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS