The first test

192 comments on “The first test ”

• Comments are now closed

1. J 1

   13 November 2008 at 3:12 pm

   “So far, he has tried to downplay the issue, he evidently hopes it will just go away.”

   Can you provide a link to where he said this?

   I’d very interested to know where this assumption comes from.
2. Scribe 2

   13 November 2008 at 3:28 pm

   Well, we’ve got this thread, lambasting Key for doing the things he said he was going to do.

   Meanwhile, we have yesterday’s thread saying Key better do everything he said he was going to do, otherwise he’s going to disappoint voters.

   $1 each way, Steve 😉
3. Daveski 3

   13 November 2008 at 3:34 pm

   Steve

   I’m glad you never marked any of my exam papers.

   It’s a three hour exam, I’ve just read the instructions, and along you come and grab my script and start marking 🙂

   Perhaps if he started making decisions you would criticize him for not the right to do so yet or even for trying to influence the Reserve Bank, god forbid!
4. Steve Pierson 4

   13 November 2008 at 3:36 pm

   j. look at today’s papers/

   scribe. i want Key to do the sensible thing but that would mean breaking election promises and that would leave many people who voted for him pissed off, which was the point of yesterday’s post. that’s what happens when you over-promise, either you have to do stupid things to deliver or fail to deliver. it’s not my fault Key is in trouble either way, it’s his.
5. Tigger 5

   13 November 2008 at 3:39 pm

   J – here’s an example or two

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4758996a28435.html
   http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/treasury-paints-ugly-picture-economy-37760

   I agree that Key and National over-promised – they did so to get into power which they are. Now they gotta carry the can.
6. gingercrush 6

   13 November 2008 at 3:41 pm

   John Key isn’t in trouble.Only you think he’s in trouble. You’re not exactly balanced, you are partisan just like those on the right are partisan. You still haven’t worked out how National won this election in the first place. And the man has been in power since Saturday and right now he is working through getting a coalition. And you expect him to be superman and do everything and anything.

   if Labour had a chance to govern, we’d still be looking at weeks of negotiations. So in that sense its a blessing National can form a government and so swiftly too.

   [lprent: We state that we’re not ‘balanced’ in our About. Perhaps you should read it. Of course we are all partisan, even different authors here are partisan on different things (some of which I disagree with). This is a BLOG site – people express their opinions, but we’re reasonably selective about who can write the blogs.

   Comments are a different matter. The thing that the moderators really do is make damn sure that everyone can express their opinion, but in a manner that allows other people to do so as well. We don’t like trolls and we get bored shitless moderating comments that look like a program could have made them, especially the ones designed to provoke flames.

   Thats all in the Policy. The alternative is to have a conformance of skewed opinion such as shows in KB comments section.]
7. Steve Pierson 7

   13 November 2008 at 3:41 pm

   Daveski. to follow your analogy, perhaps now isn’t the best time to have someone doing the test who still has to learn the instructions.

   anyway, Key has already said what his answers are.

   if he had said ‘we’re working on solutions’ that would be a different matter, and I would be suggesting what those solution should be. but Key has said there is no need to change its existing answers despite the questions changing.
8. Scribe 8

   13 November 2008 at 3:42 pm

   Steve,

   Does Key get any slack from voters if he comes out and says “We can’t do X and Y because the books are $5 BILLION worse than I expected? I know I promised X and Y, but it’d be irresponsible to do that in this climate.”

   How would the electorate respond? How would you respond?

   captcha: property prudence
9. Vinsin 9

   13 November 2008 at 3:47 pm

   Surely now that they have the fiscal update it would be a time to formulate, modify or change any plans they had. Now then with the “huge” tax cuts they were promising before the election and the books looking as bad as they do what’s the next course of action. The options i see is a) go back on those cuts and have some fiscal prudence for the time being, which will annoy quite a few people, or, b) take a gamble and spend up large in an attempt to stimulate the economy; however with the books looking the way they do, there has to be some cuts to Kiwisaver, Kiwibank, the Health sector or, maybe even the police, this means there’s going to be some promises broken.
   So either option is going to be unpopular and there’s going to be some very unhappy people.

   Gc, does it actually matter whether or not we’re a balanced forum. Key has over promised – we didn’t do that by the way. The reality is Key has huge decisions to make; i hope he makes the most sensible decisions and they prove to work but until then i’m going to be watching very closely.
10. Chess Player 10

    13 November 2008 at 3:48 pm

    SP, you completely forget to mention that Cullen had this information BEFORE the election. No mention of that, and no criticism of that.

    I guess when you own the media you can say what you want, huh?

    Don’t worry, I won’t trouble you with my balanced views any longer, I ‘ll proactively ban myself from your bolg so that you can happily avoid dealing with annoying little things like facts.

    Have a nice day,
11. TimeWarp 11

    13 November 2008 at 3:51 pm

    Scribe, Key made many references to the economic downturn during the campaign together with pointed references to Labour wasting years of productivity, etc. The particular percentage points on the detailed analysis will be new to him – the broader issue should not be. Certainly not according to any adherents of the “Key understands money markets so will be a good PM” school.

    Still avoiding individual responsibility? Care to respond to my question at http://www.thestandard.org.nz/cuts-three-of-the-same-kind/#comment-104421 ?

    We need to address the economic problems really clearly, not with the apparent avoidance SP has pointed out and that you seem to be supporting.
12. Steve Pierson 12

    13 November 2008 at 3:54 pm

    Chess Player. the report came out on the Friday before the election at who knows what time of day. I don’t know if he could have got it out in time for the sixs on Friday but there’s no political news on election day and after that he is limited by having to basically do what the incoming government says – that rules doesn’t extend to releasing documents though and he has only done that after it became clear Key was trying to hide the scle of the problem form the public.

    Scribe. I doubt he would be let off by the public even though it’s the right thing to do. like i say, that’s the problem with over-promising.
13. gingercrush 13

    13 November 2008 at 3:58 pm

    No this is The Standard so it should be a blog that focuses on left issues and left ideals. However, there comes a point when you need to step back and just give it tie. This is one of those. Another problem seems to be you lot think you represent everyone in this country. That simply is not true. Right now the average person is thinking. Good they went with Act but they also have the Maori party so they’re not extreme and this type of stuff. The average person isn’t going to worry right now. And most of the people who voted National are looking forward to those tax cuts. Of course you lot can choose to donate your tax cuts back to the government. But I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

    And once again. Being this is a left blog with left ideas. Why not make blog posts in regards to winning back Auckland. Winning back the provinces which are rather dire for Labour now days. And if not addressed soon are going to become permanent National territory.

    [Tane: It’s not our job to tell Labour how to win electorates, and it’s not our job to take orders from random punters over what we should be writing about.]

    [lprent: read this section of the about]
14. Robinsod 14

    13 November 2008 at 4:08 pm

    Ginger – I’ve noticed the right start bitching about what the standard is not saying when they’re upset by what it does. Here’s the situation:

    Key knew about the finance problem.

    He lied about it.

    He got caught.

    He probably expected the figures wouldn’t come out until the December treasury report which is due mid-December. Coincidentally that’s silly season for news and this kind of thing doesn’t get a lot of traction.

    This is typical Key – he’s tried to massage the story for long enough for it to become old news and not figure on people’s radar. It’s all about the “window dressing” in his world…
15. Evidence-Based Practice 15

    13 November 2008 at 4:12 pm

    John Banks is using the financial crisis as an excuse for not doing he doesn’t want to do like public transport and clean water projects, and he also expects the voting public to be happy about it. I wonder if key will use it to get rid of the promises he didn’t really intend to make.

    But good on Cullen for releasing the information. Why didn’t Key?
16. Rosa 16

    13 November 2008 at 4:12 pm

    I see the hate filled rightwing news response team is still out in full force on the Stuff website. Lots of rabid anti labour stuff on the Goff response to the Maori/National deal. We need a similiar machine organised by the left. I think that National has done a very good job whipping up anti-Labour sentiment via the internet and the daily papers and it probably was a major factor in Labour losing the election.
17. TimeWarp 17

    13 November 2008 at 4:14 pm

    EBP: “Don’t scare the horses” is the line, isn’t it?
18. cocamc 18

    13 November 2008 at 4:14 pm

    Is Key able to release the information until he becomes sworn in? Also , why would Charles chauvel say at Backbenchers that Labour had left the accounts on good condition with plenty of money!!!
19. Tane 19

    13 November 2008 at 4:16 pm

    cocamc – I don’t know what Chauvel said, just what Farrar has relayed in his National Party blog. For all we know he may have been referring to low levels of government debt, which wouldn’t have happened if the Key/Brash tax cuts had come in in 2005.
20. Daveski 20

    13 November 2008 at 4:17 pm

    Rosa – this has made my day 🙂

    The machine is popular opinion. I think you will find the people spoke on Saturday. It’s not a machine, just like LP will tell you this is not a machine.

    In the nicest possible way, stop blaming the media/machines/monsters for losing the election and look closer to home at the messages Labour gave, the campaign they ran, and the decisions they made.

    Heck, it would have been a miracle if Labour had gained a fourth term because NZ has a very low boredom threshold. But stop looking to blame democracy in action – honestly, it’s not a good look for the left.
21. Tigger 21

    13 November 2008 at 4:22 pm

    Chess Player – Key had to be an idiot if he didn’t think the economy was getting worse by the week – National should have adjusted their rhetoric appropriately. It wasn’t Cullen’s job to brief Key. Caveat emptor – Key knew what he was getting himself into.

    And apparently Key has been told that the long term forecast is pretty dire. And still no game change from Key?
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10542881

    Cocamc – Chauvel said this on the current episode of Backbenchers? He said those exact words or are you paraphrasing/reinterpreting…
22. Vinsin 22

    13 November 2008 at 4:23 pm

    Gc, Ok, you haven’t really replied to my point. John Keyzill – that’s my gangster name for him – can’t do everything he promised, this means – like i said previously – that he has some really difficult choices to make: pander to the core support or pander to the swing.

    Anyway let’s look at the coalition. I think the coalition will work very well for National; however i think it could have a very serious negative affect on the Maori Party – this is something that worries me as i wonder how lop-sided the government will become without a Maori Party.

    To finish, i am not so ideologically biased that i don’t hope National makes this country better and fairer for everyone. I hope this National/Act/UNF/Maori coalition proves to be the best government we’ve ever seen in NZ; however as a political junkie I don’t see this happening, also I don’t think this is a time to step back and let the government have carte blanche, this is a time to be vigilant and make sure Key makes the best decisions for NZ.
23. Chess Player 23

    13 November 2008 at 4:29 pm

    Tigger,

    Please focus.

    My comments were not about whether Key should have changed his message, which incidentally I think he should have.

    My comments were addressed to SP, who knew damn well that Cullen had this information before the election, and deliberately chose not to mention that in his opening comments, thereby essentially being no better that the MSM that he is so fond of riling against.

    I’ll leave it to Rave to chip in with a comment about ‘class struggle’ at this point,as he is apt to do when it is most irrelevant, as I have the dinner on the stove….
24. Ianmac 24

    13 November 2008 at 4:30 pm

    Helen used to say: “Under promise. Over deliver.” I suspect that John might have that back to front BUT
    what better excuse in due course than to blame the ECONOMY stupid, for just cause to cancel or abandon promises. “We are prepared to make the hard decisions that Labour failed to do over the 9 long years…..”
25. gingercrush 25

    13 November 2008 at 4:31 pm

    He can do what he promised and he is doing it. He promised tax cuts. We’re getting it. He promised to invest in infrastructure this helps the economy and he will do that. He needs the full treasury reports which he doesn’t yet have and in December you will see a clear budget policy which will unveil everything he is going to do.

    Labour inherited surpluses National is inheriting deficits. National has a hard road ahead of them but I think you will see New Zealand come out of this recession in a better shape than Labour could have done. Also Labour didn’t even have a plan to get us out of the recession. All they had was the same idea as National which was reveal a budgetary plan in December in the mini-budget statements that always come out in December after each election. End of story.

    As for you Tane. I think you’re wrong. I never said tell Labour what to do in the electorates. But this is the area Labour lost on. Their inability to win back support in provinces and losing support in Auckland and the other cities. That is how Labour lost and no one here has even thought about that. That puts Labour in danger territory for 2011.
26. tsmithfield 26

    13 November 2008 at 4:39 pm

    http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/treasury-paints-ugly-picture-economy-37760

    The problem NZ is facing is a growth problem not a debt problem. Restricting the government spend will actually make the problem worse, not better. This will simply result in further contraction and a resulting downward spiral into depression.

    The biggest issue is to make sure the spend is going into productive areas. Leaving more money in the hands of taxpayers is certainly an effective way of “spending” the finances.

    Would anyone here recommend the opposite action; i.e. increasing taxes to cover the government position? If your answer is “no” you have gone a long way to answering your own question.
27. Pascal's bookie 27

    13 November 2008 at 4:45 pm

    Ianmac, he could do that, but it still comes down to which set of voters does he stab in the back.

    If he follows the roundtables advice and has a wee talk with Roger Douglas about ‘what must be done’ he sets himself up for a potential clusterfuck comprising of:

    – Disenchanted angry centre voters that believed his centrist, pragmatic anti ACT campaign. Given the low turnout on Saturday, Key cannot lose those voters next time and win.
    – an opposition that has already primed the secret agenda message and has it ready to blow
    – a media that will run with that narrative because, it’s easy, already primed, and comes with supporting secret tapes, denials on camera, and the fact that this crisis is not a surprise like previous ones have been.
    -an international response to the crisis that runs in the opposite direction. Don’t underestimate the power of this. If National cuts social spending at a time when other countries, whose books are in worse shape, are increasing it, that’s the same dynamic Cullen faced about tax cuts.
28. IrishBill 28

    13 November 2008 at 4:49 pm

    tsmithfield, I’d recommend canceling tax-cuts (including Labour’s) and using the money to fund more publicly-owned infrastructure and increase skills training allowances so that we can take advantage of the next upswing rather that topping out our productive capacity like we did over the last 9 years. Pumping 80% of your tax cut package into the top 30% of earners and then expecting it to “trickle down” is a stupid way of doing things.
29. Lampie 29

    13 November 2008 at 4:52 pm

    National is confident it will be able to keep its election promises despite Treasury suggesting the outlook is deteriorating and more people might lose their jobs than was projected.

    Does Key get any slack from voters if he comes out and says “We can’t do X and Y because the books are $5 BILLION worse than I expected? I know I promised X and Y, but it’d be irresponsible to do that in this climate.’

    How would the electorate respond? How would you respond?

    NO BACKING OUT!!!!!
30. Ianmac 30

    13 November 2008 at 5:05 pm

    There is the element of “don’t scare the horses at the time of a downturn because the loss in confidence makes it worse” ???? Therefore be discrete play the problems low Key but…..
    By the way didn’t National fail to gain much in the Party vote even in some city electorates? It was the failure of Labour voters to act rather than National to gain at their expense. I think?
31. Tim 31

    13 November 2008 at 5:07 pm

    I guess this is why Key is in the driving seat, he doesn’t panic (or get outside of his comfort zone like Cullen was). He says it’s not armageddon. I trust him to make much better decisions than Steve Pierson might.
32. Tim Ellis 32

    13 November 2008 at 5:09 pm

    SP, if John Key would be justified in scrapping tax cuts for the rich because of the updated PREFU numbers, then would he also be justified in selling state assets because of the changed numbers?

    Or is he only justified in breaking promises that you happen to agree with?
33. gingercrush 33

    13 November 2008 at 5:18 pm

    The best way is to keep with the tax cuts. They have to do that otherwise the electorate really would turn their back. Also with Act as a partner they just can’t get out of tax cuts.So tax cuts and do their eight billion dollar infrastructure plan. Short term that means higher deficits which would actually break their promise not to increase deficits. But really its a sacrifice that I think the electorate would be okay with.

    Basically short term bigger deficits, perhaps put education and health expenditure back a year or two. Not sure how well that would go down. Get consumers spending again via the tax cuts. You really want taxpayers to save them. But we are in a recession so more spending would. Through infrastructure regions get some money spent. May ease the crisis but its still in trouble.

    This could be spun by the left as being wrong wrong wrong but really they need to please their electorate and ease the crisis we’re in. Something Labour too would have needed to do. Its not pretty being in a crisis. But that is the cards National were given. I’d like to see a fiscal plan and I think we’ll see something in December.

    But this was going to be a problem regardless of who was in office. But basically they need to keep the infrastructure and tax promise and everything else could potentially be postponed. But we’ll see what Key does November and December. We certainly won’t see anything till the coalition is signed up and we won’t see anything till Key returns from Apec. Apec is critical, his best chance to talk with other leaders and discuss what they’re doing in the economic crisis we are currently in.

    Iammac – National increase its votes in the provinces from North to South. They won the party vote in Palmerston North (just). They also won the party vote in Invercargill and Nelson. Something they did not do in 2005. In Auckland their party vote increased on the North Shore, they won the party vote in West Auckland. South Auckland, Labour voters didn’t turn u in the numbers they did in 2005. Hamilton went blue and National did extremely well picking up numerous Hamilton voters. In Wellington they increased their party vote but still went Labour. Christchurch once again increased but still went Labour and finally Dunedin once again was red for Labour but National picked up votes there.
34. TimeWarp 34

    13 November 2008 at 5:22 pm

    GC: “With Act as a parther they just can’t get out of tax cuts.”

    What I don’t understand is how, with Act as a partner, they can get away with their spend package.
35. gingercrush 35

    13 November 2008 at 5:27 pm

    Timewarp: Perhaps they said to Act we’ll cut taxes but you have to let us keep spending. But really we don’t know. Act wants huge spending cuts. National has promised increased spending and yet making savings in Public Services. I don’t think we’ll know the details till the Policy Budget in December.
36. Joe Blogger 36

    13 November 2008 at 5:36 pm

    Come on all you righties you know that if Helen was still in power she would have solved this problem already. She would have stared into the cameras of the waiting media and without any doubt or lack of confidence told the New Zealand people, “There is no problem”.

    Just look at the excellent leadership the Helen demonstrated over the past nine years and if you doubt just wait because you know Key is nothing more than a Money Trader.

    [Now I think I’ve gotten the hang of posting on The Standard]
37. Vinsin 37

    13 November 2008 at 5:38 pm

    Gc, the problem I have isn’t with the tax cuts but where the cuts are actually going. I have a feeling you probably agree with the ‘trickle down’ theory; however the people that are truly going to feel the brunt of this recession are those earning under 30,000. The money going to those under that amount – poor people – still stimulates the economy, almost every dollar goes back into the economy in fact and it all filters back to the top. If I go and buy veges the money goes to the owner of the store, which pays for more product and employees wages, who in turn spend their wages buying food, entertainment – whatever – and the whole process happens again. Pumping 80% of your tax cut package into the top 30% of earners isn’t a magic fix to the economy, all it does is concentrate the wealth – and power – for those who already have disposable incomes. In order for the tax cuts to work those who receive the most benefit from the cuts need to spend almost every penny of their cuts to truly stimulate the economy otherwise it doesn’t go anywhere, and it looks more like the crumbs off the table rather than a trickle down.
38. TimeWarp 38

    13 November 2008 at 5:44 pm

    GC:

    Great recipe.

    Cut taxes and increase spending.

    = deficit and debt

    Although we know ole Rog isn’t adverse to those!

    Add in Vinsin’s very good comments relating to the other side of the equation.
39. barnsleybill 39

    13 November 2008 at 5:53 pm

    Another labour govt comes to an end and another dose of scorched earth left behind for the grown ups to repair. You must all be very proud…
40. Felix 40

    13 November 2008 at 6:07 pm

    Oh yeah sorry bb, you know, about that um – international financial crisis and all that, yeah that was me, sorry. Well me and Steve Pierson and Dr Cullen. So yeah, oops, oh god this is so embarrassing…
41. barnsleybill 41

    13 November 2008 at 6:23 pm

    Is that the international financial crisis that Cullen said was a US problem and would not affect us? And the underlying reasons for our own crisis is rooted in causes that pre date the credit crunch.. Why are we always broke when labour get punted?
    This is like the party you have when mum and dad go away for the weekend and you promise to just have a couple of mates over.. Lo and behold they come home, the goldfish are dead, there are muddy footprints on mum and dads bedroom ceiling the carpet is wrecked and the neighbours don’t speak to you for six months.
    The party is over.
    Go to your room, the adults are fixing things.
42. Felix 42

    13 November 2008 at 6:31 pm

    Funny, others have said the same thing about the incoming govt, and that we’re going to have to clean up your mess when you leave just like last time.

    Suppose it depends what you consider to be a mess.

    What examples can you give of “scorched earth” that you adults are “fixing”?
43. Ianmac 43

    13 November 2008 at 6:37 pm

    Barnsleybill. Cullen was talking about our banking and the financial structure being quite sound. Confirmed by Don Brash. The Economy however is at risk and Cullen and others warned of the Economy gloom impending. ” Hence Jobs,Jobs, Jobs.”
44. randal 44

    13 November 2008 at 6:41 pm

    gayon epsinner has been bleating all over teeveeone about it
    wah wah wah
45. barnsleybill 45

    13 November 2008 at 7:11 pm

    10 years of deficits for a start.

    captcha.. fourskinner!
46. Vinsin 46

    13 November 2008 at 7:19 pm

    If you don’t like deficits why are you so willing to go with a National government that’s going to increase deficit and debt? Sounds like you’re not being so mature mr adult. Perhaps grandfather is confused by this scary world of inter-webs, game-stations, baggy pants and that hippity hop music made by those new kids on the blocks?
47. Doug 47

    13 November 2008 at 7:58 pm

    Outgoing finance minister Michael Cullen is already being accused of undermining the new government.

    He has released figures showing the government books getting worse, but he did it without treasury knowing and when the economic forecasts hadn’t been completed.
48. Vinsin 48

    13 November 2008 at 8:04 pm

    you got a link for that Doug? Where you hear that?
49. Doug 49

    13 November 2008 at 8:17 pm

    Vinsin

    http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/1318360/2307936
50. Pascal's bookie 50

    13 November 2008 at 8:54 pm

    ginger

    Basically short term bigger deficits, perhaps put education and health expenditure back a year or two. Not sure how well that would go down. Get consumers spending again via the tax cuts. You really want taxpayers to save them.

    emphasis mine.

    I disagree, though I’m not an economist, so take thais for what it’s worth.

    The idea behind counter cyclical spending is that the private sector spending has dried up. Therefore the government needs to provide the demand to keep the econony ticking over. Tax cuts that are diverted to savings are wasted. They are part of the problem. When times get tough, the individual, quite sensibly, cuts back on spending and reduces debt, but because everyone is doing this at the same time, the economy slows down due to the reduced spending.

    That’s why the shape of the stimulus package is so important. In the US a short while ago they just wrote everyone a check. Which is stupid because most people just threw it at their credit card debt which was a very sensible thing for them to do as individuals, but meant that the stimulus gained for those tax payers dollars was close to zip.

    Likewise if you cut taxes mostly for the better off, they will use it to reduce debt in higher proportion than the poorer citizens who will use it to live on. So the government gets better bang for it’s buck by stimulating demand from the bottom and getting money to those who are most likely to spend it.

    It’s interesting to see lots of righties talking in Keynesian terms though. Funny how that happens. Back when the economy was running at full steam and Cullen was running down debt and preparing the government books to weather these storms the righties were all crying for tax cuts. Admit you were wrong any time you like fellas cause otherwise you can’t talk about needing tax cuts now for a stimulus. Them’s the rulz.

    Tim Ellis is excluded ’cause he’s already explained that he just believes in tax cuts and it’s uncivil to fault a man’s religion, however stupid in theory and evil in practice.
51. mike 51

    13 November 2008 at 8:57 pm

    “he has only done that after it became clear Key was trying to hide the scale of the problem from the public.”

    What the? Firstly why would JK hide it as it’s the mess Labour left and he could have painted it that way.
    Secondly even the Treasury have come out tiday and said it was surprised this old data was released and it not accurate now.

    Losing must be hard but you need to suck it up boy and move on.
    [why is the financial meltdown Labour’s fault? And why is increasing debt going to make things better? Key did try to hide the statement, he refused to tell journalists the details. Treasury has not called the data old, it was only produced by them on Friday, they’re saying there’s more work being done on the figures. We can expect the figures to continue getting worse. Do yo think that will prod Key into changing any of his plans? SP]
52. tsmithfield 52

    13 November 2008 at 9:21 pm

    I think tax cuts are vitally important for another reason.

    Many businesses will really be struggling over the next few years and will not be able to afford much in the way of wage rises. Tax cuts are a way of making up for the stagnation in salary growth, especially as things get tougher.

    The other thing is that tax cuts can actually have the counter-intuitive effect of increasing tax revenue through stimulating the economy and thereby generating more taxable income. Removing tax-cuts or increasing taxes in this environment I believe will end up in a downward spiral that will further reduce the tax base below the level generated through the tax-cut scenario. What a guy!!!

    BTW Treasury is not at all impressed with Cullen releasing the financial data at this stage. Apparently there is Government bonds currently being generated and the release of the financial information at this stage could increase the cost of borrowing on these to the government (i.e. us). Therefore, some could regard Cullen as guilty of economic sabotage.

    [it’s not for Treasury to decide when elected officials may or may not release information. SP]
53. jake 53

    13 November 2008 at 9:31 pm

    This crap could not be more lame. Not only did Cullen trivalise the transfer conventions by releasing these preliminary projections but you guys have seized on them as some kind of proof that National is wrong-headed. In fact, Cullen would have used these numbers to kill the 2009 tax cuts. He’s a complete loose cannon right now – and you guys are doing yourselves no lasting good by pretending that this error by Cullen is anything but just flailing. Hey, he’s a backbencher now. Get used to it.

    [what 2009 tax cuts would he have cut? there are no 2009 cuts in the current legislation. Cullen is still Finance Minister he still gets to decide issues like releasing a report, he just has to follow the directions of National on major issues. Do you think the final figures are going to magically be heaps better? SP]
54. randal 54

    13 November 2008 at 9:33 pm

    agresearch going to lay off 25 staff immediately
    thats what I call progress
55. tsmithfield 55

    13 November 2008 at 9:43 pm

    SP “it’s not for Treasury to decide when elected officials may or may not release information.”

    Well according to English, Cullen had breached the convention that caretaker governments should consult the incoming government before making such a move. Not the only time in recent history that Labour has breached standing conventions, demonstrating their continuing high degree of arrogance and sense of entitlement.

    Anyway, Cullen’s job is to act in the interest of New Zealanders, not in the interest of his own petty politics. Very petulant and immature IMO. Cost us all extra $ in the process.
56. TimeWarp 56

    13 November 2008 at 9:47 pm

    It’s a theory that has some validity tsmithfield.

    The concern I have is that the NZ economy in large part is vulnerable at the current time because it has been so consumer-driven. Encouraging consumption is not primarily what we need to do. If tax-cut money was saved (or used to reduce debt) by the general population, or invested by entrepreneurs, then it would have some long-term value. But recent history has shown that a lot of consumer cash goes into property and cars. And regardless, savings and other long-term strategies while needed won’t help the current circumstances.

    I would suggest that at the bottom-end of the socio-economic scale, tax-cuts would be used just to maintain current levels of consumption at the increased costs. Probably zero sum net gain. At the other end the risk adverse will simply bank it (or buy bonds) and the risk-takers will purchase assets at bargain prices, often speculatively.

    In the long-term export-led growth is required, but in the meantime some government stimulus appears appropriate.

    Infrastructure investment seems the logical approach to me. You still get the flow-through effects you were suggesting from tax cuts – in fact probably more so as all the money is spent, and it creates demand through a supply chain. But you guarantee generation of long-term value from the cash if the infrastructure investment choices are considered and appropriate (ie not fibre to every premise). Whereas tax-cut based consumption may effectively be just another bubble (albeit one buried within a recession).
57. Vinsin 57

    13 November 2008 at 10:05 pm

    With John Key heading off to Apec don’t you think it would be wise for him to have a look at the books before he goes? I’ve got to say this is the lamest bullshit i’ve ever heard. How dishonest of someone to give the new government the books when they’re trying to race through a coalition so Key can be at Apec (i hope my sarcasm is coming through loud and clear here). Are you kidding me? Does anyone really think this is undermining the government, this is called briefing the government. If Keyzill wants to be Prime Minister at Apec then he needs to look at the books; otherwise Apec would be a waste of time. Does anyone not get that?

    “Cullen’s job is to act in the interest of New Zealanders, not in the interest of his own petty politics” yes exactly, he could’ve held onto the books until after apec and made John look like a doosh – too late i fear – or he could do the best thing for the country and brief Key so he can start making some strategies and plans to get this economy up and running. Even if the figures are only drafts it’s a good way for Key to get a fuller understanding of what’s going on. So, sorry but all you people saying this is “arrogant” are dead wrong it’s called being prudent.
58. tsmithfield 58

    13 November 2008 at 10:18 pm

    Vinsin “yes exactly, he could’ve held onto the books until after apec and made John look like a doosh”

    No Vinsin, Treasury had already shown Key the same set of books that Cullen released. So, Cullen had no reason to do what he did other than for petty politics. No reason whatsoever.
59. Vinsin 59

    13 November 2008 at 10:27 pm

    tsf, No reason whatsoever. How about transparency? How about informing the population? How about greater government accountability? I’m sorry but there’s more practical reasons for releasing the papers rather than just “petty politics” or is this an example of the Labour conspiracy against John Key?
60. gingercrush 60

    13 November 2008 at 10:28 pm

    I’m not an economics expert either. And really you try looking up tax cuts and several economists will say several different things. Is it the best time to have tax cuts.Maybe or maybe not. Basically it rather depends if you swing to the right or left.

    http://national.org.nz/files/2008/ECONOMY/Tax_Policy_Paper.pdf – National’s tax policy. Yes Higher incomes do receive more from tax cuts. But low income people do get a decent tax cut. But once again you either like tax cuts or you don’t Remember without the crisis higher incomes would have got a bigger tax cut. And one doesn’t know what Act’s plans are in regards to tax cuts. They may want the tax cuts to be bigger and high income earners to get more.

    The other big thing is the infrastructure plan which National promised to speed up. I’m guessing there will be some announcement of a stimulus plan in December when the policy budget is announced.

    Where I do agree with SP, that Key probably needed to say more. But right now Labour are still the caretakers. The Coalition still needs to be processed and a Cabinet needs to be decided. Further to that John Key needs to get to APEC. Basically many world leaders will be there so he needs to go.

    In regards to Cullen breaking conventions. It is a trend that Labour did, such conventions are likely to continue to be broken by National. Not a good thing to see but one must remember they’re only conventions.

    Agree with the conversation about growing exports. Its the only way to go, its the only way to increase productivity. But that area is long term. Labour should have done more in this area. Labour were sound in many areas but I think they allowed productivity levels to fall too much and they seemed to be enjoying the short term benefits for an ecomonic high without investing in the future.

    For several years the economy was growing well. This was thanks to a good housing market, a lower dollar that increased exports. In turn commodity prices rose. These commodity prices rose and meant good returns for New Zealand businesses even as the dollar rose sharply. However, when commodity prices rise that means inevitably oil also rises. This combined with higher food commodity prices meant food prices domestically rose. That and the housing market caused high inflation meaning interest rates needed to go up. Eventually interest rates were too high and that caused the dollar to rise too far. Meaning exporters were struggling but the domestic market was held up thanks to the cheap prices for imports. Thus for the latter years of the economic high it was the domestic market and not exports benefiting. Also increased government expenditure also meant too much activity was public and not private. That doesn’t bode well.

    Eventually interest rates were so high, incomes did not rise enough and housing so high.That it could no longer be sustained. This saw lower house prices, less money due to the increased price of food. The economy was starting to slow down. We probably could have soft-landed. However, then the problems in the United States emerged. Meaning whatever soft-landing New Zealand was going to have is now quickly turning into a hard-landing.

    For all the negatives people say about the National Party. One thing they are rather well at. Is getting out of crises. The late 80s saw a massive stock market crash. In 1990 National gained office. And while they hurt many with the budgets from Ruth Richardson. National was able to slowly grow surpluses. Once again during the Asian crisis, National still in power was able to grow a surplus. (Though remember Shipley most stupidly cut Super).

    Hopefully National is once again able to ride out an economic low, but this time without hurting people. There are still some of those hard righters. Notably Act and some National insiders. But I don’t feel John Key is one of those. And thus I’m hopeful and put trust in Key that he can get out of the mess short-term. And long-term improve our economy so the growth comes from exporting and not public and domestic growth.

    As for what Labour would have done. Well we just don’t know. But the way I see. Yes there are some differences between Labour and National. One believes in more public goods, while the latter believes in letting private run things. One is a party for unions, the other for business. But really underneath it all. There isn’t much difference.
61. Pascal's bookie 61

    13 November 2008 at 10:59 pm

    “In 1990 National gained office. And while they hurt many with the budgets from Ruth Richardson. National was able to slowly grow surpluses. Once again during the Asian crisis, National still in power was able to grow a surplus. (Though remember Shipley most stupidly cut Super).”

    As you say, opinions differ. Many think that Richardson’s slashing of benefits and ‘market rents’ for state housing caused the recession to deepen. NZ was also hit harder by the Asian crisis than other affected economies. Other Nations tried other routes, with better results. NZ essentially missed the nineties boom and that is where our income disparities with Australia for example, really took off.

    Labour were sound in many areas but I think they allowed productivity levels to fall too much and they seemed to be enjoying the short term benefits for an ecomonic high without investing in the future.

    Not sure what you mean by this in concrete terms. Labour paid off massive amounts of debt, set up the Cullen fund and kiwisaver, is spending more on Education and research and so on. None of which is short term stuff in the way, that say, umm, tax cuts, is.

    Productivity is something that the government doesn’t have a lot of control over as far as I understand it. What is needed is business investment, but kiwis seem to prefer dividends, boats, and houses, meh.
62. Vinsin 62

    13 November 2008 at 11:07 pm

    gc, please start using commas and punctuating your sentences more. I’m not bagging you as the comment has some interesting points in it, it’s just very hard to assimilate and understand the information with so many fragmented sentences.

    “But really underneath it all. There isn’t much difference.” This is just one example of many.
    “But the way I see.” is another, remember every sentence must have a subject, a noun and an action.

    Anyways this is a link to a fairly good grammar site which you should check out.

    http://chompchomp.com/menu.htm
63. Aj 63

    13 November 2008 at 11:16 pm

    Who, and when?

    “The tax cuts will be north of $50 for those on the average wage”

    captcha ‘afforded his’

    Oh the irony
64. gingercrush 64

    13 November 2008 at 11:18 pm

    How do you do the italic?? is that those xthml codes I see just above where I’m typing this? I notice them but afraid to say I still don’t understand them lol.

    Your first point – Richardson’s budget cuts did do severe damage i this regard. Thankfully by 1993 you saw a better National government and from there they were rather stable and able to slowly grow surpluses. Shipley was kinda mad. I always liked her but who cuts people’s super and expect people to be happy about it.

    Second point – Yes Labour put in good work in regards to infrastructure spending, debt levels, the Cullen fund and Kiwisaver. As for Education and Healh. Both National in the nineties and Labour 1999-2008 both increased spending on health and education. There is a lot of bureaucracy and i don’t believe either spent well in these two areas. We seem to pump so much into health and yet it barely seems to improve. I think Cullen could have put in the tax cuts earlier and differently. Those on the left see tax cuts as benefiting the rich. Really with tax cuts, all get a slice but if you are able to earn more money you are going to be able to get a bigger tax cut. You also pay more tax in the first place. Labour I feel really missed the boat in delivering tax cuts and they should have done it where low income earners could benefit just as well as the higher income people. this would have been by slashing the thresholds for low income. They did some of this in 2008 and that was really thanks to National who pressed on them to do something about tax cuts.

    Also while paying off debt is good. Labour should have done something to prevent the country facing 10 years of deficits. That can’t be blamed on the crisis and an area where Labour should have watched itself.

    —

    Labour was good in that their stable government and little intervention in the market probably pro-longed the economic boom.But arguably that much of the country’s growth was off the back of domestic spending and housing market meant long-term export industry didn’t grow as much as they could have. The boom happened because the dollar was very low, interest rates were low and commodity prices were rising. Labour didn’t make that happen but I’ll give them props for being a stable government which ultimately helped the economy.

    Vinsin: Yes I was waiting for someone to comment on my grammar. Its more a matter of typing things out and not having a chance to read through it to check that its readable. Also difficult when you have four minutes or so to edit.

    [lprent: for the tags try Here.
    I’ll try an experiment for the editing, shifting from 5 to 8 minutes. The reason that it was set at the level it was was because of the interesting effects of changing comments when other people were answering them. But I suspect most people will have figured all that out since I put them in.]
65. TimeWarp 65

    13 November 2008 at 11:35 pm

    gc:

    Something to remember about the 10 years of deficit. IIRC Treasury simply project out based on current economic circumstances. They do not (correctly, because it would be at least partly speculative) allow for cyclical factors. That is how, given the impact of the current global economic crisis, we went from forecasts of 10 years of surplus to 10 years of deficit. The forecasts are useful, and I’m not attempting to downplay the current problems, but it should be recognised that they do not factor in future cyclical growth as the global economy recovers.

    What I would like to know from you is, how should Labour have avoided us facing these deficits?

    It’s a genuine question – because we really need some solutions applied, and anything valid a year ago may have some validity now.

    I really think you (and tsmithsfield) are pushing the tax cuts bandwagon a little far though. Thankfully debt has been retired over the last 9 years, so that deficits are not as painful as they would have been. Which is why Key can recklessly blow up the government level of spending and get away with it in the short-to-mid-term.

    Ironically though, in the last 5 yrs or so there has been a mounting call for tax cuts and accusations that excess surpluses were being retained. It’s only that discipline that has us in some reasonable shape. The tax cut mantra has got up its own head of steam without any rationale behind it.

    I do personally believe taxes should come down over the long-term. I also believe that fundamentally the only way that can sustainably happen while maintaing a certain level of services, particularly in a world where costs are increasing rapidly, is structural improvement in the economy and growth. At the moment growth is not happening – and a myopic view on personal tax is unhealthy as regardless of stimulus, etc it doesn’t change the economy structurally.
66. gingercrush 66

    14 November 2008 at 12:15 am

    What I would like to know from you is, how should Labour have avoided us facing these deficits?

    It’s a genuine question – because we really need some solutions applied, and anything valid a year ago may have some validity now.

    Been more conservative in regards to spending. Yes I know that is not the way to answer this but I’m no economic expert. It just seems strange to me Cullen for years would smile with glee at how high the surpluses were and surplus forecasts looked good for years. Only for the latter two years for that to change. To answer your question. I can’t. I wish I knew more about economics worked, but the fact most economists don’t agree within themselves tells me that the average person can’t either.

    That would also be like asking you if Labour was in government what within their policy outlines from the election would have helped to lessen the economic crisis. Could you answer that?

    If you can more power to you. But these are difficult questions and thus difficult to answer.
67. TimeWarp 67

    14 November 2008 at 12:43 am

    This is speculative, but perhaps Cullen always intended to reduce tax once the fiscal position improved.

    Goverment spending has been another mantra of this campaign without any substance or policy behind it. I would like to know GC: where should spending be reduced?

    I know the likes of the hip-hop tour and Housing NZ Turangi retreats got headlines and set the notion of waste in the public psyche, and yes in the first respect at least this was wasted money, but those really are infintesimally meaningless amounts in the wider picture.

    I am incredulous at the Nats’ statements on this area of spending. And I use the broad collective term deliberately, because during the campaign Key was the oracle for all policy; dead fish, road tolls and fat-handed Samoans to one side. But a number of National parliamentarians DID speak on Health, and hospital waiting lists. IIRC one middle-bencher said something a week or so back like “how hard will it be to call in the DHB CEO’s and ask them to review waiting lists?” If they do so, based on various public issuances they will be asking the CEO’s to reduce waiting lists, use existing resources, and cap if not reduce some spending. Meanwhile the CEO’s will point to the rising costs the entire economy has been subject to, and simultaneous wage pressures. Make no mistake this is a huge issue – both the broad media, and very specificallly National, have made comments about the need to retain our health professionals. But no policy on how to do that either.

    All this broad sloganeering without considered policy detail that acknowledges the various logical dependencies is going to come seriously unstuck.

    To answer your question. I don’t believe there is any government mechanism that given the environment will completely stop some economic decline and an increase in unemployment. However, referencing my comments above, the best approach I can see to limit these impacts would be to invest wisely in key and core infrastructure. This would have several effects: it would stimulate demand and employment during the recession, it would do so more sustainability than tax-cut fuelled consumption, it would deliver long-term structural benefits, and it would better position the economy for faster, larger growth on the other side of the cycle by utilising that infrastructure.

    Labour actually had some worthwhile policy being developed around that very concept. Limited and imperfect, but headed in an appropriate direction in my opinion.

    I also think some of the ‘SwanBelly’ recommendations from Messrs Skilling and Weldon are worthwhile of consideration. http://blog.nzx.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/swan-dive-or-belly-flop-versiontwo1.pdf. They also advocate infrastructure investment, and I’ve been a long-time believer in compulsory super saving despite the rejection at referedum in 1996(?). RIP, Winston Peters – that should have been your enduring legacy to the country.
68. gingercrush 68

    14 November 2008 at 12:57 am

    Nice statement. Impressed that you’re able to talk about subject. As for cutting spending. Surely it needs to be long-term and cutting of waste. But not the headline stuff. And once again not the best way to reply.

    Anyway you mention infrastructure spending. Now since National is now in office and then had a broad policy of spending six million dollars in infrastructure. Now I know you’re not very impressed with their broadband policy. But the other infrastructure spending surely is the right idea.
69. Killinginthenameof 69

    14 November 2008 at 4:21 am

    So it was wrong for Cullen to release the report eh? does that mean Key would have censored it?

    I fully support him releasing it, as they said on the news, it underlines how things were right at the end of his time as minister of finance. These days people are quite willing to entirely re write history with a few clicks of a mouse, I hold absolutely no grudges against him for leaving this for use in objective comparison, when one day this might be possible.
70. tsmithfield 70

    14 November 2008 at 8:46 am

    Vinsin “No reason whatsoever. How about transparency? How about informing the population? How about greater government accountability? I’m sorry but there’s more practical reasons for releasing the papers rather than just “petty politics”

    No, it was a totally irresponsible act of economic sabotage. Cullen doesn’t seem to care that his little act of pique is costing taxpayers more money. All I can say is I am glad he’ll be gone soon.

    From the Dom Post: http://www.stuff.co.nz/vote08/4760329a28435.html

    “Their release appears to have caused a stir in the Treasury – which immediately issued a statement saying it had not intended the documents to be made public.

    One of the concerns appears to be that the information may have been market-sensitive, as it came out immediately after a government bond tender had closed.”
71. travellerev 71

    14 November 2008 at 8:50 am

    Mike

    “he has only done that after it became clear Key was trying to hide the scale of the problem from the public.’

    What the? Firstly why would JK hide it as it’s the mess Labour left and he could have painted it that way.

    I’m not surprised JK wanted to hide the scale of the problem. he was only voted into power because Kiwi’s were bored with HK and MC and they had this strange notion that one of the people responsible for the financial Tsunami about to hit us was the right guy to fix the mess.

    He could only get elected because the corporate and internationally owned mass media kept the Kiwi’s thoroughly zombified and ignorant of the extend of the collapse around the world and it’s connection to the Wall street hustler we now have elected in the highest office of the land.

    I’m sure that he would really like to keep it that way for as long as possible and Cullen one last time should were his loyalty lies and that is with the New Zealand population.

    When JK goes to the G20 next week, this is what he is going to come back with:
    The announcement that to stabilise and reverse the depression heading our way we must give what ever financial independence we had left to submit to more financial control by an unelected, unaccountable foreign body who for our own good will regulate the international financial world.

    It is known as the New World Order and it’s game over for our independent New Zealand.

    The Wall street/City of London bankers will rule the world through their control of our money supplie and our democratically elected leaders will be, like in the US, no more than window dressing to keep the punters under the illusion that they still live in a Democracy.

    Does JK feel bad about relinquishing the power vested in him by the dumbass Kiwi population? Are you kidding?

    Why do you think he bought his Hawaii condo after he talked with his Banking buddies in London in October 2007. It’s when they gave him his orders and told him to prepare for an escape since it was all going to shit in the next couple of years.
72. travellerev 72

    14 November 2008 at 9:01 am

    tsmithfield

    Read my previous comment.

    Why are we not allowed to know what is going on with what is allegedly our money. If there is something to worry about do we not have the right to know since we have to elect our leaders based on how informed we are? Don’t we need to know how we got in this mess, who are responsible for we can keep them from powerful positions since they have shown us they are incompetent or perhaps worse, complicit in the biggest rip off of the working and middle class people the world over?

    The Dominican post by the way is owned by Fairfax which is owned for 10 % by Murdoch. Nuff said.

    I’ve had it up to here with pundits and journalists telling us that we don’t need to know important information because our “elected” leaders and the unelected, unaccountable international banking world know what is best for us and what’s more I really don’t understand people who agree with said pundits even though they are the ones getting screwed by these same assholes telling them they don’t need to know because they would panic.

    Hell, if there is something to panic about I really think we all need to know because it’s our asses getting burned not Rich Prick’s and his banking mates.
73. Kerry 73

    14 November 2008 at 9:08 am

    Dont expect Key to do anything about the economy……hes going to be too busy flying around the world doing a meet and greet.

    We should count ourselves lucky really that he will be keeping his hands off the day to day running of the country cause hes so not up to it.

    NATIONAL = SLOGANS
74. Tim Ellis 74

    14 November 2008 at 9:09 am

    Please stop telling lies travellerev. John Key was not responsible for this financial tsunami, any more than Helen Clark played a role in the holocaust. You know this is wrong, and I don’t know why you keep repeating it.

    Calling New Zealanders “stupid” is not a good way to improve the way New Zealanders see you. This “New Zealanders suck” campaign you are running is quite pointless. If you dislike New Zealanders so much, feel welcome to move elsewhere.
75. jtuckey 75

    14 November 2008 at 9:20 am

    Priceless stuff Eve I haven’t chortled so much for quite a while.

    It’s the dominion (not Dominican) post by the way and I don’t think Key is off to the G20 just APEC, you might consider the possibility that he has a condo in Hawaii because his family like to escape the NZ Winter for a week or so every year rather than your assumption that it’s some kind of Hitlerian Eagles nest.
76. John Stevens 76

    14 November 2008 at 9:22 am

    It amases me how all of a sudden SP is a finicial expert. 2 questions to pose:
    1. How would a Green/Labour govt dealt with this mess left by Cullen?
    2. Do you honestly think Key could do a worse job than a Green/Labour govt?

    I know the answer to Q2 is no, the Greens are total financial numpties.

    JK did not have any doing in this mess the world is in either, people such as ourselves are just as responsible as well if this were the case. Buying on credit, large morgages etc all contributed in their own small way.

    Oh, Cullen’s loyalty to NZ, so loyal he brought out a decrepid train set when he knew the books were stuffed. That will be his legacy.
77. Daveski 77

    14 November 2008 at 9:23 am

    Of course, Cullen not following protocol is completely acceptable here even if Treasury were far from impressed.
78. Bill 78

    14 November 2008 at 9:26 am

    This made me smile. While I am no great fan of Obama, his questionnaire for possible appointees to the whitehouse …”I(…) aims to weed out anyone who could be linked to the current mortgage lending crisis, asking flatly whether the applicant or any member of their family has worked for any of the firms now being bailed out by Washington.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/13/obama-white-house-questionnaire

    Influx of rejected wannabe bureaucrats into NZ anyone?
79. tsmithfield 79

    14 November 2008 at 9:26 am

    travellerev: “Why are we not allowed to know what is going on with what is allegedly our money”

    No problem with this proposition at all. However, there is a time and a place. Releasing the information when it was against New Zealand’s interests was downright irresponsible.

    travellerev: “The Dominican post by the way is owned by Fairfax which is owned for 10 % by Murdoch. Nuff said.”

    So, what has this got to do with the comments from Treasury? There are plenty of other sources that reported exactly the same comments if you care to look.
80. Inventory2 80

    14 November 2008 at 9:36 am

    Re Cullen releasing the financial statements without Treasury’s knowledge. The documents from Treasury carried the endorsement “In confidence – Very preliminary” That endorsement had been erased from the documents released by Cullen. Kinda says it all, doesn’t it.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz-election-2008/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501799&objectid=10542949
81. jtuckey 81

    14 November 2008 at 9:40 am

    Agreed IV2 – I don’t know what Cullen was thinking apart from trying to fling a bit of mud at National – perhaps he’s finding it difficult to step back from campaign mode.
82. Robinsod 82

    14 November 2008 at 9:52 am

    Of course, Cullen not following protocol is completely acceptable here even if Treasury were far from impressed.

    Despite their most fervent desires, treasury doesn’t run the country. They did last time National was in power and they may again soon – god help us – but nobody with any sense should listen to that pack of fools on any issue outside of their field which is only to advise on fiscal and economic issues…
83. gingercrush 83

    14 November 2008 at 9:58 am

    In government, convention is a set of unwritten rules which the participants in the government are expected to follow. These rules can be ignored only if justification is clear, or can be provided. Otherwise, consequences are sure to follow. Consequences may include ignoring some other convention that has until now been followed. According to the traditional doctrine (Dicey), conventions cannot be enforced in courts, because they are non-legal sets of rules.
    Via Wikipedia.

    If you’re on the right lets face it you’re going to find Cullen broke the convention. If you’re left you’re likely to find Cullen was justified. If you’re a centrist, it depends how you feel. At the end of the day its only a convention. Nothing more. Personally, I don’t like the breaking of conventions. But it doesn’t exactly bother me.
84. Daveski 84

    14 November 2008 at 10:03 am

    sod – your answer completely overlooked the issue I raised about protocol and the other comments about the document being in confidence and very preliminary.

    Clearly, SP is having a lie in as he was actively accusing Key of not following protocol by predicting falls in the OCR so I wait with eager anticipation for his equally scathing attack on Cullen for his failure to follow protocol.
85. Robinsod 85

    14 November 2008 at 10:18 am

    Daveski – the so called “protocols” don’t cover this. In fact you could OIA it yourself or wait until Treasury’s December report (out in the first two weeks of that month) and the figures would be there. The whining from English is due to the fact he was expecting that delay and that Key’s quotes would have been forgotten by then. This is about accountability. I have no doubt that part of Cullen’s decision to release the figures was political but if Key is going to obfuscate about the state of the books he can expect to be called on it.

    I’m getting really sick of the tories misbehaving and then crying “dirty tricks” when they get outed on it. It doesn’t speak of any sense of responsibility and it sure as f*ck doesn’t give me confidence they’ll govern well…
86. randal 86

    14 November 2008 at 10:30 am

    sod you can guarantee that though c/t might get a government elected they cant do it properly when they in office.
    this election is a victory for the irrational and the ignorant who wanted their irrational ignorant voices to be heard
    we will have to put up with it for the next three years
    feed me feed me feed me
87. travellerev 87

    14 November 2008 at 10:51 am

    Tim Ellis,

    Suit yourself. So far all you’ve done is calling me a liar but you have not disproven any of my well documented statements and nor has any of the few others who tell me I’m a “Conspiracy theorist”.

    John Key was a very big cog in the Wall street/City of London Mafia now causing our financial demise. Simple and true.

    Wouldn’t it be interesting if JK were to take either the Standard for allowing me to slander him on their blog or me for slandering him to court?

    I mean here I am telling all these “lies” about him and perhaps damage his reputation since the Standard reaches a fair amount of people everyday.

    I’d love to see him explain in court how he worked with AK after the man left trading. Perhaps we could summon AK and have him explain under oath how they did that. Now that would be interesting eh?

    Tell you what Tim, you show me how JK could have worked with Andrew Krieger while both were working for BT in August 1988 six months after he left BT and 3 months after AK left Forex trading altogether and I’ll apologise.

    However if you cannot deliver said prove you apologise to me for calling me a liar.

    I’ll give you a week.

    Friday 21 9:35 a.m. you will deliver prove and I mean real prove, not something JK said in the News papers because that I have been able to prove is impossible, or you will write an apology here on this blog in the latest post in front of everybody who comments here.

    You will also refrain from calling me a liar from that moment on unless you can support that accusation with tangible evidence. If not I will consider my options.
    You have now called me a liar in public (if I remember correctly) three times.

    That is slander and I will not take that lying down.

    As for comparing my connecting (with proof) JK with the Wall street bankers and their and his behaviour causing the coming financial collapse, with Helen Clark being responsible for the Holocaust is revolting and says a lot about how narrow minded and spiteful you are.

    But let’s take that as a comparison: if there had been as many connections between HC and the Nazi’s perpetrating the holocaust as there are between JK and the Wall street/City of London banksters during the time they were killing Jews I would be the first one to want to have a massive investigation into those connections and I would most certainly not make any excuses for her as you lot seem to do for JK.

    What I would do is start with establishing a timeline:

    Like this: World war II from 1940 until 1945. Helen Clark born 1950. Ooh oops, that’s the end of that investigation.

    Now for JK and Wall street:

    John Key Global head of Merrill Lynch in the late 1990. European head of Bonds and Derivatives in the late 90s and Managing director of Debt in 1999. One of only four upon invitation only advisors of the Federal Reserve of New York from 1999 until March 2001. Repeal of Glass Steagall act in November. Start of housing bubble in late 1990s and Merrill Lynch being one of the most aggressive speculative derivative banks. That puts him in one of the prime spots to be complicit in the bubble building now collapsing our system.

    Now let’s see where that puts him in the Nazy holocaust comparison.

    Goering, Hess, Ribbentrop, Keitel, Kaltenbrunner, Rosenberg, Frank, Frick; (second column) Funk, Streicher, Schacht; (third column) Doenitz, Raeder, Schirach; (right, from top) Sauckel, Jodl, Papen, Seyss-Inquart, Speer, Neurath, Fritzsche, Bormann.

    You take your pick. What’s the chance any of them is Squeaky clean.

    Or perhaps any of their secretaries (You know JK not being the top dog and all) who all knew what was going on. (You didn’t get that kind of a job unless you wanted all of the Jews to die and you were a loyal party member).

    Any chance of them being just patsies and squeaky clean or whaddayathunk; they swam with sharks so they must have been pretty sharky too.

    In the investment banking top you are shark. If you are not you will never make it. A shark feeding frenzy as the last 20 years have been does not allow for a dolphin in their midst.

    I am married to a very intelligent Kiwi who told me recently that the utter stupidity in all things geopolitical and political of a large proportion of the Kiwi public is what caused him to leave some 22 years ago. I sense some regret coming off him for coming back even though we live in Paradise where we live.

    I live in a wonderful rural community with amazingly aware kiwi’s who share my opinion about the IQ of the average National voter and together with them I prepare for the collapse of NZ under the governance of JK and his marry band of fellow liars (as per proven by the tapes and interviews) and hatemongers (English on Obama anyone, or his son against gays) in order to help people to get on with their lives in a different way after the transition.

    To be honest I don’t give a flying F*&k how the average Kiwi National voter sees me. I think they’re hare brained and they probably think I’m to big for my boots but than they would think that of anyone who actually uses their brain for something other than watching dumb TV and picking their noses.

    Seems to be the average National voter’s motto: Stuuupiiid iiis goood, thiiinkiiiing baaad.

    (My husband just called from a smoko room at Fonterra. He quoted me some stuff from the business section of the NZH. That’s the only section nobody ever reads and that is where all the disaster news is hidden. Perhaps National voters should start to read that section, eh? Might give them a clue about where we’re are heading and why)
88. Ianmac 88

    14 November 2008 at 10:53 am

    What fun this is to do fancy stuff or even shout out really loud Yay!
89. travellerev 89

    14 November 2008 at 11:02 am

    jtuckey

    Dominion post, I stand corrected (European me, Closer to Dominicans I suppose).
    Again a comparison with War time Germany (Don’t want to go in moderation using the N word again). Time will tell, jtuckey, time will tell.

    My previous comment is in moderation. I suspect that is because I respond to Tim Ellis’s comment comparing my connecting JK with the financial crisis as impossible as HC being complicit in the holocaust and inadvertently using the N word.

    I turned the comparison around and have now or never had any inclination to connect JK with anything as reprehensible and horrific as the Holocaust.

    I hope however that the post is allowed top appear since it wasn’t me bring the holocaust into the equation but it served well when responding to Tim Ellis’s comment.
90. travellerev 90

    14 November 2008 at 11:07 am

    Ianmac,

    LOLOLOL ( I found the same)

    Robinsod,

    Despite their most fervent desires, treasury doesn’t run the country.

    They do now.
91. Tim Ellis 91

    14 November 2008 at 11:19 am

    Travellerev, you have repeatedly called John Key a liar. Your evidence is not documented. You now complain that other people are calling you a liar.

    This issue has been raised with you many, many times. You have failed to answer it. You continue to stick to your stupid conspiracy theories, refusing to answer key issues. In particular:

    Tell you what Tim, you show me how JK could have worked with Andrew Krieger while both were working for BT in August 1988 six months after he left BT and 3 months after AK left Forex trading altogether and I’ll apologise.

    Show me where, travellerev, John Key said he worked with Andrew Krieger while they were both at BT.

    Show me where it was impossible for John Key to work with Andrew Krieger while they were at separate companies.

    I’m not going to apologise to you because you are obsessed with John Key, and you continue to slander him.
92. randal 92

    14 November 2008 at 11:22 am

    ev the country is now being run by the irrational for the irrational.
    and
    opinionated people who base their opinion on no evidence
    so its now the irrational, the ill educated and the opinionated.
    furthermore we are now seeing more americanisation of our country with ignorati loike tim (the twerp) shadbolt calling for sherrifs in the first step towards privatising the police and letting more bullies loose in the community
    there are enough bullies now without electeng them and giving them free reign
    time for the police to step up and make a stand before the whole shooting box turns to crap
93. Felix 93

    14 November 2008 at 11:41 am

    Ev, you’re wasting your time.

    Tim has been caught lying more often than Key has. You’ve explained very clearly the problem with Key’s dates many times and Tim is just pretending he doesn’t know that and hope that you can’t be bothered explaining it again.

    I see he’s already accused you of slander. He’ll probably call you a liar too.

    Next he’ll pretend that it’s not an important enough issue to waste his time engaging with you.

    Then he’ll pretend there’s some other reason he won’t engage with you, his favourite is “I don’t engage with anonymous people on teh interwebz even though I am one”.

    Then he’ll pretend he was actually talking about something completely unrelated and you’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

    When you quote his previous comments to show that he’s lying about that he’ll say “I’m not talking to people who attack me”.

    It’s soooo boring, Ev, he follows the same pattern every time. You’re better than that, don’t bother with him.
94. travellerev 94

    14 November 2008 at 11:47 am

    Time Ellis,

    One week is all you’ve got, you better get to work now.

    You called me a liar on this site and either you disappear into the dark hole you came from or you apologise.

    Judging by Felix it is you modus operandi and I for one have had it with you.

    Thanks Felix,

    By the way does the word primrose mean anything to you? LOL
95. Tim Ellis 95

    14 November 2008 at 11:52 am

    I asked you a question ev, and you didn’t answer it. I don’t have to prove your assertion, when your assertion is based on a stupid premise.

    When did John Key say that the only dealings he had with Andrew Krieger was when they were both together at Bankers Trust?
96. travellerev 96

    14 November 2008 at 12:22 pm

    Talking about unaccountable, unelected shady financier power brokers and their megalomane ideas. How’s about this quote:

    Baron Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance. “But you have to be careful of caricatures: we don’t want to go from ultra liberalism to protectionism.’

    Who the f*&k voted for him and is this what Kiwi’s want for their country? To be ruled not by our expected representatives but by some shady world governance?

    I dearly hope that the sense of independence (Labour and National voters) that I’ve met in a great many Kiwi’s will prevail and that in the end they will see through the scam that is The New World Order and that they will chuck the money masters and their servants out on their ass.
97. Tim Ellis 97

    14 November 2008 at 12:25 pm

    Travellerev, I’ve now asked you this question three times on this thread. Gomango has asked the question multiple times in other threads as well. You haven’t once answered it. It’s only once you give an answer to this question that any of your claims about John Key lying have any validity.

    When did John Key say that the only dealings he had with Andrew Krieger was when they were both together at Bankers Trust?
98. randal 98

    14 November 2008 at 12:48 pm

    ev
    keys has not told the truth about anything
    it is not in his nature
    if he told the truth then nobody would buy anything off him
    only crosby textor
99. travellerev 99

    14 November 2008 at 12:54 pm

    Randal,

    So true. LOLOLOL
100. Tim Ellis 100

     14 November 2008 at 1:04 pm

     Silence is deafening ev, so you don’t have an answer to the question, do you? John Key didn’t once say that he and Krieger worked together while they were both at Bankers Trust, did he?

     So your whole premise, that John Key is a liar, is based on a stupid assumption on your part, isn’t it?
101. Felix 101

     14 November 2008 at 1:27 pm

     Ev, yup. 🙂
102. travellerev 102

     14 November 2008 at 1:28 pm

     Time Ellis,

     In this interview:
     http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4392717a24815.html

     Quote:

     One of BT Auckland’s clients was BT New York dealer Andrew Krieger, who decided to take advantage of the volatility of the New Zealand dollar. “At the time the market was relatively inefficient so there were large jumps in the FX rate as Andy made his impact

     and this interview.
     http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10522310&pnum=12

     He formed what was to be a lucrative relationship with 32-year-old currency trader Andy Krieger, based at Bankers Trust in New York, who began putting hundreds of millions of dollars of business through Key’s dealing room.

     Key remembers getting a call from Krieger soon after he started at Bankers Trust. The New York trader’s first question was about New Zealand’s GDP and money supply.

     “It was really the management of that relationship on behalf of the dealing room that John had responsibility for,” says Gavin Walker, former chief executive of Bankers Trust in New Zealand. “He knew everything that was going on in terms of the orders that Krieger was executing on our desk.”

     As Bankers Trust reaped fat profits, Key’s renown across Asia grew.

     You’ve got one week and I expect a full apology if you are unable to explain supported with evidence how JK could have worked with Andrew Krieger in August 1988 when Andrew Krieger did not work in the Forex trade at that time.

     Proof?

     http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE0DD133EF931A15754C0A96E948260

     http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DEFDF153FF934A35755C0A96E948260&scp=3&sq=andrew%20krieger&st=cse

     http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DD123EF930A2575AC0A966958260&scp=5&sq=andrew%20krieger&st=cse

     (Sorry to all about the ugly links but at least this proves that they are real links to real news papers and real NY Times archive news articles.)

     One week Tim Ellis, one week and I really will be consulting what my options are in dealing with you calling me a liar. I’ve had enough.

     I know this is not my blog and it is totally up to the bloggers on this site but I think you have passed a limit here.

     You are accusing me of lying and when I challenge you to prove me wrong you start to harass me with demanding proof once again while I’ve given you links every single time. This is the last time I’ll indulge you and I hope that this is read by the moderators and that they will keep an eye on you.

     One week.

     (Moderators, thanks for that little bit of extra editing time)
103. travellerev 103

     14 November 2008 at 1:36 pm

     Felix,

     LOLOL. What number? Never mind, we have a common acquaintance it seems.
104. Tim Ellis 104

     14 November 2008 at 1:39 pm

     No, ev, you seem to be confusing something that a reporter has written, with something John Key has said. John Key did not say that they worked at BT together.

     We know that the first section is wrong, because BT New Zealand did not have a forex operation until John Key started the forex operation. So we know that the journalist got that fact wrong. That does not mean John Key lied about it.

     The second quote does not say that John Key and Andrew Krieger worked together when they were both at Bankers Trust. It says that when John Key joined Bankers’ Trust, Andrew Krieger called him and they did deals together.

     There is no evidence of any lying, ev. You are making it up.
105. travellerev 105

     14 November 2008 at 1:41 pm

     Oh and here’s another gem from the Sunday Star time:

     John key says:

     So what does Key think of the swaggering trader seen by the Reserve Bank as a threat to the national interest? Asked if he admired Krieger at the time, Key says, “yes, I think at the time, yes, he was a very intelligent guy.

     “He was a pioneer, in the sense he was one of the few people in the world who understood the options market before it was really established. He blazed a trail and that gave him a strategic advantage early on.”

     Key says he does not believe a moral issue arises for the traders who make these speculative attacks on currencies, or for the dealing rooms that carry out their orders. “I don’t really see it as a judgemental business. You’re simply executing orders for people.

     “I can’t remember whether Andy Krieger was buying or selling, it might have been selling with me, but at the time it would have reflected the economic fundamentals at play in New Zealand.
106. Tim Ellis 106

     14 November 2008 at 1:51 pm

     ev, you haven’t produced any evidence where John Key says they worked together while they were at bankers’ trust.

     All you have is John Key admitting that they worked on deals together, which he’s made no secret of, and a journalist reporting that was when they were both at BT.

     What evidence do you have that John Key lied?
107. travellerev 107

     14 November 2008 at 1:51 pm

     Shit, can’t edit it any more but options it turns out are a form of derivatives trading and what Andrew Krieger and John Key were engaged in was shorts trading it seems. A form of speculative trading designed to drive prices down so you can sell high and buy low making a huge profit.
108. randal 108

     14 November 2008 at 1:56 pm

     Ev
     that sound sabout right
     thats what they teach students at business school
     any trick at all to wring a buck out of market gyrations
     with no sense of responsibility or obligation whatsoever except to ones own greedy self
     and we pay for it with higher taxes and higher interest rates
     they get it from somewhere
     read my lips
     CENTRAL BANKS
     it just doesnt appear on their bank slips
     nice
109. Vinsin 109

     14 November 2008 at 2:05 pm

     Oh Tim stop acting like a Charles Sharlesburry and ask eve out for crying out loud – seriously. (Is it still funny to say get a room, doesn’t matter i’m going for it anyway.) Hey guys get a room!
110. travellerev 110

     14 November 2008 at 2:19 pm

     TIm Ellis,

     He formed what was to be a lucrative relationship with 32-year-old currency trader Andy Krieger, based at Bankers Trust in New York, who began putting hundreds of millions of dollars of business through Key’s dealing room.

     “I can’t remember whether Andy Krieger was buying or selling, it might have been selling with me

     Interview=Asking questions, getting answers=Writing article.

     Journalism=Asking questions, getting answers, double checking, confronting with discrepancies, getting new answers= Writing article.

     Articles in NZHerald and Sunday Star Times are Interviews, not journalism.

     If it had been journalism they would have googled Andrew Krieger and Bankers Trust and confronted John Key with their finds.

     I.e. they asked JK to tell them about his banking career and JK told them probably not realising that telling people about his connection with Andrew Krieger would come back to haunt him. In the NZHerald Interview (again not Journalism) the NZ Herald states twice that JK only worked with AK in 1988 because the record will show that he only started to work work with AK after the attack.

     Well, actually the records show that that would have been impossible in 1988 making a liar out of JK when he says he can’t remember if AK bought or sold with him but it might have been selling.

     And than the next one:

     but at the time it would have reflected the economic fundamentals at play in New Zealand

     Like hell it was. Andrew Krieger only dealt in NZ dollars for speculative reasons having nothing to do with economic fundamentals.

     NZ in 1987 was a third world country not deserving of millions of dollars in trade, in fact he almost collapsed the NZ dollar with JK’s help and when he only got a measly 3 million as a bonus when he earned US$ 338 million he left the Bankers trust in February 1988 making again a liar out of JK when he said in the NZH that he only started to work with AK for the Bankers Trust on 31 August 1988.

     John Key is a liar, pure and simple and I am not.

     One week and prove how JK could have worked with AK in September 1988 to the contrary or or a full apology.
111. travellerev 111

     14 November 2008 at 2:23 pm

     Vinsin,

     Euuuuuw.
112. Tim Ellis 112

     14 November 2008 at 2:26 pm

     ev, you don’t have any evidence of the sort. You have a journalist getting a fact wrong, and then assuming that it was because John Key lied to the journalist.
113. travellerev 113

     14 November 2008 at 2:26 pm

     Randal,

     Yup, Central banks and total disdain for the “punters”.
114. randal 114

     14 November 2008 at 2:27 pm

     well Ev is it is obvious that he is getting his rocks off baiting you but then thats the real tory s&m, b&d modus operandi all over
     two hits with one stone
115. Vinsin 115

     14 November 2008 at 2:30 pm

     eve, yeah sorry but you gotta admit you chuckled when reading it didn’t you?
116. Tim Ellis 116

     14 November 2008 at 2:31 pm

     The article doesn’t prove what you say, ev. It doesn’t show anything of the sort. It doesn’t even mention Krieger. It’s a Stuff article, not a Herald article. This shows that you are a liar, and John Key is not.
117. Lampie 117

     14 November 2008 at 2:45 pm

     “It’s interesting to see lots of righties talking in Keynesian terms though. Funny how that happens. Back when the economy was running at full steam and Cullen was running down debt and preparing the government books to weather these storms the righties were all crying for tax cuts. Admit you were wrong any time you like fellas cause otherwise you can’t talk about needing tax cuts now for a stimulus. Them’s the rulz.”

     Yeah, makes you wonder
118. travellerev 118

     14 November 2008 at 2:54 pm

     Time Ellis,

     Eugene Bingham, GILLIAN TETT and RUTH LAUGESEN, Eugene Bingham again, VERNON SMALL and ELISABETH SEXTON.

     That’s an awful lot of bad journalists here getting their facts wrong and all of them high profile journalists working for high profile newspapers too.

     Claire Trevett is the only one reporting that JK left Elders in 1987. In fact he used that date (early 1987) as the reason why he could not have been involved with the H-fee scandal at the time.

     So no matter how you look at it John Key is lying. Either he lied to her (or she got the date wrong) or he lied to six other journalists (or they got their facts wrong) or he and his boss lied about having worked with AK when both worked for Bankers Trust.
     No matter how you turn it, JK is and stays a liar.

     I don’t know who you are Tim Ellis, but in you attempt to smear me as a liar your exposing your hero to an awful lot of scrutiny.

     So either you are a very stupid John Key fan or a well paid smearer and if so you might want to talk to your boss about whether this is such a good idea.

     Thousands of people visit this blog and I have noticed an increase to my blog and I’m sure those kiwi mainstream newspapers are finding an increase in traffic to those interviews.

     In any case I still expect proof to the contrary of my statements or a full apology, in the mean time expect me to take advise as to what my options are.

     Isn’t it funny how often I called JK a liar here and how there is no reaction from the National camp other than Tim Ellis and the odd Gomango blurp. Oh, and of course the trolls when they are allowed to comment.

     What if I said it in big bold capital letters:

     JOHN KEY IS A LIAR

     I would like to do it ten times but that would just be too childish.LOLOLOLOL
119. travellerev 119

     14 November 2008 at 3:01 pm

     Vinsin,

     I chuckled indeed. LOL.

     Randal,

     Yeah he does but than other people read this blog too and if this stuff gets out more all the better.
120. Rx 120

     14 November 2008 at 3:19 pm

     Eve,

     The Herald article from the 14th of July says:

     Krieger worked with the BT Auckland office while he was with BT New York, this was in 1987 when he completed the raid on the Kiwi dollar.

     Key finished with Elders some time in 1988 and started with BT Auckland in August 1988.

     Key and Krieger worked together sometime after that while Key was at BT, it doesn’t say where Krieger was.

     You’ve established that Kreiger left BT New York in February 1988. Isn’t it plausible that Krieger did deals with the BT Auckland office after he had left BT New York because those were his best contacts in New Zealand and therefore could have worked with Key then?
121. Tim Ellis 121

     14 November 2008 at 3:27 pm

     Ev,

     It is publicly recorded where John Key did and didn’t work, and where Andrew Krieger did and didn’t work. It has been confirmed by various sources, and John Key has admitted, that he and Andrew Krieger worked on deals together at some point. Nobody has gone to any lengths to conceal that. Nobody has lied about it. You are the only one obsessing about this, due, I suspect, to some mental illness that you refuse to have diagnosed.

     I take back what I said earlier Ev. I don’t think you’re a liar. You are just mistaken, and you have a mental illness that prevents you from seeing anything other than in a strange conspiracy.

     Can I suggest you go back to Holland to get treatment for this illness? After nine years of Labour Government, it’s unlikely the hospital system will be able to treat you here.
122. travellerev 122

     14 November 2008 at 3:47 pm

     Rx,

     The three links to three independent NYTimes online archived articles make a timeline as follows.

     In possibly as early as December 1987 but certainly no later than February 1988 Andrew Krieger stopped working for the Bankers Trust he takes up a position as senior portfolio manager for the George Soros fund only to leave this position in June 1988.
     Initially Andrew Krieger tells the NYTimes that he wants to start trading under his own name but in the last article he states that “he realised he would fall in the same rut and that it was time to do something else.”

     He states that after he left Soros he started a consulting business with no or very little trading from home only to return to trading in September 1990.

     The only time the Bankers Trust New Zealand traded in hundreds of millions of dollars (I’ve been told that John Key once said he once had the highest short position in NZ ever but can’t confirm that) was when Andrew Krieger attacked the currency in late 1987 and not in 1988 when JK claims he started to work with AK.

     It was John Key who tells us that he remembers that Andrew Krieger called him and asked about the currency after which he started to put hundreds of millions through JK’s accounts while AK worked for BT NY while he worked in NZ.

     If John Key worked at the Bankers Trust while Andrew Krieger was trading in hundreds of millions of dollars and John Key was the one responsible for Kriegers account it must have been in 1987.

     Could they have worked together later? Quite possibly but that must have been after 1990 and it was John Key who was the big Forex and Derivatives boy by then and not an account manager for Andrew Krieger.

     If JK worked with AK after 1990 there would be no need for the claim that he started to work with AK after the attack.
     He simply would have said:” When I started to work for BT in 1988 AK had left trading. I didn’t deal with him until he joined Capital Holding’s in 1990. No problem there but he didn’t.

     That’s the problem with lying, there are an awful lot of things that can go wrong like the timeline of other people you’re supposed to have worked with.

     Hope this answers you question.
123. the sprout 123

     14 November 2008 at 4:06 pm

     ev
     going by the nastiness of their ad hominem attacks i’d say you’ve hit quite a nerve there. good stuff 😉
124. travellerev 124

     14 November 2008 at 4:36 pm

     Not good enough Time Ellis,

     You have called me a liar on three different occasions and now your calling me mentally unstable and while I can handle the inane rants of the likes of Billy, Lucas or HS you have gone too far. I’m sure that a lawyer will see your weaselling for what it is. You cannot call someone a liar and a mentally unstable obsessive a multiple times in public without proof of either and not face the consequences.

     I wonder what a lawyer would say about you first accusing me of lying in public and now that I’ve called your bluff calling me a mentally unstable and obsessive person in public and both are detrimental to my good name.

     Saying that JK’s career is on public record and so is AK’s is not proof, that is just parroting what he and the NZ media are saying. I told you I would only accept direct proof of me lying about JK’s career timeline so if you can prove what you’re saying by producing those public records than do so. I will accept no less.

     As for it being confirmed by varying sources, do you mean by Gavin Walker who puts him in the dealing room in New Zealand with Andrew Krieger in New York?

     “It was really the management of that relationship on behalf of the dealing room that John had responsibility for,’ says Gavin Walker, former chief executive of Bankers Trust in New Zealand. “He knew everything that was going on in terms of the orders that Krieger was executing on our desk.’

     While dealing in hundreds of millions of dollars, something Andrew Krieger has done only once: in 1987.

     or when he tells Eugene Bingham:

     “[Labour is] sitting there thinking … ‘We’ve got this guy because John Key has done the foreign exchange deal with Elders IXL that transferred the money to Hawkins’,” he told Herald political staff. “Small issue – three months before any of these deals got decided I left Elders [on gardening leave]. I was never involved in them.

     Which contradicts his statement that he left Elders in August 1988 made to the same Eugene Bingham and five other journalists.

     If he left Elders three months before these deals were struck than what is he talking about? The contracts for the sale were signed in October 1987. When were these deals struck? Surely before the signing of the contracts.

     So when were these deals struck and what does John Key know about him that he can be so sure he left three months before they were struck?

     Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt and say he left three months before the official contracts were signed he would still be in the Bankers Trust trading room in time to cater to AK ferocious appetites in October, November and December 1987.

     This quote also confirms what he says in the interview with Claire Trevett.

     Bring me those public records confirming JK could have worked with AK for Bankers Trust NZ while Krieger was working for Bankers Trust NY or apologise in full, written here next week Friday 9:45 am in a comment on the latest post.

     As for you accusing me of an obsession. The man just elected to be the prime minister of this country acted in collusion with a NY banker who attacked the NZ dollar to the point when it almost collapsed the NZ economy. In 1998 John Key lied in no less than 5 interviews about this working relationship and he is going to lead this country in what is arguably the most dangerous economic time in history caused by him and his banking mates.

     I think there is a very good reason to be curious about the lies in his career timeline. It would have been easier if the same journalists now throwing away their good name by printing the shit JK sells them as truth had done their job but there you have it, they didn’t and I did.

     Friday 21 November 9:45 am. Proof or apology. I will be taking council as to my options this week.
125. Rx 125

     14 November 2008 at 4:45 pm

     Hi Eve,

     This quotes from the Stuff article Feb 2008 you linked to earlier:

     “Key proved a successful “price maker”, setting Elders’ price for the kiwi from moment to moment, and attracting large flows of orders to buy and sell. He was headhunted by Bankers Trust to head their 30-strong dealing room in Auckland in 1988. Sources say Key was soon earning $1m each year in salary and bonuses, more than 30 times the average wage at the time.

     He formed what was to be a lucrative relationship with 32-year-old currency trader Andy Krieger, based at Bankers Trust in New York, who began putting hundreds of millions of dollars of business through Key’s dealing room.

     Krieger was the man who a few months earlier had entered forex legend with a massive speculative raid on the kiwi. As Krieger later explained in his book The Money Bazaar, he believed the kiwi was overvalued, and began betting on a fall, selling the New Zealand dollar heavily. Once the currency had found what he believed to be a floor, he bought again at a much lower price, making a profit on the transaction.”

     And then later on in the article:

     “While Key can’t remember whether he actually executed some of the sells for Krieger’s 1987 speculative play on the kiwi, the timing suggests he did not. But Krieger continued his high-rolling punts on the Kiwi dollar after his big win, often placing $50m buy or sell orders with Key and his dealing room. The huge flow of business from Krieger and others at Bankers Trust in New York soon turned the local branch into the number one dealing room in New Zealand, cementing Key’s success and fattening his bonus packets.

     Key remembers getting a call from Krieger soon after he started at Bankers Trust. The New York trader’s first question was about New Zealand’s GDP and money supply.

     “It was really the management of that relationship on behalf of the dealing room that John had responsibility for,” says Gavin Walker, former chief executive of Bankers Trust in New Zealand. “He knew everything that was going on in terms of the orders that Krieger was executing on our desk.”

     So they worked together after 1987 but before 1990, the timeline is still plausible.
126. randal 126

     14 November 2008 at 4:48 pm

     yeah well its 4:39 friday week one
     I’m still broke and still waiting fora job
     wheres the golden shower?

     oh I forgot
     I’m right and everyone else is wrong
     whatever
     that fixes that then
     next please

     capcha: state forests… so whats the deal here..have they been sold ALREADY?
127. Chess Player 127

     14 November 2008 at 4:51 pm

     travellerev,

     I think this is just another case of you taking yourself a little to seriously isn’t it?
128. gingercrush 128

     14 November 2008 at 4:52 pm

     Ok we’re talking about bringing in lawyers? Frankly, I think you both speak nonsense and surely it would be best for both of you to drop it.
129. Rx 129

     14 November 2008 at 4:55 pm

     Did someone mention wrestling with jelly?
130. randal 130

     14 November 2008 at 5:14 pm

     Go Ev
     bring in the lawmen
     run him through some hoops to see if littlebigmouthtimellis is really up to the job
     somehow I think he will buckle if he has to stand up and face his peers
131. Daveski 131

     14 November 2008 at 5:22 pm

     Bringing in the lawyers would be the worst possible result.

     All that would happen is that LP and others would then have to approve EVERY post before they could be published and boom! there goes the Standard.

     No one wants this – not you Ev, not me and the other righties who frequent this place.

     We all get passionate and there is robust debate and comments made that perhaps shouldn’t be. But if blogging gets tied up with the lawyers, we’re all the worse for it.

     Look, even I can accept you are passionate about the issue. Accept that others don’t have the same opinion. Ditto Tim.

     Don’t shit in the sandbox that we all want to play in (when LP lets us).
132. randal 132

     14 November 2008 at 5:28 pm

     Hi Ev
     notice you mention ruth laugesen and vernon small
     those two riding on ill deserved reputations
     she was the editors pet and he is just big (OBESE)
     they cant write for crap and they have never ever been questioned for the whole of their professional life
     this cohort of journalists have got away with murder
     they got out of J school and hungaround till attrition got rid of anybody with any smarts and now they are playing the postmodern game of only my truth matters
     for the health of our society and culture it is about time that these people and epsinner and dallow et al were help up to some sort of inspection instead of just taking their positions for granted
     otherwise we are just being talked down to by the plastic people of the universe whose only accomplishment was to have the right hair and teeth and luck in when the jobs were being handed out
133. travellerev 133

     14 November 2008 at 6:52 pm

     Sorry guys,

     One shot to many and the rule is no writing when pissed. LoL.
     See youse all tomorrow.
134. lprent 134

     14 November 2008 at 6:56 pm

     Yeah it is “agree to disagree time” again.

     It is hard enough to find the time to moderate the trolls out. I’d prefer to not have to read every comment with a mind towards legalities.
135. Ianmac 135

     14 November 2008 at 7:34 pm

     Still. It is important that there are some people who have courage to air their convictions. That some have counter arguments is also great. As long as the issue is the center. I don’t know the credibility of Travellev’s because I am too ill informed but “Go Travellev. Stick to your beliefs.”
136. Mike D 136

     14 November 2008 at 8:45 pm

     Gee you guys are a bunch of loosers! Go and get real jobs now before you have to queue.

     LOL!!!!!
137. randal 137

     14 November 2008 at 9:21 pm

     lurn to spel you looser
     you will go far
     far
     away
     and
     never come
     back
     byeee
     for
     now

     are you someone callows brother?
138. Shona 138

     14 November 2008 at 9:31 pm

     travellerev you GO GIRL! downloading your links and while not expecting anything new you never know. I live in a safe National electorate, and it’s so great to read your comments and know I am not alone,I too left NZ for the same reasons as your hubby only it was 32 years ago .Came back to raise the offspring as you do. Wish to hell I hadn’t now as they too are looking to bail out of NZ . The brain drain continues for yet another generation. We keep training ’em and they keep leaving.The biggest mystery to me at first about Key was why someone so non Kiwi would feel motivated by a professed loyalty to return to live here? He doesn’t share any of the values or tastes of ordinary or extraordinary kiwis. A non rugby/league player or follower, a complete cretin he has no taste in Art or contacts with writers and if he collects he would delegate the job as he has no knowledge.Doesn’t know or understand the history of the country, has never lived in his electorate,has spent very little time here. Doesn’t sail, doesn’t garden knows nothing about conservation or NZ flora and fauna. I won’t bore you further the list while not long is revealing. Why haven’t any of these things been questioned.?Oh that’s right the answer to that is in here.Keep up the good work people this blog beats talking to the locals( most of ’em anyway)
139. randal 139

     14 November 2008 at 9:49 pm

     shona
     read my lips
     “HE WANTS YOUR MONEY”
140. gomango 140

     14 November 2008 at 10:09 pm

     Good luck Tim Ellis – I suspect unless you have tremendous skills in psychiatry you won’t get thru.

     Shona – are you intentionally trying to be funny? According to most commentators on this site the brain drain doesn’t exist. It is a right wing construct designed to unfairly malign the last nine years of government. And where do you get this list of un-NZ activities from – surely the fact that anyone (Key included) comes home to NZ with children in tow indicates that he/she sees positive benefits for their family. Or at least the few children he has left after eating the others as babies.
141. Tim Ellis 141

     15 November 2008 at 2:21 am

     Ev I’m sorry I called you mentally unstable. I am not a qualified psychiatrist, although if I were I believe I would be qualified to diagnose you.

     I’m not sure what it is you want. You call John Key a liar and slander him with non-facts and strange presumptions. Every post you write is about some obscure reference that some journalist made about him, which you claim John Key wrote himself, as proof of his lies.

     John Key didn’t lie. It is my belief that either you know he is not a liar, in which case you are lying about him, which makes you a liar. If you do actually believe he is a liar, then it is my belief, although not a professional one, that you are mentally unstable.

     I don’t mean to offend you Ev by saying you are mentally unstable. I am trying to help you. I don’t think it would be helpful for you to go and see a lawyer about this, because it will just be a waste of your money and your lawyer will laugh at you and think you are mentally unstable, and will then send you a big bill. If you have the money to spare, then I can suggest instead that you spend it on a psychiatrist, who will be able to help you with your mental problems, which involve either compulsive lying, or some other mental illness.
142. RedLogix 142

     15 November 2008 at 7:11 am

     Tim,

     1. We have produced crystal clear evidence that Kreiger left BT on or before Feb 1988. After working for Soros for a few months he left the industry altogether in June 1988.

     2. The original H-Fee scheme was devised in or around Oct 1987. The first transaction took place in January 1988. (Please indicate if you accept this, or provide alternative evidence if you claim otherwise.)

     3. When questions of his involvment in the H-Fee matter were of concern, Mr Key originally claimed to have to have left EMF “three months before any of these deals were devised”. (ie around June 1987)

     4. Mr Key then later revised leaving date from EMF to June 1988, joining BT three months later in September 1988.

     5. Key has claimed a close and lucrative working relationship with Krieger. The statements I have read about this, and the context they were written in strongly imply that this was while both men where working at BT… but evidently this cannot be so, because in the revised version of Key’s timeline they missed each other at BT by at least 9 months.

     Eve, myself and others have previously provided numerous authorative links backing these statments. Please indicate if you accept them, or provide alternative links if you claim otherwise.
143. r0b 143

     15 November 2008 at 9:12 am

     John Key didn’t lie.

     Key may or may not have lied in this instance, dunno, not following this topic. But we do know for sure that he has lied on other matters (eg TranzRail shares), so it isn’t out of the question.
144. gomango 144

     15 November 2008 at 10:20 am

     Redlogix – I promised myself I wouldn’t engage n this subject again. Just once more. I’ve suggested lots of reading material for Ev as her earlier post n this thread shows a complete lack of knowledge about markets generally and how investment banks work. I think you guys would also get more traction if you showed a bit of even handedness – where is your long winded and detailed critique of (say) Helen Clarke?

     There were two H Fee transactions – the first involved only Elders Australia. The second went thru Elders NZ – After Key left. This is al on the public record.
     Where does it say Krieger and Key had a close working relationship while both were at BT? Key has acknowledged two things- 1) he had a relationship with Krieger, 2) Key shorted the dollar after it was floated. He’s clearly not embarrassed about either. 3) He clearly knows, has dealt with and spoken to Krieger as Kriger would acknowledge if you dropped him an email or sent him a letter. Do some journalism of your own rather than just googling for facts. Phone him up, tell him you’re a journalist doing a stor on our new PM and I’m sure he’ll talk to you.

     To be fair though, the longer a small minority dribble on about “slippery”, “trust”, “secret agenda”, the better it is for Key and his Government as the voters in the middle compare the stories with the actual behaviour. You have the same problem as Ian Wishart – even when he gets a good story, the wider public dismiss it because he is seen to be so non-partisan.

     Ev – I don’t want to start again arguing with you – you still gloss over the facts where they don’t suit you (Fed FX committee for instance), timeline on Sub prime, Keys actual role in ML, how positions in investment banks, flawed understanding of markets – just remember every seller need a buyer – a view that all you have to do is mention the word derivative to prove chicanery. Yawn. If you did some research, your case would look much better – your case becomes a laugh because there are clearly so many things you argue that you misunderstand or are misinformed on. Do some real research rather than trolling the web looking for smoking guns – thats just lazy and counterproductive to building a real case.

     Anyway, I will never post on this again – I think of all the time I have wasted on a stupid subject and I want to scream. From our initial exchanges you’ve clearlyy altered our narrative to de-emphasise some of the things you are wrong on but not all of them. And I still really don’t know what you are trying to prove. I think nothing, at worst your case boils down to a confusion over dates and conversations 20 years ago. Yawn
145. Ianmac 145

     15 November 2008 at 10:48 am

     Gomango Tim Ellis: I always wonder about people’s motive. I wonder if this case about John Key is so mythical, why would you bother to denigrate it?
     Would it not better suit your purpose to let it crash and burn?
     Or is it because you seek to defuse it because there may be a case to answer?
     Or is it because you have a brotherly concern for the welfare of Travellev?
     Ummm? Let me think?
146. RedLogix 146

     15 November 2008 at 10:58 am

     gomango,

     I appreciate the reply. In amongst all the positional noise I deduce that your position is that John Key and Andrew Krieger must have been trading together while Key was at Elders Merchant Finance, not at Bankers Trust.

     Is that correct? A simple yes or no will suffice.
147. the sprout 147

     15 November 2008 at 11:09 am

     Ooh Key’s lied lots already on record, but we only know a fraction of its extent.
     Yet.
     That’s why Ev’s illuminations are being attacked so viciously.
     Let us hope that our msm will at least publish the morsels it will now be fed on a silver platter, from Key’s opponents on both the Left and the Right.

     (Hoping the msm would look themselves is clearly hoping for too much.)
148. travellerev 148

     15 November 2008 at 11:52 am

     Tim Ellis,

     Your still call me a liar without any prove to support your accusation. A fourth time.
     My lawyer is going to love this.

     You have until Friday next week 9:45 am to prove that Andrew Krieger and John Key started to work together in September 1988. Until now all you have is innuendo and smear and you are very good at that. Innuendo smear and manipulation but I’n not budging on this one.

     5 New Zealand journalists state that John Key started to work with Andrew Krieger in September 1988 but 3 New York time journalists (people who have absolutely nothing to gain by reporting these dates whereas the NZ Herald and stuff have a known bias in their reporting on JK) to rapport in three different articles at three different times state that Andrew Krieger left Bankers Trust in February 1988 and trading altogether in June 1988 three months before John Key alleges he was working with AK doing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of trading. At least one NZ interview with JK from 2007 supports an exit date earlier than October 1987.

     If John Key was trading with AK in hundreds of millions in $ NZ in September 1988 you should have no problem proving this. That amount of trade would have been legendary. Andrew Krieger became a Wall street legend overnight after all when he did it in 1987

     If John Key started to work in September 1988 with Andrew Krieger and did so well you should be able to find plenty of material supporting that.

     You have until Friday 21 November 9:45am to produce it if you can not you will apologise in full here at the Standard in a comment on the latest post.
149. randal 149

     15 November 2008 at 12:04 pm

     tim ellis I do not need a psychiatric qualiifcation nor any other qualification for that matter to say that you yourself are a creep and the way you creep round inhere is creepier than your usual creep by an order of magnitude.
     so lets face it. because you cannot answer traveller ev who is well on the way to becoming a very good economic historian I might add, then you descend to attacking her personally .
     so not only are you a creep but a rotten cad and a bounder and in another age you would be taken out and soundly thrashed.
150. travellerev 150

     15 November 2008 at 12:10 pm

     Gomango,

     Feel free to ignore me.

     If what I say is drivel your hero will not get hurt but if on the other hand what I say is true and I support that with articles from the NY Times online archive than we have a real problem with JK as our PM.

     If what I say, and what others who brought information to this blog say and these links say is so easy to disprove than provide proof and don’t give me crap about googling.

     The New York Times archives weren’t placed online for nothing.

     The timeline as given by an NZ MSM heavily biased towards National conflicts badly with the NY Times online archives timeline.

     Andrew Krieger was and still is a Wall street legend and I put it to you that the NYTimes has no reason (while the NZ MSM clearly does) to spin the dates with regards to Andrew Krieger’s attack on the $NZ.

     Gomango you are an incredibly patronising arsehole, just because I don’t have the same opinion about JK, Merrill Lynch, and Wall street doesn’t mean I don’t know what I’m talking about.

     In fact the writer of the book you advised me to read is on record as supporting a lot of the stuff I say here. So perhaps you should read up a bit more.
151. higherstandard 151

     15 November 2008 at 12:10 pm

     Possibly the most inane thread ever !
152. Tim Ellis 152

     15 November 2008 at 12:12 pm

     Travellerev, I say again, it is not for me to prove your stupid assertions about when and where John Key worked. You are the one trying to establish that John Key lied. You have no evidence for this.

     So either you are lying about it, or you are simply mentally disturbed.

     If you have so much money to spare that you want to waste it on a lawyer, then fine. Your lawyer will be being paid to listen to you, while he privately laughs at how stupid you are. If he is a good, honest lawyer he won’t charge you, and instead he will tell you to spend your money on a good psychiatrist.
153. Shona 153

     15 November 2008 at 12:22 pm

     gomango

     What I mean by Non Kiwi he is dull, bland devoid of opinion has none of the cultural or sporting interests or environmental values normally associated with some one who has grown up here.
     I apologize for my emotive ramblings but the election of the Prime Tosser is a rerun of the 1975 election ( era of “The Pig’)and travelerev has taken me back to my youth with her insightful analyses. Chris Trotter first alerted me to what had occurred in NZ with his column on Sunday and I have to admit I had been scratching my head trying to make sense of it as I thought we’d “moved on’ and grown as a nation. I promise to keep my fingers taped and do no more tapping after this post as I am primarily in here for the insight (have been furiously cutting and pasting for the progeny all week as they have major life direction decisions to make now, and they’re sure as hell ain’t gonna get it from the MSM nor are the younger ones gonna get their much needed student allowances )Following up travelerev’s links what do I find ,that Key Worshipped “The Pig’. No wonder he didn’t have the balls to admit he was pro tour. The 1981 Springbok Tour is not an irrelevancy as painted by our sycophantic media during the election it was the nearest NZ has come to civil war. And educated a whole bunch of Sth Africans. The election just voted out the remnants of those of us who cut our political teeth during that debacle. Now apart from fear and hate the other prominent emotions amongst the NZ populace during the Muldoon years were complacency and despair. In 2011 we will have in NZ the MMP Referendum, Rugby World Cup, unemployment will have reared it’s ugly head again, as will poverty and crime. We will have a well armed police force who will undoubtedly be anointed by Key ( imitating his hero Muldoon, the man has no personality he just adopts others’)divided Maori will weaken the mix of dissatisfied voters but the future looks ugly to me, very ugly. Kia kaha
154. travellerev 154

     15 November 2008 at 12:24 pm

     HS,

     Wow that was a short week and after all that time on your hands that is all you come up with? How sad is that?

     Gomango,

     Watch the Money Masters
     The Federal Reserve is owned by only a few banks who are owned by private banks

     There is nothing Federal about the reserve and there are no reserves. Period. It’s a scam. A Ponzy scheme and we have been royally screwed by JK and his Mafia banking mates.

     Wake up and smell the Armageddon as it comes our way, helped along by JK who will sell NZ’s independence (for what we have left) down the drain. He and his MSM cronies will start a fear campaign in the coming months and try to sell us a world currency and a world governance to help the ailing world economy.

     Nothing will stop that collapse because the system is beyond repair but the scam will enable his cronies to squeeze the last bits of our wealth into their grubby greedy hands.
155. randal 155

     15 November 2008 at 12:28 pm

     ev
     they cant even read
     they are just paid flunkies from the national party employed to fill serious blogs up with unending drivel and garbage
     I think hooton has the contract to supply them
     he bought a franchise off crosbytextinc,
     whaddya think the text means?
     dont woryy about ellis
     he is justa programme somewhere bought to fill up space and distract people from the real issues
     keep up the good work ev
     and yes
     bring a suit against ellis
     we’ll all havea big party
     hahahahaahaha
156. travellerev 156

     15 November 2008 at 12:28 pm

     TE,

     Friday 21 9:45 am. You’ve got until then.

     I will give your postings to a lawyer specialised in slander on Monday and let him be the judge.

     Your call
157. travellerev 157

     15 November 2008 at 12:31 pm

     TE,

     What’s more, I’ll relish the publicity it will give as I will make sure there is as much as I can generate. I wonder if JK will be appreciative though. LOL.

     Again your call.

     Captcha: straitjacket Phase. LOL
158. travellerev 158

     15 November 2008 at 12:34 pm

     Randal,

     I’m not worried about TE. He’s worried about us. LOL.
     I agree with you about them being paid flunkies all the more fun f*&king them over.

     I know a few people who would relish giving me publicity on this one. LOLOLOL
159. travellerev 159

     15 November 2008 at 12:41 pm

     Shona,

     Thanks a bunch girl, I’m glad to be of service and please don’t leave NZ.
     Come to a hotbed of Rebellion close to Hamilton and we’ll see you right. LOL
160. RedLogix 160

     15 November 2008 at 1:04 pm

     Travellerev, I say again, it is not for me to prove your stupid assertions about when and where John Key worked. You are the one trying to establish that John Key lied. You have no evidence for this.

     If you ignore the crystal clear evidence provided by Eve and others then of course you will see nothing. Clearly there is a significant discrepancy in the stories Key has told various media at various times. A child could see the problem here.

     These assertions about where and when Key worked in the late 1980’s would mean little if he had been, say running a paper round at the time. But he was not. He was working for two companies that were both deeply involved in questionable, indeed criminal, dealings. Moreover Mr Key is our Prime Minister. We hold politicians, especially PM’s to a higher standard than the rest of us… (Mr Peters anyone?). Therefore it is incumbent on Mr Key to provide a watertight timeline and case as to why he was not involved.

     The evidence proving that Mr Key has been less than fully and openly honest has been provided.

     The only reason why you deny this, is because you cannot refute it.
161. higherstandard 161

     15 November 2008 at 1:53 pm

     Yes Eve

     I see you’re still telling the same old stories to anyone who’ll listen – good for you have fun.

     Red – not sure what you’re trying to prove that Key was a forex trader ? – that’s pretty much a statement of fact I thought, that he did trades with and during the era that Krieger was trading – I’d be surprised if he didn’t, can’t see why everyone gets so worked up about it myself.
162. Felix 162

     15 November 2008 at 2:09 pm

     heh heh, I knew you couldn’t ban yourself for long.
163. RedLogix 163

     15 November 2008 at 2:10 pm

     HS,

     Ah come on, you are better than that. Your are being deliberately obtuse. Unless you have completely failed to read any of the actual thread or links provided, you must know exactly what the problem is.

     But just to refresh our memories, lets see if we can get to some agreement on what the actual facts are here. Let me know if you disagree with any of these statements:

     1. The original H-Fee scheme was devised in or around Oct 1987. The first transaction took place in January 1988.

     2. When questions of his involvment in the H-Fee matter were of concern, Mr Key originally claimed to have to have left EMF “three months before any of these deals were devised’. (ie around June 1987)

     3. When questions of his involvment in Krieger’s attack on the NZ dollar were of concern,Mr Key then later revised his leaving date from EMF to June 1988, and then joining BT three months later in September 1988.

     4. Kreiger left BT on or before Feb 1988. After working for Soros for a few months he left the industry altogether in June 1988.

     5. Key has claimed a close and lucrative working relationship with Krieger. The statements I have read about this, and the context they were written in strongly imply that this was while both men where working at BT but evidently this cannot be so, because in the revised version of Key’s timeline they missed each other at BT by at least 9 months.

     If you disagree with any of these statements please let me know, so as we stand a chance of resolving the misunderstandings here. (Oh and yes, I do agree Mr Key was a Forex dealer.)
164. higherstandard 164

     15 November 2008 at 2:22 pm

     Felix

     I know I know, I should put “The Standard” into net nanny for myself, tis me argumentative nature that gets me back here again.

     Red – my last word on this issue the H-Fee was fully investigated by the SFO – it is public record that Key was found to have had no part in this.

     In terms of his dealings with Krieger have a look here it’s all pretty much in the open –

     http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaystartimes/4385003a6442.html

     Eve does seem to have a bit of a fixation on it (type John Key Andrew Kreiger into google and 90% of the links are to her !)
165. rave 165

     15 November 2008 at 2:40 pm

     I thought Tim Ellis was Hooten. I’m disappointed.

     He’s a classic baiter and switcher. The insistence that Key and Kreiger had to both be in BT at the same time is not essential to the story.

     I prefer to postulate that Key was still in Elders when he got to know Kreiger by filling in the data for his giant bet on the NZ$. Key would likely try to present this as when they were working for the same firm for his own reasons but that is not necessary.

     Meanwhile at Elders Key was in the position to know about if not perpetrate the fraud with Equiticorp. But on the strength of his collaboration with Kreiger he got headhunted (after a cooling down period in the ‘garden’).

     His lies and prevarications, with half assed apologies when he gets caught out, seem to be designed to avoid any connection with both major attacks on the NZ economy.

     Like lots of people, the sheer association with these deals, and I’m convinced, knowledge of them, would be enough to reveal that Key is a lackey of international finance capital. The truth will out as he unravels his ‘crisis management plan’.

     He came back to NZ because he failed in his job with ML (interestingly there was a bunch of sexual harassment lawsuits by female employees at ML about this time also) and saw an opportunity to become the agent of international finance downunder. Everything he has said and done shows this to be his role. The speculating in Transrail while MP shows he has contempt for democracy. His association with Lord Arsehole of Belize shows he had no morality except the dollar. His crapping on about the underclass and gangster conning of the MP shows he will stoop at nothing to buy off any credulous flunky with a few crumbs for the whanau.

     Ev is to be commended for her research and guts putting up with the rightie trolls on The Standard. Key has put together a corporatist regime with the backing of the banks, the media and NZ bosses who don’t want to pay for the ETS and RMA.

     She is right about the crisis, Key and Co are picking out the remaining assets to milk and rip off (Kiwisaver and Cullen Fund – Infratil in NZH today is slavering at the mouth at the prospect). Fonterra will be floated and bought up by Nestle and the big banks.

     This crisis, which goes to the heart of capitalism and isnt just a few greedy bankers, can only be paid for by the rich or the poor. Key’s corporatist regime is devoted to buying the loyalty of key stakeholders while it crunches the workers wages, savings and futures, to keep their rotten system alive.

     Well we have new for them. You can only keep all the people fooled some of the time, and that time is running out.

     Well done Ev and Redlogix and well done The Standard for hosting a serious political discussion at this critical time.
166. RedLogix 166

     15 November 2008 at 3:26 pm

     Red – my last word on this issue the H-Fee was fully investigated by the SFO – it is public record that Key was found to have had no part in this.

     That may or may not prove to be true, but it has no direct bearing on the contradictions inherent in Key’s own statements.

     I did not ask your (or the SFO’s) opinion on the H-Fee matter. What I did do was listed a number of statements and asked if you agreed or disagreed with them. In order to be clear I’ll copy and paste them for a third time:

     1. The original H-Fee scheme was devised in or around Oct 1987. The first transaction took place in January 1988.

     2. When questions of his involvment in the H-Fee matter were of concern, Mr Key originally claimed to have to have left EMF “three months before any of these deals were devised’. (ie around June 1987)

     3. When questions of his involvment in Krieger’s attack on the NZ dollar were of concern,Mr Key then later revised his leaving date from EMF to June 1988, and then joining BT three months later in September 1988.

     4. Kreiger left BT on or before Feb 1988. After working for Soros for a few months he left the industry altogether in June 1988.

     5. Key has claimed a close and lucrative working relationship with Krieger. The statements I have read about this, and the context they were written in strongly imply that this was while both men where working at BT but evidently this cannot be so, because in the revised version of Key’s timeline they missed each other at BT by at least 9 months.

     Do you disagree with any of these statements? A simple yes or no would suffice, or if you have alternative information I have not seen, I would genuinely like to see it. After all this should be a relatively simple matter to get some clarity on.
167. the sprout 167

     15 November 2008 at 5:10 pm

     Right On rave, RL, Ev.
168. randal 168

     15 November 2008 at 5:13 pm

     they dont appear to want to answer back sprout!
169. the sprout 169

     15 November 2008 at 5:24 pm

     can’t imagine why randal.
     i guess Crosby|Textor are a bit busy with all the new business they’ve drummed up to be feeding lines to trolls just now.
170. higherstandard 170

     15 November 2008 at 5:43 pm

     Or perhaps no one can be bothered
171. Concerned of Tawa 171

     15 November 2008 at 5:43 pm

     Rave:

     “He came back to NZ because he failed in his job with ML (interestingly there was a bunch of sexual harassment lawsuits by female employees at ML about this time also)”

     Are you saying or insinuating that Key was involved in a sexual harassment lawsuit?
172. will 172

     15 November 2008 at 5:46 pm

     What a fascinating thread!

     I notice the naysayers fail to refute these allegations and resort to that oldest trick – claim the detailed links and logic are lies or the work of a ‘crazy woman’. That simply lends credence to the facts in Travellerevs detailed posts and has prompted me to visit some of her links.

     There’s a lot of information here that gives me cause for alarm. And there must be many silent readers at this blog like me thinking WTF???.

     I for one have now forwarded the link to this Standard thread onwards to my address book recipients. Thanks travellerev for this excellent illumination, and thankyou tim ellis gomangled and HS for lending credence to her research with your personal attacks.
173. RedLogix 173

     15 November 2008 at 5:52 pm

     HS,

     You have had several hours now to answer my simple question.

     Do you or do you not disagree with any of the statements I listed? A simple yes or no to each one would suffice.

     Surely even you can be bothered that much?

     “He came back to NZ because he failed in his job with ML (interestingly there was a bunch of sexual harassment lawsuits by female employees at ML about this time also)’

     Without any specific evidence that is probably a stretch way too far.
174. higherstandard 174

     15 November 2008 at 6:49 pm

     Red

     I have no idea of the veracity or otherwise of your points.

     As I said previously this has been investigated previously by far more reputable people than people posting at this blog – I also have no doubt that if there was anything whiffy about the H-Fee or Kreigfer that the posters at this blog, who are after anything they can use against the Nats and Key, would be all over it like a rash.

     Now as it’s a lovely evening I’m off to the beach.
175. rave 175

     15 November 2008 at 6:51 pm

     The treatment of women at ML bears on the culture of finance capital.
     It could be that JK left because he didnt like it.
     That would be interesting.
     You can google the stuff eg
     http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/21/business/21BIAS.html?ex=1397880000&en=a4cc76dbec5e87f0&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND
176. RedLogix 176

     15 November 2008 at 7:02 pm

     HS,

     If you really have no idea of the veracity or otherwise of your points, do you think you could refrain from attacking those of us who are making them?

     Alternatively it occurs to me that I simply do not believe you. You have participated in a least three separate threads on this matter and made dozens of replies to posts where authorative links were posted verifying each one the points listed.

     Yes it is a lovely evening. Enjoy the beach….lots of sand to bury head in.
177. higherstandard 177

     15 November 2008 at 7:07 pm

     Red

     LOLSMIBI
178. randal 178

     15 November 2008 at 7:07 pm

     well HS took time out to answer but he didnt have anything to say!
     another post modernist eh
     blerrrrkkkk
     better to keep your trap shut than display your ignorance
179. John BT 179

     15 November 2008 at 8:34 pm

     What about the grassy knoll back in 63 ?
     Were Crosby Textor around then ?
180. Ianmac 180

     15 November 2008 at 8:57 pm

     John BT:Funny you should say that. Crosby was certainly on the grassy knoll. He was not actually pulling a trigger but near enough. And more recently he was able to train up Owen Glenn on just how much to reveal in order to sink Peters. That is why Key was hardly able to contain himself, “Guilty. Guilty!” before the “trial.” He nearly blew it with a premature um call. Watch this space for the next thrilling installment of the “Walking Dead!” Drummmmm……:)
181. travellerev 181

     16 November 2008 at 3:33 am

     Isn’t it funny how Tim Ellis has nothing to say in the weekends while he has so much to say during the week.

     He Will,

     Thanks a bunch
182. travellerev 182

     16 November 2008 at 4:44 am

     Hi Rave,

     That is an interesting angle: Key working for Elders while AK attacks the NZ$.

     I would be happy with that if it wasn’t for the fact that in two interviews Gavin Walker, John Key’s BT’s boss is quoted as saying that it was JK’s job to cater to AK’s account.

     I just found this little diddy by the way, a speech from Gavin Walker in 2002.

     In it he condemns the Muldoon era and he heralds Cullen’s and Clark’s fiscal prudence in front of no kidding: the Rotary club.LOLOLOL.

     All this while JK loved Muldoon. Be afraid be very afraid. Big economy, big spending, big debt!
183. travellerev 183

     16 November 2008 at 4:48 am

     Randal,

     A fine economic historian. WOW.

     I am a very happily married woman but there are times. LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
184. Tim Ellis 184

     16 November 2008 at 11:20 am

     There’s actually a far closer relationship between the Labour Party and major fraud involving Equiticorp: namely, the NZ Steel sale, than there are any links between John Key and the H-Fee. http://www.eastonbh.ac.nz/?p=491

     I continue to struggle to see what Ev’s point is, because she insists on remaining ignorant, dishonest, and mentally disturbed in her claims.

     Is Ev saying:

     1. John Key did deals with Andrew Krieger. Yes, we know that. Key has admitted to it. Nobody has denied it.

     2. John Key worked at various stages with Elders New Zealand and Bankers Trust New Zealand. Yes, this is public record as well. Not a secret. Key appears to have made a mistaken reference to a journalist of him leaving Elders in 1987, as opposed to 1988. Is this mistake an indication of a massive conspiracy to lie? Ev would like everybody to think so, except Key made every effort to correct the statement, and it has no material consequence anyway.

     3. John Key was involved in the H-Fee deals. This is the question that both Australian and New Zealand anti-fraud agencies investigated. They found no link between John Key and the H-Fee. They found that the first H-Fee deal, hatched at Elders Australia in January 1988, had no connection with Elders New Zealand, where Key worked. They also found that Key was not working at Elders New Zealand when the second H-Fee transaction was set into train. Mike Williams tried to find a link, fell flat on his face, and contributed to the downfall of the Labour Party at this election through his muck-raking.

     4. John Key was a currency trader. Yes, this is true. Ev alleges great malfeasance in this profession, claiming Key was involved in a “raid” on the New Zealand dollar. Ev, through sheer ignorance, doesn’t understand that for every seller, there has to be a buyer. A single trader can’t just short-sell currency ad infinitum, without having somebody else at the other end of the transaction agreeing that it is a fair market price. The assumption that individual traders can “be the market” is just nonsense.

     5. John Key was responsible, at least partly, for the world financial crisis. This argument is an extension of a web of silliness, stupidity, dishonesty, and mental instability from Ev. John Key was one of hundreds of senior executives at ML. His role related to foreign exchange. Key had nothing to do with the sub-prime mortgage lending market in the US. Key’s role at the Foreign Exchange Committee of the Federal Reserve of New York had nothing to do with sub-prime lending. Ev knows this, but will make a broad sweep of the order of “but some of his best mates did, so he was guilty”.

     These are Ev’s principal stupidities and dishonesties. They have been pointed out to her multiple times. Each time she either ignores these facts, or glosses over them. She does not acknowledge her own glaring inconsistencies and errors, but creates great conspiracies out of the only inconsistency that Key has made in this matter: a verbal recall of which year he left one company to join another.
185. randal 185

     16 November 2008 at 11:34 am

     yes but we still dont know how much money he made shorting the kiwi dollar
186. travellerev 186

     17 November 2008 at 9:23 am

     Time Ellis,

     According to the TUMEKE website some 2300 individual visitors visited this site last month. You calling me ignorant, dishonest, a liar and mentally unstable in front of such a crowd would be enough for me to take you to court for slander but since it is in print it will be even easier because than it’s called libel (If it is published in more durable form, for example in written words, film, compact disc (CD), DVD, blogging and the like, then it is considered libel according to Wikipedia)

     I support my allegations with regards to JK’s lies with sufficient links to make it perfectly clear that JK is lying about or obfuscating his career timeline.

     The fact that I do so on both my blog and here at the Standard, in fact a reggit link to an earlier post on my blog about JK’s dealings with AK appeared a full 12 hours on the front page of the Scoop site and the fact that JK’s minders do not take action is enough for me to suggest that JK and his minders are not interested in publicity around the subject.

     Perhaps they hope that by you calling me a “mad woman” people will not catch on.

     You have accused me of lying in a very public court of opinion and you are doing so in print with the intention of damaging my credence and character. This is called libel and there are laws to stop this from happening.

     You have until Friday 9:45 am to provide proof for your allegation that I am wilfully lying about JK and his career timeline in order to damage his good name or you will apologise to me in full in a comment in the latest post or I will consider my options. I have your allegations in print and it should make for a very interesting read for a libel lawyer.

     One of my options perhaps being in an eventual court case to call JK as a witness and to have him cross examined.

     For those of you just joining the following in response to TE’s talking points:

     1. John Key did deals with Andrew Krieger.

     2. John Key worked at various stages with Elders New Zealand and Bankers Trust New Zealand.

     John Key worked for Elders bank and after that he worked for Bankers Trust. What is in debate is the date at which JK left Elders banks in order to start working for BT. In the links above I provide prove that there is at the very least a discrepancy in JK’s timeline. If as 5 journalists in NZ mainstream (see links above) claim JK did not start to work for BT until Late August early September 1988 than he could not have worked with Andrew Krieger in his early days for BT because Andrew Krieger according to three different NYTimes articles left the Bankers Trust in February 1988 and stopped trading altogether on 30 June 1988 and did not return to forex trading until September 1990.

     Yet in two different interviews John Key, confirmed by his boss states that he worked with Krieger dealing in hundreds of millions of dollars.

     The only time ever in the history of the NZ financial history these amounts were traded was during AK’s attack on the NZ dollar in late 1987.

     TE suggests that obfuscation of this career period is of no consequence and tries to dim down it’s importance but it will become clear that it is very important we know why JK choose to state that he only worked with AK after the raid.

     3. John Key was involved in the H-Fee deals.

     If JK worked with AK he must have done so in 1987. He may or may not have known about the H-fee scandal but it is a small issue compared with his involvement with Krieger. Krieger earned $ 338,- million in only hours for the BT and if JK is complicit we have the right to know.

     4. John Key was a currency trader.

     TE tells you I allege great malfeasance in the Forex trade and he states that no trader can be the market and that seems indeed to be a grand statement to make but we are talking about events taking place 21 years ago when the $ NZ was still an obscure new currency and an emerging new economy and not something that happened yesterday.

     TE also alleges that in order to sell there has to be a buyer agreeing on the price but at the time the option trade was a new instrument so is TE’s statement which sounds reasonable enough correct?

     Let’s start with allegation one: Could a trader at the time be the market?

     Well, yes and what is so interesting is that both the Bankers Trust and a book written in 1998 name Andrew Krieger’s 1987 attack as the perfect example of one trader being the market.

     In this article, again from the invaluable NY Times online archive, a Bankers Trust executive goes on record as saying:

     However, there were times, particularly in some of the more obscure currencies, ”that Mr. Krieger was the market,”

     In this article a quote is taken from a book ominously called:

     Apocalypse Roulette: The Lethal World of Derivatives. Published in May 1998.

     And about who should it be but AK and his raid of the $NZ.
     This how the book describes Andrew Krieger:

     He quickly became one of the most aggressive dealers in the world, with the full sanction of Bankers (trust). While most of the bank’s currency traders had an upper dealing limit of $50 million, Krieger’s was in the region of $700 million—around a quarter of the bank’s capital at the time. By using options, Krieger could leverage this exposure to many times that size ($100,000 of currency options would buy control of $30 million to $40 million in actual currency). In 1987 he did this to launch a speculative attack on the New Zealand dollar.

     And you read that right using this nice new tool called “options” he could control real currency by a multitude of 300 to 400 times that amount. That is a whopping US$ 21 to 28 billion in real currency.

     The article continues:

     If his own claims can be believed, he sold short the entire money supply of the country. In a matter of hours, the NZ dollar plunged 5 percent against the U.S. dollar. It was enough, at any rate, to draw an angry complaint from the New Zealand central bank. But with typical arrogance, Sanford (BT CEO at the time) later turned this on its head. “We didn’t take too big a position for Bankers Trust,’ he grumbled, “but we may have taken too big a position for that market.’ It was New Zealand’s fault, in other words, for being too small to cope with Bankers.

     So now that we have established that a single banker could actually “be the market” and have equally established that in fact AK was the market for the NZ dollar at the time of the raid on the NZ dollars lets have a further look at the statement that for every dollar sold there has to be a buyer agreeing on a price.

     Is this necessarily so?

     Well again in a word no. The NY Times quotes Mr. Vojta an executive director for BT at the time:

     Mr. Vojta told analysts that the valuation had been complicated because, since such options were new financial instruments traded over-the-counter, there was no way to check their prices against an official market price. In addition, the lack of active trading made it harder to determine pricing.

     In fact the whole attack on the $ NZ in 1987 and it’s aftermath turned out to be a bit of an embarrassment to the BT because it turned out that when AK left in February 1988 they were forced to write down their earnings to the tune of US $ 80 million. It seems that AK complicated wheeling dealing lost a lot of it’s value when AK left.

     This how the book describing AK’s attack on the $NZ puts it:

     Krieger resigned the following year in disgust at the ingratitude of his employers who had paid him a mere $3 million for his efforts which had netted the bank a profit of more than $300 million. But after his departure an odd thing happened. Regulators discovered discrepancies in the way Bankers valued its currency options portfolio. The bank was forced to admit that $80 million of foreign exchange trading income had disappeared and that it had deliberately overstated its 1986 earnings. It seemed, on the face of it, that the bank had been simply unable to understand Krieger’s complex options positions. Dealers in other banks, however, wondered how it was that Krieger’s options portfolio only maintained its value as long as Krieger himself was in charge of it. Whatever the reason for the readjusted profit, the whole episode was a serious embarrassment. An even bigger embarrassment, though, should have been that Bankers had been willing deliberately to publish figures that were inaccurate by $80 million as if it didn’t matter. But the bank showed no sign of blushing.

     This was yet another warning of its attitude: anything goes as long as the suckers don’t find out. Bankers (trust) was lean and very, very mean and there were no bigger suckers in sight than in the derivatives markets.

     5. John Key was responsible, at least partly, for the world financial crisis.

     As the above shows 1: JK lied about his career timeline 2: JK lied about his relationship with AK 3: Andrew Krieger was the market at the time of the attack on the NZ$ and 4: There was no need for a buyer agreeing on the price of the NZ dollar. Just suckers willing enough to buy.

     In fact the above makes it abundantly clear that the attack was an aggressive manipulation of this countries currency for monetary gain and without any thought for the economy it might destroy.

     If John Key was involved in this despicable act than he has the acumen and the will to go very far in his actions without much empathy for the damage he might cause others and he is willing to lie about it 20 years later.

     Why is this important to establish?

     If as I allege JK was willing to damage his own countries economy 20 years ago while aiding and abetting a speculative raid from a banker in NY and he is happy to lie about it 20 years later then he would have gone far in the shark invested waters that is the Wall street/ City of London banking world.

     During his tenure with ML JK was involved in the derivatives trade as described above. In fact the book “Apocalypse Roulette: The Lethal World of Derivatives.” makes it crystal clear (as confirmed in this interview by John Key himself that JK was involved in the speculative and lethal world of the derivative trade and as such had the correct mind set to be involved with the LTCM hedgefund’s attacks on the Russian and Asian currencies and the selling of the derivatives based on subprime mortgages and other assets. In fact ML was one of the most aggressive banks partaking in both with JK in the most prime position to do his masters bidding.

     And that is the man who is going to be sworn in as our new PM. Be afraid be very afraid.

     TE Friday 21 9:45 am in a comment on the latest post a full apology or prove of me being a liar, dishonest or mentally unstable.
187. Tim Ellis 187

     18 November 2008 at 12:18 am

     Note to Ev’s legal counsel:

     Ev is a liar, a fruitcake, and is mentally disturbed, in need of psychiatric therapy. Rather than waste her money in legal fees, suggest she spend it on therapy instead.
188. gomango 188

     18 November 2008 at 2:17 pm

     If you’re connecting donations for Ev’s therapy or retraining I’m happy to chip in……. I’ve always tried to help those incapable of helping themselves.

     Ev, please please please post online the opinion letter from your lawyer once you have it.
189. Tane 189

     18 November 2008 at 2:19 pm

     Guys, stop the abuse. If you’ve got an issue with Ev go talk to her on her blog.
     http://aotearoaawiderperspective.wordpress.com/

     We don’t need this here.
190. Chess Player 190

     18 November 2008 at 2:27 pm

     Yeah guys, both of you need a smack….

Links to post

1. The first broken promise from the Sub-Prime Minister « g.blog: posted on 13 November 2008 at 8:12 pm
2. Ah, spin sweet spin « Something should go here, maybe later.: posted on 14 November 2008 at 9:13 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS