Wage gap is the John Key credibility gap

46 comments on “Wage gap is the John Key credibility gap ”

• Comments are now closed

1. jason rika 1

   13 March 2010 at 10:53 am

   Smile and waves, because its like an, um, waterbed. Yeah that makes sense.
   • freedom 1.1

     13 March 2010 at 2:00 pm

     a perfect analogy jason, because one wrong move and the entire structure will show it is nothing but an empty bladder full of holes
2. ghostwhowalksnz 2

   13 March 2010 at 11:54 am

   I allways thought Key modelled himself ( or Crosby/Textor did it for him) on Ronald Reagan.
   The detachment over policy ( asleep at the wheel , at least Regan had his advanced age)
   The relentless photo oppotunities, even for policies with substance where he is unawareof details.
   • pollywog 2.1

     13 March 2010 at 12:37 pm

     Key reminds me of Berlusconi. Grinning photo opportunistic fatcat with a gift for the common gab but behind the public mask, dodgy as all hell…
3. Herodotus 3

   13 March 2010 at 11:54 am

   JK credibility is no more damaged than that of Lab with their promise to lift NZ up within the OECD rankings, remember that and all we got was a “Knowledge” get together in 99?
   When questioning Trev M on Red Alert and his protection for the rental market all I got was wait until next years announcements. There had better be something tangible out of Lab and progressive in their strategy as otherwise they will be letting all of us down …again.
   I am sick of this apparrent playing the political game I have not seen anything to distinguish Lab from Nat.
   NZ is slowly going backwards with this continuation of the status quo thinkings of both parties. There will be a day when the patient will become terminal, and then the cure will be something that none of us would wish. I am referring to us living beyond our means and pol parties still promising more than they can deliver.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1

     13 March 2010 at 12:22 pm

     Herodotus , Labour did lift the growth rate while in Office, which was behind the policy to put NZ in the top half of the OECD. If you look back they placed their promises on an increased growth rate- and not by borrowing a la Ireland

     Key made his promise into an aspiration and chucked out Brashs report before the ink was dry. A completely different approach to Labour which did have some concrete economic growth behind its years in office.
     • Herodotus 3.1.1

       13 March 2010 at 1:04 pm

       It was to increase our rating which did not eventuate. And some of our growth was digging holes in Queenstown for failed developers and building houses that were unsuitable for their intended function.
       I am not bothered who is in power just that they display some ability and an overall objective to better the country. I am fast comming to the belief that both are incopentant at this if they evey did have such an objective. Were is the objective and the follow up of how we are to achieve this. Lab just wanted to continue on as we have always done. But this for me just hid their real objective as there was no statement of where we were going.
4. rainman 4

   13 March 2010 at 12:58 pm

   @Herodotus:

   “I am sick of this apparrent playing the political game I have not seen anything to distinguish Lab from Nat. NZ is slowly going backwards with this continuation of the status quo thinkings of both parties. There will be a day when the patient will become terminal, and then the cure will be something that none of us would wish. I am referring to us living beyond our means and pol parties still promising more than they can deliver.”

   I could not agree more with the sentiment. What to do about it is where it gets hard, and where the reflexive and entrenched ideological positions of the voting public become a significant obstacle.

   And sadly, even with MMP, Lab vs Nat is still the only game in town.
5. John Ansell 5

   13 March 2010 at 4:45 pm

   Growth under Labour? Must have missed that.

   At least the Nats are granny-stepping in the direction of prosperity in hard times instead of squandering billions in the good.

   Our collective problem is institutionalised gutless government. To see how far NZ has slipped off the pace compared with, not just countries, but also NZ-sized states and provinces that our people are fond of escaping to, have a look at this table: http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2010/03/09/nz-77th-out-of-80-anglo-states/
   • Marty G 5.1

     13 March 2010 at 11:46 pm

     “Growth under Labour? Must have missed that.”

     don’t know how mate. Anyone who bothers to inform themselves can just go here: stats.govt.nz/infoshare to get the info on growth under Labour.
6. pollywog 6

   13 March 2010 at 4:49 pm

   I am not bothered who is in power just that they display some ability and an overall objective to better the country.

   Welcome to my world 🙂

   I want fresh blood, new meat for the political stew. Forget the entrenched ideological positions of the voting public. I doubt gen x and young slacker voters have them. We’re so shallow we’re just going to vote for guys who can smile and wave and give a good soundbite. Key knows this and courting Michael Jones for a list seat will guarantee him a swing towards national in the poly bloc. In which case i want Simon Dallow and John Campbell in the Labour mix. Let’s not forget Simon Dallow is Maori too. And if Key’s cornering the Lucy Lawless market then get her on board the Lab list as well.

   Who the hell is strategising for Labour ? If Key wants to play personality politics then beat him at it and FFS grow a pair and roll Goff before the end of this year if he cant close the polls by october !
7. Restaurant Amed Bali 7

   13 March 2010 at 5:06 pm

   Should he be called “John The Bun”?
8. jcuknz 8

   13 March 2010 at 5:28 pm

   This daft idea of ‘catching up with Australia” .. who the hell cares .. just some idiot rightwingers and silly lefties.
   • the pinkpostman 8.1

     15 March 2010 at 5:02 pm

     The so called wage gap has been a great Tory trick .A
     wonderful vote catcher that has conned the average voter into thinking he would be better off in Australia. I would think there are some good and some bad plus a matter of personal choice. What is of concern and needs seeing too is the gap betwen the haves and have nots in Aotearoa . This is what Labour needs to focus on. This is the gap that is the cause of so much trouble. The difference between the mininum wage and the huge bonuses paid out vto some CEOs and directors.
9. John Ansell 9

   13 March 2010 at 6:16 pm

   OK jcuknz, you’re one of many who are happy to wave the white flag to the idea of catching Australia. (Unlike me, you may not be concerned by the prospect of your kids going to live there.)

   But the point I was trying to make with the table on my blog is that we’re not just poorer than Australia, the US, Canada, Britain and Ireland. We’re poorer than every state, province and territory in those countries as well – with the only definite exception of Prince Edward Island.

   If we were a state of the USA, we’d be the poorest – poorer than Mississippi. If we were a state of Australia, we’d be the poorest – poorer than Tasmania.

   Do you not care about that either?

   In a World Bank or CIA World Yearbook comparison (sorry, can’t remember which) I recently saw that we’re now poorer than Slovenia, having long since been overtaken by Greece.

   So: at which point will you start to care about our economic decline (which I translate as an inability to afford the things we take for granted, like decent schools and medicines)?

   Or will you be content to see us slide past, not just the countries to which our children currently escape in droves, but also all the former communist basket-cases as well, until one day we wake up and realise we’re no longer a First World nation?

   If Phil Goff would care to address this issue, I’d be delighted to vote Labour (having worked on three Labour ad campaigns in the past). Meantime, I’d appreciate an answer to these questions.
   • Lew 9.1

     13 March 2010 at 6:38 pm

     John,

     NZ is poor by comparison. And yet, on quality-of-life indices, we score higher than almost all of those places. Things other than money matter. Go figure. While I’m all for increasing NZ’s wealth, it must be done in ways which retain or improve, rather than compromise, our existing quality of life.

     That’s the gap I see in the policies of the economic right, particularly ACT and the Objectivists. The assumption tends to be that wealth goes up and everything else stays the same, or more crudely that wealth goes up, and who the fuck cares what else changes, since now we have more money to offset any bad side-effects of that wealth increase. I disagree; wealth increases often have undesirable side-effects, and money is not a substitute for everything.

     L
   • QoT 9.2

     13 March 2010 at 7:03 pm

     Certainly Mississippi and Tasmania cannot possibly be in very, very different circumstances than NZ by sheer virtue of being parts of a larger, doubleplusmuch richer federal nation, or situated on huge landmasses with other states with which it’s much easier to travel/trade or anything.

     (Facetious, yes, but not entirely sure I’m primed to get hyped up because of ZOMG *MISSISSIPPI*!!!!!! comparisons.)
     • Lew 9.2.1

       13 March 2010 at 7:09 pm

       Yeah. I note also that John compares NZ to Singapore. Perhaps he wants state welfare capitalism and is prepared to accept a hereditary authoritarian one-party state to facilitate that. That would perhaps explain his position to the right of ACT. But it still doesn’t answer the questions about Singapore’s nine-century history as a trade and cultural centre, or its location on the busiest shipping lanes in the world.

       L
10. RedLogix 10

    13 March 2010 at 6:38 pm

    I want fresh blood, new meat for the political stew.

    In reality we’ve only been served variations on the same neo-liberal curry for more than 30 years now. Even Clark and Cullen, both of whom I respect greatly, were essentially very cautious politicians, and while prepared to push out the boat on a range of very obvious and necessary social/employment/identity reforms…neither was going to profoundly challenge the pro-market model that has dominated NZ political thinking since the time of Douglas.

    As a result the 5th Labour govt, while making some ground in absolute terms, still fell behind a range of OECD Europeans that charged ahead over the last decade. By all measures of social cohesion and stability those nations who have been dominated by the neo-liberal model, the USA most especially, face a crisis of deep economic and social inequalities, dumbed-down public debate, deteriorating infrastructure at all levels, and a degrading environment in every sense of the word.

    The idea that unrestricted ‘free markets’ and ‘private enterprise’ has turned out to be nothing more than a con-job; a flawed economic theory that was cynically sold as a cover for an immense heist of communal wealth from the many to the few.

    The only NZ parties currently challenging this paradigm are the Greens and NZ1. Sadly while the Greens are also a socially liberal party, NZ1 is equally a conservative one and the resulting antipathy between them prevents any chance of them forming a voting bloc, especially while a more centrally placed Labour party remains aloof.
    • Lew 10.1

      13 March 2010 at 6:47 pm

      In reality we’ve only been served variations on the same neo-liberal curry for more than 30 years now.

      One of my first jobs was as a kitchenhand in an Indian restaurant. The secret ingredient in a good curry is all the curries which went before — which get combined in a big pot at the end of the night, and used as the base for future curries. The same is true of politics; you can add all the fresh stuff you like, but if that slightly funky mix we’ve inherited from the curry chefs of yesterday is missing, there’s no depth or texture, and it tastes thin.

      Neither serving just the base, nor throwing it all out and starting from scratch will result in anything very palatable.

      L
      • RedLogix 10.1.1

        13 March 2010 at 7:05 pm

        Nice analogy Lew… and sometimes it’s what you leave out that makes all the difference. While Phil Goff will always be a fine ingredient in any Cabinet, I’m beginning to be more and more persuaded that while he remains Leader the left will never serve up a dish much distinguishable from the massacre on offer from the other guys.
      • Bill 10.1.2

        13 March 2010 at 7:09 pm

        That’s a really bad analogy…and you obviously know sweet f.a. about Indian cooking!

        Maybe in your authentic white boys ‘spicy cafe’, the cook threw the slops together to use as a base for tomorrows servings. Like the guy who ran the ‘Greasy Joe’s’ cafe I served at briefly showed me the ‘secret ingredient’ to all western cooking.

        Meanwhile, if our politics of tomorrow is to be based on potentially poisonous left overs from today, then I’ll pass if it’s all the same with you.

        You hang on to the slop bucket and spread it on your toasted stale bread or whatever.

        Incorporating and building on only the carefully selected and best of traditions, give me fresh and innovative, thoughtful and unique.

        Bon appetit.
        • Lew 10.1.2.1

          13 March 2010 at 7:35 pm

          Bill, if it’s all the same to you I’ll trust my mates from that job, who didn’t speak any English and hadn’t seen a body of water bigger than the Ganges until they arrived in Wellington. And it’s a gloss, of course — I’ve eaten and cooked good curry from scratch.

          Pissing contest aside, it remains a good analogy. What you refer to as the “slops” is in fact the carefully-selected best of traditions, in politics. Because my love of mixed metaphor is well-documented already, let me thow in another: the idea that you needn’t stand on the shoulders of giants is as absurd as the idea that those giants are tall enough on their own.

          L
          • Bill 10.1.2.1.1

            13 March 2010 at 9:16 pm

            So when you said ‘all the curries which went before — which get combined in a big pot’, you didn’t mean slops? You actually meant ‘the carefully-selected best of traditions’. Lucky for you that I expressed just that then innit? Otherwise people might have thought you were in fact claiming that culinary and political slop buckets were the essential secret basis for tomorrows political faire, if I can be so bold as to so sloppily combine two such disparate metaphors.

            And then your throwing ideas revolving around giants: How about dwarfs? I’ve always found the throwing of dwarfs to be a fine idea. And so much easier than giants, don’t you think?
            • Lew 10.1.2.1.1.1

              13 March 2010 at 9:27 pm

              It’s a fucking analogy, Bill.

              L
              • RedLogix …

                13 March 2010 at 9:42 pm

                You are both big grown up boys, and smart to boot. Neither of you need me patronising you … so I won’t.

                But if neither of you can get your shit together over a ‘fucking analogy’… then what hope is there for any of us?
              • Bill …

                13 March 2010 at 9:47 pm

                Sorry. Where exactly was the ‘fucking’ analogy in all of that?
11. pollywog 11

    13 March 2010 at 7:13 pm

    Fair enough Lew, but at what stage does Labour finally realise Goff is not the one ?

    The upcoming budget, if it continues to widen the wealth disparity chasm and create hardship for the less fortunate, should provide plenty of ammo to fire at Key and co. But given the rounds Goffs fired so far, he’s either misfiring, shooting blanks or saving it up for a massive volley ?

    So if Goff’s performance in the polls, say 5 months after the budget, is still adrift by 20 points from Key, then chances are he can kiss the 2011 election goodbye, in which case he’ll get rolled not long after, but the end result is, we’ll be giving Key and co a greater mandate to continue with the scorched earth, slash and burn policies which by the time Lab do get another shot in 2014 might be too late to pull NZ back from the bankrupt and civil disorder pit of despair.

    Or am i not seeing some truly cunning Goff Lab plan to give Key and co enough rope that the Maori party will eventually hang them out to dry with it in the next year and half ?
    • RedLogix 11.1

      13 March 2010 at 7:23 pm

      I’m not for dropping Goff just because of the polls. After all Helen Clark went through the same long period of dissapointing numbers.

      The left in this country is not dead, nor even lacking numbers really, it simply lacks animation and direction. I agree with Bill’s assertion… it will need something fresh to provide that.
    • Lew 11.2

      13 March 2010 at 7:58 pm

      Polly, I don’t think it’s a given moment in time; a KPI which hasn’t been met, or a set number of polls. I could say that if Phil Goff was half the politician I think he is, he’d know when to quit — but plainly he and I differ on that point. It’s a tough call — at present, while he’s not firing, there are no ready successors. The policy, symbolic and strategic aspects of Labour in 2010 are largely attuned to Goff’s own strengths and the things he cares about.

      Part of it comes back to a political party having to run on its own terms; the best leader in the world running someone else’s campaign will fail, and yet, even a fairly mediocre leader running on their own turf and on issues and strategy which they care about and where they have a unique and authentic voice can do remarkable things.

      Permit me a rugby analogy. Labour has a lot invested in what, a while ago, I called the Crusaders game: do the basics right, solid on defence, and punish mistakes. Trouble is they’re not doing it, but despite the inability to make this gameplan work, it would be catastrophic at this stage of the electoral cycle to switch to the Hurricanes game of inventive razzle-dazzle and reliance on individual brilliance.

      L
      • pollywog 11.2.1

        14 March 2010 at 10:34 am

        If it was me, I’d be wooing Lucy Lawless to take 4yrs out of whatever she’s doing, buy a house in Maungaraki, Wellington, get some Labour office space in the shop centre there just down from Dunne and run against him…get him the fuck outta Ohariu. Xena the enviro-warrior princess vs the worm that turned = NO contest !

        Same for Epsom but target Simon Dallow or John Campbell to run against Hide. I’d prefer Dallow and keep Campbell in his job to counter spin for the left but either of those two could nail Hides arse to the wall with the other running interference i reckon .

        Then do a bit of pre election horsetrading with the Greens to not run candidates in those 2 electorates just in case of split voting and by the same token offer up a clear run for the Greens in 2 other left leaning enviro friendly electorates like Coromandel and where ever else they think they could win an electorate seat.

        I’d also be getting Shane Jones to have regular ‘whanau cuzzy korero’ on the sly with Hone Harawira to split and either force a by election in Tai Tokerau (under Labour or as an independent) based on an unsatisfactory new foreshore deal and the diluting of ‘whanau ora’. Dialoguing with Turia/Sharples to bring them back to being a natural coalition partner with labour and horsetrade some clear run seats in the Maori electorates rather than face off in an ugly stalemate has to be an option also. The thing there is, can Turia forgive Goff and develop a prosperous working relationship ?

        And whats the chances of getting Mark Gosche back in his Maungakiekie seat and give Sam ‘loves to linger’ the bums rush ?

        The key thing then, is to get rid of coalition partners for National and already have a good to go shadow gov’t with increased representation for Labours partners so that even if Labour can’t claw back Key in the ‘smile and wave’ stakes they can ensure he doesn’t get enough votes to govern alone. Better hurry though, the rubber stamping deadline for candidates is next week innit ?
12. John Ansell 12

    13 March 2010 at 8:02 pm

    Bearing in mind that money isn’t everything, I’d still like to know how far down the GDP per capita ladder you’re prepared to see us fall.

    As for Singapore, I’m no expert but I gather the taxes there are rather low, are they not? So it’s not quite the socialist nirvana Lew seems to be suggesting it is. As I understand it, the Singaporeans have the incentive to be quite industrious.

    And despite its trading history, was it not a poor country to which we gave aid before the arrival of Lee Kwan Yew?

    I agree there’s something to be said for a benevolent dictatorship, but where else but Singapore has a dictator remained benevolent?

    Oh and I’m not to the right of ACT, but I’m certainly to the right of John Key. (Mind you, so probably are Phil Goff and Kevin Rudd.)
    • Lew 12.1

      13 March 2010 at 8:30 pm

      John, I’m not making out that it’s a socialist nirvana by any means, But it is clear that you’re no expert on Singapore. That being so, it’s a mystery why you think you’re qualified to suggest it as a model for NZ. As for its history, it’s been up and down. But the up has been much more than the down, and the “swamp to a metropolis” legend is just that: the Lee Family Myth. Excluding the postwar interregnum during which it suffered sorely, Singapore has been a trade hub since long before New Zealand existed.

      Thanks for declaring your preference for benevolent dictatorships. FYI, that puts you officially to the right of ACT, who (as a matter of policy) do not. In actuality, on the other hand, you might be right.

      To answer your question: I don’t care as much about wealth as I care about quality of life (understanding that wealth is one aspect of quality of life). I could still be living in a cramped apartment in Asia earning much more than what I am here, almost tax-free, for half the work — but it wasn’t worth it. The point is that it’s a trade-off. I’m not prepared to accede to wealth at the cost of quality of life unless the relative wealth increase is pretty big. Nothing I’ve seen from the economic right gives me any indication that they’ve even taken the intangible quality of life factors into account. As I’ve said: I’m all for economic growth; but it can’t be the blind sort of growth-at-any-cost you seem to be advocating.

      L
      • Bill 12.1.1

        13 March 2010 at 9:33 pm

        Do you also use a pipe as a gesticulatory accompaniment for your pacing back and forth pontifications perhaps?
    • RedLogix 12.2

      13 March 2010 at 8:36 pm

      With a GDP of U$27k per capita NZ lies somewhere between 27th and 38th in a ranked list of countries, depending on whose list you want to pick.

      When GDP per capita is plotted against life expectancy at birth … here is the first source google tossed up… we get a different picture again. NZ is still firmly up in the developed group of nations.

      The real problem that holds back NZ’s prosperity is can be traced back to a disasterous decision to allow overseas owners far too much access to our key assets, which consequently means that NZ’ers are effectively in the process of becoming tenants in their own land. Now there is nothing wrong with being a tenant…if that is the stage of life you are at… but we need a plan to buy our country back, to stop the bleeding of billions of dollars of cash flooding out of the country every year in extracted profits. Until we staunch this flow, we will always be on the back foot economically.

      But any amount of GDP per capita really has not a lot of meaning if the financiers and capitalists are politically enabled to concentrate an increasing fraction of it into their own silk-lined pockets. On this measure, Total wages and salary as a percentage of GDP, NZ scores at about 42%, rather poor compared with Australia in the mid 50’s. (Anyone got access to a global data source?). In essence, what is the point of raising GDP, if we achieve it on the backs of policies that deny more and more people the chance to participate in it?
      • Herodotus 12.2.1

        13 March 2010 at 8:52 pm

        That is why I am looking for a strategy that will hope up for a generation plus to come. A bit like give someone a fish and you feed them for a day – teach and you feed them for life.
        Another eg where we are wrong look at who we give honors to . The knighthoods and Order of NZ. there are a disproportion of politicos and judges, where are the engineers thinkers. We spend all this tertiary money in NZ on the ordinary. Where is the elite and honoring them. For my mind we need doers, engineers etc NOT lawyers accountants property speculators and the like.
        If there was aplan that “we’ could by into and it required some short term cash and to get this we sacraficed an area say to mine I could accept that, BUT if it was to mine just for today and that money was spent just wasted away then No.
        • RedLogix 12.2.1.1

          13 March 2010 at 9:06 pm

          engineers etc NOT … property speculators and the like

          Ironically I’m both …more or less. I love the technical work I do, but I would have remained a wage slave all my life if it was all I had done. Most engineers and skilled technical people in this country… people who actually get things done are not only poorly paid, but get sod all respect for it.
      • sk 12.2.2

        13 March 2010 at 10:53 pm

        Well said, RL

        Einstein said the something along the lines that the eighth wonder of the world is compound interest. The problem is that we gave our assets away, and that has meant that the compound interest has all gone offshore.

        Two interesting articles in the Herald today;

        One by Bruce Sheather referring to a study of NZ equities since 1900. Of the five largest companies in 1900, 3 still exist today but have been in offshore hands for a long time (Waihi Mining, NZI and National Bank).

        The other by Don Brash, which illustrates that he is clueless about investment principles, and therefore compound interest. So there you go.

        On the Singapore argument, what Lee Kuan Yew, and other post-Independence leaders did, was ensure that ownership was retained by Singapore. So the interest (profits) have accrued to them.

        Big difference, which the Right in NZ still do not understand
13. Olwyn 13

    13 March 2010 at 11:17 pm

    Very insightful posts by Herodotus & RedLogix: the fact that just 42% of our GDP is paid in wages sheds a light on the wail that 10% of the population pay 70% of the taxes. That’s because they prefer to pay taxes than wages, but would rather pay neither, while retaining the luxury of living in an ordered society. And as Herodotus says, it is one thing to mine in order to do something that might reverse the hollowing out of the country, but another to do it just because there’s money in it, with no plan as to what to do with the money – a bit like taking an axe to the couch solely because the dollars that have fallen down the back of it are dollars.
14. ropata 14

    13 March 2010 at 11:19 pm

    Scary facts on the economy – – the screwing of the middle class…
15. Irascible 15

    14 March 2010 at 4:28 am

    David Lange once said that the reason why NZ could never catch up with Australia was that Australia was a quarry while N.Z.was a theme park. He was right -Australia’s wages and conditions will leap ahead while the demand for easily quarried materials grows. Our resource base is not those of the quarry but less tangible assets that the NACT govt continue to ignore – in particular the skill base of the NZ citizens.
16. The Chairman 16

    14 March 2010 at 8:19 am

    Income Concentration in 2007 Was at Highest Level Since 1928:

    http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=2908

    The Wealth Gap and the Collapse of the U.S.

    http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/183929-sober-realist/21758-the-wealth-gap-and-the-collapse-of-the-u-s

    Grotesque Inequality:

    http://www.multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/072003/weissman.html
    • RedLogix 16.1

      14 March 2010 at 11:31 am

      Those are great links TC… thanks.

      It’s sad how so many people fall back on aphorisms like “lies, damned lies and statistics”, or “numbers can be twisted to mean anything you want” and use this thinking as an excuse to stick their head up their own asses.

      Yet the modern world is all about numbers; statisticians are the princes of our era, their work teases out the underlying meanings buried in the overwhelming torrents of information we live in. It’s why I really enjoy MartyG’s work here; it’s why I appreciate the time and effort it takes to find the data, run the analysis and extract the meanings…the numbers DO tell stories.

      Now of course the numbers can be spun by the person telling the tale…but the fault therein lies within the tangles and twists of the spinner… not the numbers themselves.

      I have to requote this from one of your links… even for a jaded soul as myself it’s stunning really:

      There is something profoundly wrong with a world in which the 400 highest income earners in the United States make as much money in a year as the entire population of 20 African nations — more than 300 million people.
      • The Chairman 16.1.1

        14 March 2010 at 12:57 pm

        Indeed, Redlogix.

        We often hear talk of increasing productivity, but the links above explain what’s happening to the capital that helps support the necessary, corresponding demand.
17. jcuknz 17

    14 March 2010 at 8:49 am

    If we agree that Phil Goff and Kevin Rudd are to the ‘right’ of John Key then we are living in a happy state, apart from the huge unemployment which hopefully will get better and reduce the drain on government coffers and resultant borrowing. I would suggest that as long as this state continues then the official labour party will continue to stumble along. However if John Key is forced to the right by his party then that will be the time when the population will return to labour. I don’t mind what the party is called so long as I live in a caring community which is far better than being one of the underdogs in a rich community.
18. tc 18

    14 March 2010 at 11:40 am

    “David Lange once said that the reason why NZ could never catch up with Australia was that Australia was a quarry while N.Z.was a theme park..”

    There you have it, Goff’s line of reckless/whatever is accurate but water off a ducks back to Johnny clown…..watch them blag another term they way this is playing out.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS