John Key has been unable to turn our economy around [Archive]

shrub

26th January 2011, 11:04

so it's time to flog the family silver:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10702066

Power companies, Solid Energy (who control our most significant fossil fuel resource) and Air NZ today, what will go tomorrow? I suggest ACC, TVNZ, Kiwibank for a start. We already export a phenomenal amount of money offshore in the form of profits and dividents to our foreign owners - can we really afford to increase that amount?

And why would we want to follow the political and economic ideologies that have hurt us so badly in the past? Surely we should have learnt by now? Wouldn't it make more sense to build our export sector so we earn more money as a country?

As an analogy, John is spending more than he is earning at his job, so he sells his car and leases it back while he spends the money. Then he sells his house and rents it back, while Mike next door goes out and gets a better job that pays more and keeps his car and his house - and probably buys John's stuff.

Bald Eagle

26th January 2011, 11:32

No would be easier to sell of the family silver.

Then when the dust settle legislate to return those business back into state ownership.

Sorted.

Banditbandit

26th January 2011, 11:38

Not to worry - after November he won't be Prime Minister any more ...

slofox

26th January 2011, 11:39

What economy?

phill-k

26th January 2011, 11:44

Understand your comments completely shrub, I just wish I could find a person, book, thesis, or something which would give me the knowledge to understand and support the reasoning behind selling a countries vital infrastructure, because based on our past failed history it doesn't seem to work other than making a very few - Fay and cohorts very very rich, then we end up having to bail them out and buy them back.

Who are the dark coats behind national that continually push this button, I voted for the man and now will change back to the other party in the hopes that this can be stopped unless I can find the information to prove that it is indeed viable.

Fuck the lot of them, they are making me very depressed for the long term future of NZ.

As an aside we put Aussie on a pedestal, heard today that they have a tax free base of $6000, and a separate "levy" as they call it for their public health care, and are about to add to the levies one to cover the flood reconstruction, had one to cover the buy back of semi automatic firearms, wonder those that keep on about low rates of tax in Aussie take all of this into consideration.

Swoop

26th January 2011, 12:18

It would have been nice if that cockhead Cullen hadn't emptied the bank account on a trainset and other bollocks, moments before being forced out of office.

Gibbo89

26th January 2011, 12:29

I would like to see someone who can guarantee that they can turn our economy around in this current climate etc etc.

Yes Aussie are saying fuck off to the whole recession thing, but they have all those minerals that they are mining etc, we have these under the West Coast of the S.I, but everyone stated to bitch when Brownlee proposed this. Yet Aussie go plunder the land and is helping no end with their economy. Countries such as China and the like still demand coal for the coal powered power plants, so Aussie are running to the bank smiling whilst NZ and other countries are battling to a certain extent.

I understand the whole 'keep nz green' motto and image we want, but when times are tough and people blame the govt, I'd like to see some options to ACTUALLY fix the economy, not just have some theories.

On a side note, I wonder where Goff will get the money from the proposed tax cuts? I hope it isn't just some huge loan that he wants to borrow from overseas and add to our huge overseas debt from the Cullen era.

My $0.02

shrub

26th January 2011, 12:31

It would have been nice if that cockhead Cullen hadn't emptied the bank account on a trainset and other bollocks, moments before being forced out of office.

I wondered when someone would bring that up. Actually, that was the best investment the Labour government ever made, and as a motorcyclist I love it. Fuel is a finite resource that has increasing demand (if you don't believe me, go and check the price at the pump), and we are heavily dependent on being able to transport freight up and down NZ.

If we had left the rail in private foreign hands, either prices would have been increased making it even more expensive for our exporters to get their goods to port, or the more likely scenario, rail would have closed down. Under either scenario more precious oil would be wasted in trucks instead of made into petrol for my bike and our roads would have had even more trucks on it. And they are a pain in the arse to get past in the windies.

Rail is significantly more efficient and uses much less energy than road (and can use electricity, which we make as opposed to oil which we import), so ultimately a well run rail system will save money. Therefore because we own our rail service again, if our government is smart enough to invest in it, less oil will be wasted in trucks, the roads will need less repairs, and there will be less A trains grinding over the Hunderlees or the Lewis.

Pretty clever move if you ask me. :niceone:

mashman

26th January 2011, 12:36

what an ignorant cunt. Someone mentioned Labour being far removed from reality... this idiot is on another planet (in this case I DON'T see the irony in an idiot calling an idiot a cunt).

"This year is about building a brighter future for New Zealanders and their families." What? By selling off their heritage? everything that countless generations of Kiwi's have fought and worked for to get this country off its ass... yes labour sucked, what a surprise, but this guy is taking the piss and you want to drink it? Worse, by default you're gonna force me to :facepalm:... Think, tax cuts in a recession where those very same families were hurting, SCF, China $2 billion trade deficit, cuts in services, rises in just about every price on the market and he gave tax cuts :facepalm:)

That is only possible if we lift the country's economic performance, and by doing so deliver the jobs, higher incomes and better living standards New Zealanders aspire to and deserve.

Not it's not. You could start by putting taxes back up instead of cutting costs even further, affecting service and causing job losses. I can hear my employer now. JK said that if i let him sell off 50% each listed SOE that i'd receive a higher income... yeah, i'm sure they'll just give me more money. Better living standards? :killingme... not whilst there are people running around fucking people over there won't be. Try focussing some of your time on sensible laws dickhead... like taxing the rich as they receive payment and before they write it off against their assets. If they're making a loss, they shouldn't be in business.

But today I want to concentrate solely on the economy, because our economic performance is the most important challenge facing New Zealand.

Spoken like a true ignorant cunt. What about Poverty? Healthcare? the limp wristed Justice system? Education Programmes? It's by no means the most important challenge facing New Zealand... Someone said Goff was out of touch... this guy if from another planet.

The good news on the economy is that 2011 is expected to be a better year than 2010. Treasury is predicting growth in excess of 3 per cent this year, together with higher wages and falling unemployment.

That's just a guess. Good for whom? Already dealt with the wages and unemployment argument. The CPI is not the measure to use for this as the rich overly inflate the averages produced.

That challenge is to build a lasting recovery based on savings, exports and productive investment.

the larger portion of the country has nothing left to save and the rich send their cash off shore, where's the money gonna come from? So he's going to drive the $ down is he? that's the only way to stimulate the export market, or so they keep whining about...

If we get this right the possibilities are exciting.

You haven't so far, in fact you've gone in completely the opposite direction, so your getting it right, is most definately not going to transpire... and don't blame the recession, it doesn't wash, SCF, China deficit etc...

New Zealand is a food-producing country and world demand for food is rising. Global prices for dairy, forestry, meat and other commodities are high.

Yes, we've seen the price rises locally John. I also realise that you subsidise

But as a country we have to reach out and grasp those opportunities or we risk missing the boat.

Sales technique called Keeping up with the Jones's...

People borrowed heavily to buy houses and farms, property prices soared and New Zealanders felt wealthier as a result. They spent a lot on consumer goods, which led to a bubble of economic activity.

So you're telling us what to spend our money on?

High government and private sector consumption generated inflationary pressures, pushing up interest rates and discouraging productive investment.

But you're happy to sell SOE's to that same private sector... :facepalm:, because yeah, they'll have changed their business practices and will really invest heavily in NZ where they can make more money elsewhere...

High interest rates in turn led to an over-valued exchange rate which smothered the internationally-competitive sectors of the economy, like agriculture, horticulture and manufacturing.

Pot Kettle Black and you've managed it in 2 years.

I could be here a while as I'm only 1/4 down the page, wonder if anyone else is :rofl: nah, i give up. We are supposed to be a Nation aren't we? even the bludgers as you need them to keep inflation down don't you? Or is your personal gain more important than having nothing left to sell when the wolf finally gets to the door?

ahhhh that makes up for last nights fuck it :)

shrub

26th January 2011, 12:48

I would like to see someone who can guarantee that they can turn our economy around in this current climate etc etc.

I don't think anyone can guarantee anything of the kind, but we need better ideas than selling OUR (yours and mine) assets and tax cuts for the rich.

How about making the NZ$ less attractive to speculative traders, thereby reducing exchange rate volatility? (worked for SIngapore)

Maybe even peg the NZ$ to that of our major trading partners?

Or introducing capital gains tax, especially on investment properties, thereby encouraging people to invest in productive investments (exporters)?

Or recognising that our single biggest unique selling point is our clean green image, and working hard to protect and develop that?

And how about encouraging diversity of exports so we are less dependent on milk powder?

Perhaps reintroduce tax breaks for R&D?

Nah, let's just sell stuff and give a few tax cuts. Just because it's never worked before doesn't mean it won't work this time. Hell, what have we got to lose?

imdying

26th January 2011, 12:52

Spoken like a true ignorant cunt. What about Poverty? Healthcare? the limp wristed Justice system? Education Programmes?Steady on mate, sorting out all of those things will definitely help with the economy so they're not necessarily excluded by a economy centric focus.

aprilia_RS250

26th January 2011, 12:52

I can tell some of you didn't bother reading the article. It says partially sell off assets. Sorry the money is not gona come from the sky, it's like a big garage sale.

To be honest I would have been a lot happier if he had announced abolishing the doll for long term beneficiaries.

yachtie10

26th January 2011, 12:56

shrub

26th January 2011, 13:01

oh good another lefty bashes the right thread and as usual is blind to the real facts

I have no sympathy for right wingers that think to privatise is to solve all issues (havnt seen this work in NZ yet)

but the article has a quote in it that was conviently ignored

"In each case, the government would retain majority ownership and control, and the freed-up capital would be used to purchase other public assets, thereby reducing the government's need to borrow," Mr Key said.

I was fully aware that he used the 'partially' sweetener, but partially selling an asset is still selling that asset, and majority ownership can be as little as 51% ownership. I'm neither a lefty nor a righty - I don't think that continuum has a lot of relevance or meaning these days - I more think of myself as a long termer and try and focus on long term benefits for all New Zealanders, as opposed to quick and dirty vote winning tactics.

Bald Eagle

26th January 2011, 13:03

would be used to purchase other public assets,

I wonder which previously sold public assets he wants to buy back :rofl:

yachtie10

26th January 2011, 13:05

I was fully aware that he used the 'partially' sweetener, but partially selling an asset is still selling that asset, and majority ownership can be as little as 51% ownership. I'm neither a lefty nor a righty - I don't think that continuum has a lot of relevance or meaning these days - I more think of myself as a long termer and try and focus on long term benefits for all New Zealanders, as opposed to quick and dirty vote winning tactics.

My point was that they are saying they are buying other assets with the money!

and i dont see it as a vote winner. personally they would be better doing nothing if they want to win the next election

mashman

26th January 2011, 13:09

Steady on mate, sorting out all of those things will definitely help with the economy so they're not necessarily excluded by a economy centric focus.

deep breasts, deep breasts :)... true they're not "necessarily excluded", but I don't believe this is the way to stimulate the economy (did that come across :rofl:) and certainly can't see how this will have positive knock on effects for the "ills" of society, which, to me anyway, is the mark of a "healthy" country. JK seems to think the mark of a"healthy" country is its economy... as pointed out to me recently Tunisia don't have financial problems, and yet threw out their President. Sort the people out first, then worry about feeding the rest of the world and making $$$... but yes we need $$$ to do it, selling stuff off is not the way to go about it imho.

Scuba_Steve

26th January 2011, 13:10

My point was that they are saying they are buying other assets with the money!

and i dont see it as a vote winner. personally they would be better doing nothing if they want to win the next election

yea they might be able to buy some shares in ACC when they privatise it
"remember its easier to put the stick in a cm at a time, people notice when you ram the whole stick up all at once"

mashman

26th January 2011, 13:13

shrub

26th January 2011, 13:15

yeah, good point, I missed that comment, incorrectly assuming that the money raised would be used to reduce the deficit, thereby reducing the risk of a credit downgrade. Having said that, what assets were they planning to purchase? I can't think of any good reason to sell one asset to buy another.

I'm also very uncomfortable with the whole idea of encouraging "mum and dad" and institutional investors to purchase shares in service enterprises when where we really need to have money invested in export oriented businesses. FFS, Synlait were unable to raise money domestically to expand their very profitable plant in South Canterbury, so they sold a 51% stake to the Chinese, therefore the profit made from adding value to our milk is exported.

yachtie10

26th January 2011, 13:19

shrub

26th January 2011, 13:22

Fair enough but i dont know what the solution is
I personally dont want my life savings invested in a nz company that will just declare itself bankcrupt when things go bad (while the director/owners walk away with plenty of money that came from the company in some way. As has happened a lot recently

To the best of my knowledge, few (if any) well run export oriented companies have gone bankrupt recently. The frequent collapse of finance companies is well documented, but most of those finance companies were not well run and all they did was lend money - a service.

yachtie10

26th January 2011, 13:22

I also made reference to the 50% too (just in case yer aimin that one at me :)). But, Purchase what assets? What's gonna be left to buy?

I didnt think your first post was worth responding too
sounded to me like "im a comunist and anyone who has different ideas to me is evil"

BTW I am not a right wing zealot but I get sick of left wingers who see no wrong in what labour do and all wrong in what national do (IMHO that makes them stupid)
both side do things i think are wrong

yachtie10

26th January 2011, 13:23

To the best of my knowledge, few (if any) well run export oriented companies have gone bankrupt recently. The frequent collapse of finance companies is well documented, but most of those finance companies were not well run and all they did was lend money - a service.

yes but where do a lot of companies get their money?

Genestho

26th January 2011, 13:26

Ahhh yes election year, what short memories Kiwi's have...

As America's housing economy began crashing down like dominoes in early '07 anyone with half a brain knew what was coming.

In late 08 National inherited 9 years of Labour debt - the books were a mess.

How I laugh when I read back over Labour's 'successful run'.
One of the most economical times in NZ history, and what financial forward thinking came about there?

Labour's got nothing new, except hair dye.

shrub

26th January 2011, 13:27

yes but where do a lot of companies get there money?

Generally not the finance companies that went under - they specialised in HP and mortgages. Businesses typically raise money through equity arrangements, venture financiers and loans (mostly from banks). There are exceptions - eg. leasing agreements are essentially a way of raising money, and lease companies are finance companies under a different name.

mashman

26th January 2011, 13:31

I didnt think your first post was worth responding too
sounded to me like "im a comunist and anyone who has different ideas to me is evil"

BTW I am not right wing zealot but I get sick of left wingers who see no wrong in what labour do and all wrong in what national do (IMHO that makes them stupid)

:rofl: labelled again. I'm baggin JK because of his ideas. Labour are just as bad. I don;t vote because they're all pretty useless... although putting the tax system back the way it was would be a good thing imho and if it's Labour that has that idea, fine, if it's National, fine... but your instinct not to read the post was likely a correct one :)

BTW, i'm not a communist either.

Brian d marge

26th January 2011, 13:34

I told you so
( and like it will stay at 51% govn owned ....tui ad )
Stephen

shrub

26th January 2011, 13:35

In late 08 National inherited 9 years of Labour debt - the books were a mess.

Labour's got nothing new, except hair dye.

Actually, National inherited 9 years of private debt. In 08 our sovereign debt wasn't too bad, and the main reason we didn't get slaughtered in the GEC was because our books were in comparitively good nick (despite what the National party spin doctors told us - remember being told that ACC was broke?).

However, our current deficit is (from memory) -9% of GDP, which is worse than Ireland's! WHat has saved us is our debt is predominantly private debt - in other words, our deficit is nothing to do with Cullen, and everything to do with you and I buying bikes and flat screen TVs and big, flash houses with money lent to us by (predominantly) Asians. Funny how our TVs and bikes are made by the same people that lent us the money.....

yachtie10

26th January 2011, 13:36

:rofl: labelled again. I'm baggin JK because of his ideas. Labour are just as bad. I don;t vote because they're all pretty useless... although putting the tax system back the way it was would be a good thing imho and if it's Labour that has that idea, fine, if it's National, fine... but your instinct not to read the post was likely a correct one :)

BTW, i'm not a communist either.

I stand corrected

BTW I think the tax system is in credibly inequitable now and should be evened out
not just the few paying for all

mashman

26th January 2011, 13:50

I stand corrected

BTW I think the tax system is in credibly inequitable now and should be evened out
not just the few paying for all

aye, so you should be :shifty:... (but i can see why you'd read it that way :yes:)

fair enough, but there's absolutely no alternative to that, other than borrowing, whilst the credibly inequitable wage structure exists I guess... damned if ya do etc...

scott411

26th January 2011, 13:50

i think these asset sales are not a good idea, but we do need cash

i think Goff's idea of $5000 tax free is a good idea to, we can not afford it tho, maybe cancelling free interest on student loans would be a good idea to fund it,

in basic terms, we are not earning enough, or we are spending to much, same deal,

i have not seen any party come up with an idea on how to solve this problem,

do we slash the hell out of the services, and deal with the extra social problems that it will cause,

or so we put tax up to try and pay for it all, and put the rest of us that have not gone to australia on the next plane out,

hell of a choice really isn't it

shrub

26th January 2011, 13:52

I stand corrected

BTW I think the tax system is in credibly inequitable now and should be evened out
not just the few paying for all

It's a basket case, but before we worry about tax we need to cut consumption and increase our national income by exporting more.

Gareth Morgan has a good solution here (http://www.interest.co.nz/news/gareth-morgan-proposes-comprehensive-capital-tax-25-flat-tax-replacement-all-benefits/), but it's waaaaay to radical to ever get past the current crop of softcocks in power. Or the softcocks in opposition (I hold about the same contempt for both National and Labour).

Gibbo89

26th January 2011, 13:54

To be honest I would have been a lot happier if he had announced abolishing the doll for long term beneficiaries.

Our beneficiary system is one of the worst in the world, it is so easy with the current system in place to be on the dole and sickness benefit when you are fully able to work and are not sick at all. Yes there are plenty of cases where people should be on the benefit for the sole reason they are unable to work.

But fuckin' eh, the benefit system needs the biggest overhaul.

Someone I know works for WINZ, they set up an interview for someone for a job oppurtunity... typically they didn't turn up. So the worker from WINZ rang up the person that skipped the interview to ask why.

The reason? Because it was raining...:facepalm:

I'd love to say that I made this up and people could not actually be so pathetic, but that's how it went.

If the benefit system was overhauled, then I'm sure there would be some spare shrapnel lying around for a tax cut.

shrub

26th January 2011, 14:29

Our beneficiary system is one of the worst in the world, it is so easy with the current system in place to be on the dole and sickness benefit when you are fully able to work and are not sick at all. Yes there are plenty of cases where people should be on the benefit for the sole reason they are unable to work.

But fuckin' eh, the benefit system needs the biggest overhaul.

Someone I know works for WINZ, they set up an interview for someone for a job oppurtunity... typically they didn't turn up. So the worker from WINZ rang up the person that skipped the interview to ask why.

The reason? Because it was raining...:facepalm:

I'd love to say that I made this up and people could not actually be so pathetic, but that's how it went.

If the benefit system was overhauled, then I'm sure there would be some spare shrapnel lying around for a tax cut.

Yeah, can the whole thing ay? There are a hell of a lot of jobs out there, so there is no need to be unemployed, and if you suffer from some long term condition that means you can't work, then tough shit.

One minor problem though, there aren't enough jobs and some people want to work but can't because of their health. How do you suggest we deal with them? And how will the unemployed (for whatever reason) be able to live? Will they just quietly go into a corner and disappear, or starve to death, or start a business, or something? Or will some of them line the sides of the roads with begging bowls? And will some of the others resort to petty crime? Will we suddenly have pickpockets, carjackings and the myriad other crimes in third world countries? And will we experience a massive increase in burglaries?

i think you'll find that the countries with the worst social welfare systems in the world (third world countries) have the most crime, and the ones with the best systems have the safest communities and the greatest average wealth.

Genestho

26th January 2011, 14:45

[snip]..the National party spin doctors told us...

Lest we forget....

Pre election fiscal and economic update: 6th October 2008 :http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/prefu2008

ECONOMIC AND FISCAL FORECASTS DECEMBER 2008 http://www.treasury.govt.nz/budget/forecasts/eff2008/eff08.pdf

gammaguy

26th January 2011, 14:50

scott411

26th January 2011, 14:57

Having said all that,the only difference I can see between the parties is the color of their ties

100% correct, so are both so centre and vote based now they might as merge, at least that way they always win,

not to sure if the person that got up and said we need big change, but we will have to suffer though it will win enough votes tho, or if they do it will be watered down and be ineffective the the deals done via mmp after the election,

Brian d marge

26th January 2011, 15:08

Actually, National inherited 9 years of private debt. In 08 our sovereign debt wasn't too bad, and the main reason we didn't get slaughtered in the GEC was because our books were in comparitively good nick (despite what the National party spin doctors told us - remember being told that ACC was broke?).

However, our current deficit is (from memory) -9% of GDP, which is worse than Ireland's! WHat has saved us is our debt is predominantly private debt - in other words, our deficit is nothing to do with Cullen, and everything to do with you and I buying bikes and flat screen TVs and big, flash houses with money lent to us by (predominantly) Asians. Funny how our TVs and bikes are made by the same people that lent us the money.....

Can you expand on this?
Who , was this private debt borrowed from ( australian banks??_)

Housing, investment properties??

Stephen

Swoop

26th January 2011, 15:32

Actually, that was the best investment the Labour government ever made.
Sorry, but the rail system was nothing more than a failing business that had been bled dry then raped for a while. The taxpayer was ripped off in no uncertain terms and will continue to be fucked over by the need to upgrade infrastructure and assets.

Stupidity of cullen, throwing good money after bad: 10/10.
Should of waited for the Aussies to give the thing back and buggered off back across the ditch.

BTW. I agree with rail as a means to transport bulk. Really it needs to be enforced further, to reduce trucks and wear on the roading system. Possibility of that happening?:rofl:

This thread is an interesting insight to the myopic behaviour of the kiwi.

shrub

26th January 2011, 15:34

Can you expand on this?
Who , was this private debt borrowed from ( australian banks??_)

Housing, investment properties??

Stephen

It was predominantly borrowed from overseas investors via Aussie banks and finance companies (some of whom are now dead and buried). The focus on inflation rate control using the RBA resulted in the RB cranking up interest rates whenever inflation reared it's ugly head in the vain hope that this would reduce demand for money. the only outcome was the hot money overseas saw the high interest rates and poured into NZ, thereby driving up the exchange rate which in turn kept prices of imported goods low. The banks were flush with money, so they lent it out as fast as they could (easy loans, no payments until June 2098, 100% mortgages etc), and that in turn drove consumption which kept prices high (especialy property).

Crasherfromwayback

26th January 2011, 15:47

Not to worry - after November he won't be Prime Minister any more ...

Bet you a carton of beer he will be!

SPman

26th January 2011, 16:01

Bet you a carton of beer he will be! Yep - never under-estimate the stupidity of Kiwi voters - most of them still beleive everything they read in the Harold and watch on TV1!
So, Key wants to flog of the electricity companies and ANZ -
they deliver nice returns to the government - $700 million last year from the electricity companies alone
much better most of that $700 mill goes to private companies than into government coffers........gives further reasons to introduce Ruth Richardson style slash & burn policies - should be able to drive NZ back to the stone age this time!........

Bald Eagle

26th January 2011, 16:03

Just like lots of voters believed that changing to MMP was their choice. :lol:

mashman

26th January 2011, 16:10

Gareth Morgan has a good solution here (http://www.interest.co.nz/news/gareth-morgan-proposes-comprehensive-capital-tax-25-flat-tax-replacement-all-benefits/), but it's waaaaay to radical to ever get past the current crop of softcocks in power. Or the softcocks in opposition (I hold about the same contempt for both National and Labour).

I like it... I read the detailed version, and not that I understood all of it, but enough to get the gist that it's a balancing of the books in a sensible productivity of the Nation focussed way. Throw in some sensible legislation, not just around GM's CCT et al, and I may even consider voting for such a thing :yes: I'd be interested to see what he could do with his numbers in regards to upping the minimum wage, hopefully encouraging people (back) into work... Certainly better than selling half of the country off (yes i know it isn't half of the country :facepalm: hyperbole :rofl:) for a relatively short term gain.

p.dath

26th January 2011, 16:18

As an analogy, John is spending more than he is earning at his job, so he sells his car and leases it back while he spends the money. Then he sells his house and rents it back, while Mike next door goes out and gets a better job that pays more and keeps his car and his house - and probably buys John's stuff.

You realise this is a common business practice, to sell assets and lease them back? It frees up capital that can be re-invested in another areas of a company.

Most people can't just go out and get a better job that earns money - because if they could, they would have already.
However they could use the money from the car they just sold to improve their training and education so they could.

Gibbo89

26th January 2011, 16:20

Yeah, can the whole thing ay? There are a hell of a lot of jobs out there, so there is no need to be unemployed, and if you suffer from some long term condition that means you can't work, then tough shit.

You my good sir are a muppet. Read my second sentence, I did not say 'tough shit' to everyone, there are just plenty of people who milk the floored system and this adds to our national debt.

To those that are mentally incapable of packing a bag at a supermarket... well we'll all have to pay our taxes and support these people won't we? I'm not complaining about them.

enigma51

26th January 2011, 16:31

Slicksta

26th January 2011, 17:19

So how do all the lefties think we are going to continue to afford the 300 million dollars on average a week we are borrowing on average? Tax the rich who have worked for it, giving them less incentive to invest in our economy? National has moved slightly more to the right its not enough but it makes them the lesser of two evils considering labors last bribing speech.

aprilia_RS250

26th January 2011, 17:39

i think you'll find that the countries with the worst social welfare systems in the world (third world countries) have the most crime, and the ones with the best systems have the safest communities and the greatest average wealth.

This makes no sense.

You're thinking of spurious correlation here. It's like me saying the world has been heating up (global warming) because polar bears are becoming extinct. i.e. one is a product of another. I think you'll find a good strong economy drives crime down, not social welfare. A third world country will need a good economy in order to reduce crime, increase standards of living and actually afford social welfare which is only a mere short term solution to help out those who haven't jumped on the growing economy bandwagon.

phill-k

26th January 2011, 17:41

aprilia_RS250

26th January 2011, 17:45

Scuba_Steve

26th January 2011, 17:54

Ok tell me which of the SOE's that have been sold still trade successfully and have performed better than when in Government ownership.

Ummmm...... Telecom, remember what it was like in the 80s?? Contact Energy, State Insurance, Air NZ... Just to name a few.

yea hes got ya there mate, what you wanted to ask was which is now better for the end consumer than it was under SOE, answer then is not many, if any

phill-k

26th January 2011, 18:01

You my good sir are a muppet. Read my second sentence, I did not say 'tough shit' to everyone, there are just plenty of people who milk the floored system and this adds to our national debt.

To those that are mentally incapable of packing a bag at a supermarket... well we'll all have to pay our taxes and support these people won't we? I'm not complaining about them.

Actually you are the muppet, in the scheme of things there are as a percentage very few abusers of the welfare system and they add very little to our national debt. The benefits to society of having a well funded and sympathetic welfare system far out way the few that abuse it.

phill-k

26th January 2011, 18:04

yea hes got ya there mate, what you wanted to ask was which is now better for the end consumer than it was under SOE, answer then is not many, if any

Yes agree with you there, the fact that we export the profits of some of these concerns and thus add to our overseas debt should also be taken into account.

Fatt Max

26th January 2011, 18:10

Just watching My Key on Close Up and keep hearing partial sell off of assets.

Now, lets take Air NZ. What bit of the planes will they be selling? The wings? The bogs? The black boxes (and I am not talking about the hosties)

Tell you what, if they are selling the bun warmers then I'll have one of them but there is no way I am buying an overhead locker, life jacket or box of sick bags.

I wonder if they will sell off hosties undies?

Flip

26th January 2011, 18:17

Oh great, sell Solid Energy at the same time the price of coaking coal which was $150 tonne is predicted to reach $500+ in the near future. Coaking coal is the high value stuff used to make steel.

Sounds like a crock of shit to me.

It really sucks to be a peasant in this country.

Slicksta

26th January 2011, 18:18

Actually you are the muppet, in the scheme of things there are as a percentage very few abusers of the welfare system and they add very little to our national debt. The benefits to society of having a well funded and sympathetic welfare system far out way the few that abuse it.

What???
You do realise that Social Security and Welfare is the governments biggest expenditure???
How can you say that they don't add to our debt?
24.2 billion dollars a year (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure)

yachtie10

26th January 2011, 18:23

Ok tell me which of the SOE's that have been sold still trade successfully and have performed better than when in Government ownership.

What part of what i said dont you understand?
I said

"I have no sympathy for right wingers that think to privatise is to solve all issues (havnt seen this work in NZ yet)"

And your question is one that cant be answered in a simple statement
I know people who think telecom is way better that when it was government owned (I dont happen to agree)

phill-k

26th January 2011, 18:25

What part of what i said dont you understand?
I said

"I have no sympathy for right wingers that think to privatise is to solve all issues (havnt seen this work in NZ yet)"

And your question is one that cant be answered in a simple statement
I know people who think telecom is way better that when it was government owned (I dont happen to agree)

I take your point

phill-k

26th January 2011, 18:34

What???
You do realise that Social Security and Welfare is the governments biggest expenditure???
How can you say that they don't add to our debt?
24.2 billion dollars a year (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure)

I was responding to the person that wanted long term unemployment beneficiaries sent packing and those that abuse the system, not the cost of the system its self, of which a large proportion are the retired and those who genuinely require and need the governments support to survive and live in NZ with dignity.

Mr Key has just stated that there are 300,000 working age people receiving various benefits, both unemployment and sickness among others, he states they are costing NZ such that we are all doomed, his tax cut of which 50% went to the top 12% of tax payers cost the country about 6 yrs worth of the above beneficiaries, if as many as 20% of those 300,000 shouldn't be receiving a benefit, the cost pales compared to his gift to his buddies.

Winston001

26th January 2011, 18:34

so it's time to flog the family silver:

As an analogy, John is spending more than he is earning at his job, so he sells his car and leases it back while he spends the money. Then he sells his house and rents it back, while Mike next door goes out and gets a better job that pays more and keeps his car and his house - and probably buys John's stuff.

The analogy is reasonable but needs to be accurate.

John is spending more than he earns because he has a sick child. He can't earn more money until the child is able to look after herself. The car money helps in the short-term.

That is essentially what social-democratic governments do.

As for the house, John's mortgage is $400/wk. He sells half the house and pays $200/wk to the new part-owners. He now has no mortgage, and can manage on his wages.

Mike is lucky enough to find a better job - John would like to but can't. That's life. Mike is switched-on and a go getter. He'll always be better off than John and in fact is able to help his neighbour by offering weekend work.

mashman

26th January 2011, 18:38

What???
You do realise that Social Security and Welfare is the governments biggest expenditure???
How can you say that they don't add to our debt?
24.2 billion dollars a year (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/expenditure)

That about $161,000 per "bludger" (159,000 bludgers) (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-star-times/business/latest-business/3993608/Unemployment-rate-rises). That's why they stay on the dole... can't blame 'em

shrub

26th January 2011, 19:18

This makes no sense.

You're thinking of spurious correlation here. It's like me saying the world has been heating up (global warming) because polar bears are becoming extinct. i.e. one is a product of another. I think you'll find a good strong economy drives crime down, not social welfare. A third world country will need a good economy in order to reduce crime, increase standards of living and actually afford social welfare which is only a mere short term solution to help out those who haven't jumped on the growing economy bandwagon.

Yes, you're right, the correlation is spurious, and it was a little naughty of me to imply one (I'm feeling lazy), but the literature is reasonably unequivocal in arguing that a major cause of crime and the other indicators of a disfunctional society is poverty and now research is showing that the wider the gap between the haves and the have nots, the higher the rate of drug abuse, crime etc

JimO

26th January 2011, 19:22

a anti national thread and no skyrider??

shrub

26th January 2011, 19:32

The analogy is reasonable but needs to be accurate.

John is spending more than he earns because he has a sick child. He can't earn more money until the child is able to look after herself. The car money helps in the short-term.

That is essentially what social-democratic governments do.

As for the house, John's mortgage is $400/wk. He sells half the house and pays $200/wk to the new part-owners. He now has no mortgage, and can manage on his wages.

Mike is lucky enough to find a better job - John would like to but can't. That's life. Mike is switched-on and a go getter. He'll always be better off than John and in fact is able to help his neighbour by offering weekend work.

A more accurate still analogy is john is living beyond his means for a long time and has children that demand all the toys possible and are spending the equity he has in his house. He also has the chance to take up a more highly skilled job, but his mates and his kids convince him to stick with his old job.

It was interesting listening to Key and John Campbell tonight - Campbell didn't handle the interview at all well. I would have challenged Key as to why he wasn't encouraging Mum and Dad investors to invest in income earning businesses (exporters, research companies etc) rather than services, and if he wanted to raise money from the citizens, rather than selling the future profitability of service providers he didn't issue government bonds.

And when he said that the money was being invested in assets, he was talking about schools and police etc - FFS, those are not assets, they are essential infrastructure. Assets have a realisable capital value and earn money. Is Key (or Campbell) really that stupid? My house is a (poor) asset, but the hot water and electricity isn't.

MisterD

26th January 2011, 19:39

It was interesting listening to Key and John Campbell tonight - Campbell didn't handle the interview at all well. I would have challenged Key as to why he wasn't encouraging Mum and Dad investors to invest in income earning businesses (exporters, research companies etc) rather than services, and if he wanted to raise money from the citizens, rather than selling the future profitability of service providers he didn't issue government bonds.

What exactly is Solid Energy (you know the company that fills ships with coal so that greenie protesters can chain themselves to them) if not an exporter?

Have you seen the paucity of investment options on the NZX? IMO this is a great way to boost the amount of $$ in our stock market and to give people an alternative to rental properties for investment. I'll be lining up to bring some of the money I have in the FTSE back to NZ when this happens, otherwise my diversification plans will be all about putting money in the Aussie market.

And when he said that the money was being invested in assets, he was talking about schools and police etc - FFS, those are not assets, they are essential infrastructure. Assets have a realisable capital value and earn money. Is Key (or Campbell) really that stupid? My house is a (poor) asset, but the hot water and electricity isn't.

Schools are an asset too, but why not build them under PPP?

Scuba_Steve

26th January 2011, 19:46

What exactly is Solid Energy (you know the company that fills ships with coal so that greenie protesters can chain themselves to them) if not an exporter?

Have you seen the paucity of investment options on the NZX? IMO this is a great way to boost the amount of $$ in our stock market and to give people an alternative to rental properties for investment. I'll be lining up to bring some of the money I have in the FTSE back to NZ when this happens, otherwise my diversification plans will be all about putting money in the Aussie market.

Problem I see right here is it'll probably be Chinese buying the shares then it'll just be them selling the coal back to themselves, cause while Key keeps pushing the "mums & dads" angle as the lube on the stick it will not be restricted to just them & thus I would expect the Chinese to end up with a large share.

Gibbo89

26th January 2011, 19:58

Actually you are the muppet, in the scheme of things there are as a percentage very few abusers of the welfare system and they add very little to our national debt. The benefits to society of having a well funded and sympathetic welfare system far out way the few that abuse it.

I'm not saying that the majority of them on the benefit are mooching, I'm saying that the system needs an overhaul to sort out those that are using the benefit to their advantage.

Especially those that are on the benefit and then work on the side without informing WINZ or whoever on the work they are doing.

shrub

26th January 2011, 20:08

What exactly is Solid Energy (you know the company that fills ships with coal so that greenie protesters can chain themselves to them) if not an exporter?

Have you seen the paucity of investment options on the NZX? IMO this is a great way to boost the amount of $$ in our stock market and to give people an alternative to rental properties for investment. I'll be lining up to bring some of the money I have in the FTSE back to NZ when this happens, otherwise my diversification plans will be all about putting money in the Aussie market.

Schools are an asset too, but why not build them under PPP?

Solid Energy is an exporter, yes, but the only one and I don't think it's a particularly smart idea to bring private ownership in (in the medium and long term it would be expensive to NZ Inc). As for the paucity of options on the NZX, do you think adding a few SOEs would be a solution? Your understanding of diversification is obviously a little flawed if that's all it would take to bring your money to NZ.

And I know of no commonly used definition that would call a school an investment asset.

phill-k

26th January 2011, 20:12

I'm not saying that the majority of them on the benefit are mooching, I'm saying that the system needs an overhaul to sort out those that are using the benefit to their advantage.

Especially those that are on the benefit and then work on the side without informing WINZ or whoever on the work they are doing.

I'm sure there are some that do as you state but do you really believe they are responsible for the position NZ finds itself in, Tonight Key stated there are 300,000 working age people on benefits, including unemployment, sickness amid others. Even if 20% of those are fraudulent that equates to 750000. Keys gift to his buddy's being 50% of the recent tax cuts cost more than that.

puddytat

26th January 2011, 20:32

Today 19:17Flip
Oh great, sell Solid Energy at the same time the price of coaking coal which was $150 tonne is predicted to reach $500+ in the near future. Coaking coal is the high value stuff used to make steel.

Sounds like a crock of shit to me.

Funny that eh....sell it off just when the price of energy world wide is set to skyrocket,so that 49% will be raked in somewhere else.
:doh:

a anti national thread and no skyrider??

He's here....you just dont know who he is now.:shifty:

Dave-

26th January 2011, 20:40

that's ok, JK still has 2 more terms before we can compare him to helen clarke....

pete376403

26th January 2011, 20:59

Winston001

26th January 2011, 23:00

I heard JK on NatRad tonight suggesting NZ investing organisations "such as NZ Superannuation and ACC" would be investing in these floats.
Could this be the same ACC that was apparently on the bones of its arse and required immediate levy increases to survive.

Who tells the bigger porkies - Key or Smith?

ACC does not have the money reserves to pay claims into the future. There is no debate about that. It's a statistical fact.

The relevant question is whether NZ Super and ACC should be investing in NZ assets? Portfolio theory says NO. Always spread your risk. Given that these organisations are NZ based, they should invest outside NZ because we are such a tiny economy.

SPman

26th January 2011, 23:49

ACC does not have the money reserves to pay claims into the future. There is no debate about that. It's a statistical fact. A fallacious statement - it would only have no money to pay all claims into the future, if it's income stopped right now, and it had to pay out every single claim on the basis that it would be paying for the life of the claimant, 20-30-40-50 yrs into the future! All at once! Which is bullshit!

gammaguy

26th January 2011, 23:54

To be honest I would have been a lot happier if he had announced abolishing the doll for long term beneficiaries.

Crikey,they provide those for them too?cant they just shag each other??:gob:

superman

27th January 2011, 00:03

I'm sure there are some that do as you state but do you really believe they are responsible for the position NZ finds itself in, Tonight Key stated there are 300,000 working age people on benefits, including unemployment, sickness amid others. Even if 20% of those are fraudulent that equates to 750000. Keys gift to his buddy's being 50% of the recent tax cuts cost more than that.

But how much money goes straight back to the government tax packet from the tax cuts he gave? If the top bracket have more money they'll probably be more likely start businesses, create more jobs to help stimulate the economy. It's not like that money is just lost to them forever with no further benefit to the country.

Though I guess it would be better to give the greatest tax cut to the lowest economic bracket, because they won't spend it on alcohol and drugs. :msn-wink:

Winston001

27th January 2011, 00:11

A fallacious statement - it would only have no money to pay all claims into the future, if it's income stopped right now, and it had to pay out every single claim on the basis that it would be paying for the life of the claimant, 20-30-40-50 yrs into the future! All at once! Which is bullshit!

And yet that is exactly what compensation schemes do. They build up a fund to cover existing claims into the future. Its identical to superannuation. A lump of money has to be found or made at some point.

I can tell you that ACC didn't used to do this in a rigorous way. In the 1990s I remember ACC levies dropping slightly, then suddenly zooming up because the long-term claims drained the system.

If you truly want an ACC structure where the levies move around substantially year to year, fine. Just understand they won't go down and in some years the increase will be large. Most people want certainty, not sudden large bills.

Brian d marge

27th January 2011, 01:22

It was predominantly borrowed from overseas investors via Aussie banks and finance companies (some of whom are now dead and buried). The focus on inflation rate control using the RBA resulted in the RB cranking up interest rates whenever inflation reared it's ugly head in the vain hope that this would reduce demand for money. the only outcome was the hot money overseas saw the high interest rates and poured into NZ, thereby driving up the exchange rate which in turn kept prices of imported goods low. The banks were flush with money, so they lent it out as fast as they could (easy loans, no payments until June 2098, 100% mortgages etc), and that in turn drove consumption which kept prices high (especialy property).

Ta

was mulling things over today so tapped out on phone.....

Yes it was the Japanese, the ordinary Japanese husband looking safeguard their retirement as the bond rate here is 0 %

Cant blame em for that
The average family in nz wanted to relax and chill in front of the tv
Cant blame em for that

Where where the safe guards, the credit limits the responsible lending
Now we start to blame . Both lenders and the borrowers ( greed one might say ~)

What ever the cause ,,,,,as that is the past. The future is what concerns me

With four million people a big vege garden and more sheep that Bruce could have his wicked way with in a year

We had better start looking after kiwis first (all kiwis Afghani kiwis , African kiwis kiwi kiwis.........(except those chineese people with there kung fu and there ching chang chong talk ...cant understand you

Anyways,......
Health
Education
Food
Heat and light

ALL OF WHICH WE PRODUCE ENOUGH OF (not sure about electricity at the current demand )
and with coking coal expected to rise .. ( what a better time to sell,,)

My feeling is that none of the above needs to be run on a commercial for profit basis

The difference between a old style government dept and a for profit commercial dept is the accountability caused by profit and shareholders

Now if this could be emulated in government deportment then all well and good

In the meantime a Japanese Zen master ? (Before tv and did a lot of thinking)
Said something along the lines if
Frustration and the unhappiness it causes is from the feeling of powerlessness knowing that in the end we all share the same fate and there is jack we can do about it
Recognize the lack of powerlessness and you will better for it
Now i know why all this financial mess is occurring (I'm aware,but theres jack i can really do about it )
So recognize the lack of ability to change it,- don't stress about it
But make decisions based on the knowledge and you will be a whole lot happier in the long run

So I'm going to get me a vege garden (well thats my retirement all sorted out !!!!)
Dont need me tv ,have a bike that will see me to the end of me days,
I can leach wifi of the cocky next door ( sorry need me porn )
Oh and a symbolic spinning wheel

Stephen

Swoop

27th January 2011, 07:27

... it makes them the lesser of two evils considering labors last bribing speech.
How many have forgotten about liarbour's past bribing speeches? The equivalent of a packet of chewing gum, tax benefit... only after 3 years.:rofl:

Now, lets take Air NZ. What bit of the planes will they be selling?
Hopefully not the bit that the taxpayer paid for TWICE. Fucking bailout. Pollies were only looking out for their lifetime perk of free/discounted travel. Cnuts.

MisterD

27th January 2011, 07:46

Solid Energy is an exporter, yes, but the only one and I don't think it's a particularly smart idea to bring private ownership in (in the medium and long term it would be expensive to NZ Inc).

Why? The government maintains control, SOE's get more scrutiny through being listed companies and we get to invest in companies that are about as solid as you can get.

As for the paucity of options on the NZX, do you think adding a few SOEs would be a solution? Your understanding of diversification is obviously a little flawed if that's all it would take to bring your money to NZ.

Oh-kay. Currently I have all my investment cash in the FTSE, I want to spread it around a bit more and I want to have some solid, low risk, low return stuff as part of the mix. I would like that part of the equation to be as close to home as possible. Capisch?

And I know of no commonly used definition that would call a school an investment asset.

It is for a country. I'm sure "investing in the next generation" is just the sort of platitude you'd love to trot out to in some discussion bashing Ann Tolley...

Delerium

27th January 2011, 08:13

It would have been nice if that cockhead Cullen hadn't emptied the bank account on a trainset and other bollocks, moments before being forced out of office.

and paying TWICE what it was worth.

Clockwork

27th January 2011, 08:28

Should of waited for the Aussies to give the thing back and buggered off back across the ditch.[/SIZE]

Or rip up the tracks and sell everything off for its scrap value?

Oscar

27th January 2011, 08:31

A few thoughts...

The reason the family silver has to go is 'cause the family home is 100% mortgaged. ‎Now we can wank on about whose fault that is, but that won't pay a cent of interest.‎

My understanding is that the Govt. will keep a controlling share in the assets ‎concerned.‎ This will reduce the return, but allow control of strategic industries - a reasonable compromise?

Those that harp on about the dividends that would flow overseas from these sales ‎‎(assuming that they go to overseas buyers) are conveniently ignoring the amount of ‎interest paid by the Govt on overseas borrowing. ‎

There is also a tendancy amongst us to compare NZ with overseas countries and wail about our inability to keep up. The comparison is somewhat silly - Australia merely digs wealth out of the ground, yet we refuse to even prospect (another subject to argue, but you can't have it both ways). Most of the other nations in the OECD don't have nationalised airways, power or infrastructure utilities.

I guess the thing is we can't have it both ways - our little South Pacific No Nuke Clean Green Social Engineering Paradise is expensive, and nobody wants to pay...

Scuba_Steve

27th January 2011, 08:50

My understanding is that the Govt. will keep a controlling share in the assets ‎concerned.‎

... For now

Oscar

27th January 2011, 09:24

... For now

Or you could sell them all at once, for next to nothing like Labour did.

NinjaNanna

27th January 2011, 09:37

Personally I see it as good sound investing and Key and Co should be proud of it.

At a very basic level, the Government sell excess shares in key companies then use the funds raised to purchase controlling shares in other key assets that are critical to the national interests.

Tell me what part of that is bad? To me it's simple invest diversifacation.

Put simply why would you want to own 100% of your aging power company for example but 0% of your brand new broadband company, when for near enough to the same capital outlay you could control both!

But why do we need to do this at all, why can't we own 100% of both companies? Well that's because Kiwi's have developed a false sense of wealth, primarily this was brought about by 2 income families, all of a sudden households felt rich, but instead of investing in productive assets they went on stupid bidding wars for residential realestate, but still using borrowed money instead of savings. This spiraled because more people felt rich because their property value had now doubled for no other reason than people had more money to spend.

The grim, dark reality though is that Kiwi's (and most of the western world) have pissed their personal household wealth (generated by a second income) against the wall, they are now tied to huge mortgages against properties that in reality should only be worth half of what they owe.

And to cap this all off our household earning potentials have pretty much peaked, unless of course we start working 6 day weeks or 12hr days. Either that or increase the size of our households, ie Kids and grandkids continue to live at home and contribute to the household income.

The glorry days are over people, the banks used your greed and self pride against you (did you really need the extra bedrooms +study +ensuite +3rd bathroom +double lock up garage + 50" LCD TV +++), they now own you and every cent of your disposable income for the next 25-30 yrs. Of course there is an out and thats downsizing your expectations but the penalty will be the financial loss incurred in selling.

Woops bit of a rant, but I'm done now.

avgas

27th January 2011, 09:51

Yes Aussie....
Its funny as everyone says that......but I was living in Aussie in 2008/2009. Right smack in the middle of recession and I can openly say that the economy and markets there are some of the most unstable in the world.

When Bluescope announced they had lost a deal with china, the dollar lost 15 cents. Yet the next day everything was fine.....

Likewise watch the markets now......they will vibrate for the next six months why the damage is evaluated in Qld.... the dollar will increase for no reason at all..... the GDP will show random figures.....

Makes Kenya seem like a safe bet.

Scuba_Steve

27th January 2011, 09:59

Or you could sell them all at once, for next to nothing like Labour did.

yea da party thing don't work with me. I hate both parties & I don't care who's doing it, selling SOE's should not be done especially not criminal like Police, courts, prisons, medical like ACC, Ambo's, hospitals or infrastructure

NinjaNanna

27th January 2011, 10:04

Funny that, I think one thing that should be privatised is prisons. Free market doesn't care so much about the PC bullshit that politicians need to deal with.

Another thing on prisons, I think that we should impose a levy, say 7.5% of earnings, on all persons that have spent time in prison, bit like a student loan repayment.

Oscar

27th January 2011, 10:16

yea da party thing don't work with me. I hate both parties & I don't care who's doing it, selling SOE's should not be done especially not criminal like Police, courts, prisons, medical like ACC, Ambo's, hospitals or infrastructure

Er - if the Govt. doesn't sell the controlling shares, then they are still state controlled. I haven't heard anyone complain about the 20% of Air NZ that is in private hands.

Ocean1

27th January 2011, 10:22

Yes, you're right, the correlation is spurious, and it was a little naughty of me to imply one (I'm feeling lazy), but the literature is reasonably unequivocal in arguing that a major cause of crime and the other indicators of a disfunctional society is poverty and now research is showing that the wider the gap between the haves and the have nots, the higher the rate of drug abuse, crime etc

Cart. Horse.

Scuba_Steve

27th January 2011, 10:35

Er - if the Govt. doesn't sell the controlling shares, then they are still state controlled. I haven't heard anyone complain about the 20% of Air NZ that is in private hands.

if the Govt. doesn't sell the controlling shares...

phill-k

27th January 2011, 10:36

Oscar

27th January 2011, 10:48

if the Govt. doesn't sell the controlling shares...

The Govt. has annouced its plans in an election year.
Can't say fairer than that.

NinjaNanna

27th January 2011, 11:17

Interesting explanation but it doesn't apply to everyone, I wonder how many actual families are in your explained circumstances?
If your analogy is true then why have we not seem a much greater dip in house prices?
Market forces still at play?

I know it doesn't apply to everybody, but it applies to far too many young families. Also it's not soley these young couples that are responsible for pushing up house prices, I think more of that blame lays with Mum and Dad investors, Mum and Dad don't understand productivity but they do understand bricks and mortar, so as the baby boomers kids left home, and they paid off their family home, they now have surplus income to sink into an investment property, demand then increased so prices increased, prices are rising so it must be a good investment, more Mum and Dads jump on the bandwagon, prices keep going up. Desperate to get into their own home (and perhaps with champayne tastes on beer budgets) young couples borrow too much and against both incomes. What Mum and dad have now unwittingly done is doubled their money on an investment property but to get it they've actually taken it directly from their kids and grandkids. The other knock on effect of rising house prices is upwards wage pressure, causing all sorts of other economic pressure.

To me it seems patently stupid for a government to favour residential property investment, in my view they'd be much better off making the family home tax deductable to allow people to pay it off sooner. The sooner its paid the sooner we reduce our national debt and reliance on foriegn lending and the sooner they can put their income toward productive investments.

As for why prices haven't dropped so badly it's partly because market forces are definately still at play, buyers are still willing to mortgage their combined incomes for the next 20-30 yrs, sellers simply won't sell for less than they owe or what their perceived value is, NZ hasn't been too badly affected by unemployment so mortgage foreclosures haven't been as bad as the likes of the US.

Damn another rant ... I really should give it a rest.

avgas

27th January 2011, 12:07

Scuba_Steve

27th January 2011, 12:16

The Govt. has annouced its plans in an election year.
Can't say fairer than that.

its easier to put the stick in an inch at a time than the whole thing at once

Clockwork

27th January 2011, 12:25

Oscar

27th January 2011, 12:34

its easier to put the stick in an inch at a time than the whole thing at once

No. It's smarter to sell the bits you don't need, whilst keeping control.

yachtie10

27th January 2011, 12:42

NinjaNana.....your almost 100% right.
You had all the parts there, but failed to combine them.
Reason why house prices are up is because now first home buyers are competing with "investors" whom have more than one home and a betting house prices will go up higher than their interest rate.

I agree about the first home being tax deductible, but the money has to come from somewhere so how about increase investment property tax?

Only thing is this once again comes back and bites the baby boomers (whom have the votes) and that government won't be back in again......

The baby boomers have to realize that its their greed (for more than 1 house) which is hurting the younger generation in buying their first home. Greed is a lovely infectious thing - and soon as the younger generation get their first house.......a second one sounds like a great idea as that's what Mum/Dad just did.

Its a bit concerning when the Jones's are your own family.

while yours and NNs points are all good there is a bit that I dont see mentioned anywhere.
There were 2 significant factors that fueled very steep rises in prices of houses.
imigration which has been mentioned many times
but I think one of the stronger factors was tax changes
The labour government brought in a new tax bracket at 39 cents in the dollar
This meant that those on higher incomes could borrow more and write off much more of there interest payments on there personal tax. This made higher prices viable for the investor who had much more tax to pay.

I also find it interesting that people think prices are way overvalued. most houses that i have looked into have barely doubled over the last 15 years. While prices went up too fast I dont hink they are unreasonable now if you are unemotional and buy carefully (this obviously will be different depending on where you buy).

my 2c

Scuba_Steve

27th January 2011, 12:46

No. It's smarter to sell the bits you don't need, whilst keeping control.

you sound like you trust them to keep control. I on the other hand don't have such trust in them

Oscar

27th January 2011, 13:01

you sound like you trust them to keep control. I on the other hand don't have such trust in them

At least they're annoucing this prior to an election, instead of after.

NinjaNanna

27th January 2011, 13:39

Speaking as an "almost" baby boomer with disposable income to invest, I'm scared shit-less of investing in the financial markets. I don't really understand it, I have no control over it. It seems to be run by incompetents and sharks and heavily influenced by the reactions of its sheep like investors. The bank pays f'all interest, on my savings, the Government takes it's pound of flesh with the RWT and the capital value is largely eroded by inflation.

Avgas, what would you suggest as an alternative?

There's the rub isn't it. A few more years and I'll be in the same boat, bucket loads of disposable income that I want to put to work - but where is safe. There is a reason for the phrase, "Safe as Houses".

I don't have a magic bullet, but you know what might be a radical idea, additional tax incentives for Mum and Dad investors to buy the offered shares in SOE's.

Mind you as hypocritical as it is my first investment after the house is paid off will be a second property on acreage somewhere in rural NZ that if the shit hits the fan in the coming years (as I'm prone to believe it will) I'll have a fighting chance of creating a self sufficent life for myself and my family.

Following on from that I'll personally be investing in the food production and distribution industries, there's another 6 billion of us to be born in the next 30-40 yrs and they've got to eat something.

But none of that answers your question does it, how do you tell a good company/investment from a bad one.... I don't know but hopefully by the time I need to I've learnt a few of the fundamentals.

NinjaNanna

27th January 2011, 13:46

Reason why house prices are up is because now first home buyers are competing with "investors" whom have more than one home and a betting house prices will go up higher than their interest rate.

Not only that but they also get a rental income, whilst that doesn't cover the full interst burdeon and rates/maintenance etc, it goes a long way to helping with them.

Then you get yourself a good accountant and work some solid and a some creative accounting into the mix and hey presto the thing's negatively geared so the Tax man helps out a little too.

avgas

27th January 2011, 13:51

Avgas, what would you suggest as an alternative?
All fair enough arguments - have prepared a basic s/sheet with bank interest vs mortgage.
I haven't put final figures of house price in there as the value of the house may be $1M or $10M depending on market.
But if in 35 years you believe a house is worth $10M - doesn't that concern you about the NZ$ ?
Likewise while house values can go up, so can interest rates (anyone remember the 80's), expenses......

I am not saying housing is a bad market - but just stating the whole eggs in 1 basket thing is what caused the failed sub-primes in the first place.

ALWAYS INVEST IN MORE THAN 1 THING! who knows whats around the corner.

If you don't want to invest in markets yourself, why not just go into some form of "big pot" fund like the banks offer. You can select how risky it is etc

There are always more than one safe option. But I don't expect you to take my word on it - just like don't expect you to believe that if someone told you the property market was a way to make millions.

Bald Eagle

27th January 2011, 13:53

Not only that but they also get a rental income, whilst that doesn't cover the full interst burdeon and rates/maintenance etc, it goes a long way to helping with them.

Then you get yourself a good accountant and work some solid and a some creative accounting into the mix and hey presto the thing's negatively geared so the Tax man helps out a little too.

Hey, maybe I should get the bike negatively geared and the tax man could help with the ACC levy

yachtie10

27th January 2011, 13:57

Hey, maybe I should get the bike negatively geared and the tax man could help with the ACC levy

let me know if you can work that:niceone:

I thought all bikes were negatively geared (from an investment perspective)

SPman

27th January 2011, 14:34

Those that harp on about the dividends that would flow overseas from these sales ‎‎(assuming that they go to overseas buyers) are conveniently ignoring the amount of ‎interest paid by the Govt on overseas borrowing. ‎

The theory is that for the sale to make immediate sense then the dividends given up would have to be less than the interest costs of the debt not incurred by selling the asset. In total, the four SOEs potentially up for sale generated total dividends last financial year of NZ$732.5 million and shareholder (government) equity stood at NZ$9.642 billion. This implies a combined (and very raw) dividend yield of 7.6% last year.
Yet the government is currently having to pay around 5.5% for the new debt it is selling, mostly offshore.
So on the face of it the government is a net loser by selling half of these state assets and avoiding having to raise new debt.
So.....we're borrowing at 5.5% interest....the assets are returning 7.5%...which is 2% better than the interest on borrowings, yet he's prepared to forgo the 2% advantage .......I dunno....whatever he's doing there's bound to be a catch somewhere to his mates advantage........
With all the doom and gloom being proposed, and yes, less debt is better.
"The truth of it is government debt at the moment is sitting at around about 18% of GDP and is likely to top out at, in all the numbers we have, at 28.5% of GDP. Now relatively speaking how does that put us? The answer is in very good shape (relative) to a lot of other countries. So the UK is on its way to 100% of GDP, the US is on its way to 100% of GDP, Japan is at 200% of GDP,....."The ratings agencies tell us ‘look if your debt is under 30%, you’re of no concern to them, if it’s between 30-60% they think it might hold back growth a little bit, but again of no major concern, anywhere near 100% then you really get their attention,

Funny that, I think one thing that should be privatised is prisons. Free market doesn't care so much about the PC bullshit that politicians need to deal with. Well - they're going down that
road already.The Private Prison industry has said it will be no less expensive - it may cost more, in fact. And what PC bullshit - a prison is a prison - private companies have a woeful record overseas of abuse and cock-ups. The punishment in prison is the loss of liberty - not some fucked up sense of second hand retribution on an offender by somebody who has the brains and reactions of a flea and that's normally enough for the bulk of the population - would you be quite happy to go to prison for say, 5 years. Despite the claims to the contrary, prisons are not 5 star hotels where you do as you like - and the loss of liberty of a citizen is not something to be handled lightly by a private corporation looking for profit!!! If you are being denied your liberty to live among the community at large, at least it should be the government who are doing that!

NinjaNanna

27th January 2011, 14:58

All fair enough arguments - have prepared a basic s/sheet with bank interest vs mortgage.
I haven't put final figures of house price in there as the value of the house may be $1M or $10M depending on market.
But if in 35 years you believe a house is worth $10M - doesn't that concern you about the NZ$ ?
Likewise while house values can go up, so can interest rates (anyone remember the 80's), expenses......

I am not saying housing is a bad market - but just stating the whole eggs in 1 basket thing is what caused the failed sub-primes in the first place.

ALWAYS INVEST IN MORE THAN 1 THING! who knows whats around the corner.

If you don't want to invest in markets yourself, why not just go into some form of "big pot" fund like the banks offer. You can select how risky it is etc

There are always more than one safe option. But I don't expect you to take my word on it - just like don't expect you to believe that if someone told you the property market was a way to make millions.

That's a pretty big fail. You forget to take into account rental income.

I ran some numbers using real world figures for Rent/Rates/Insurance/Maintenance and can tell you that based on a $450,000 100% 30yr mortgage at today's interest rates the investor would have to top up the mortgage by approximately $1065 pm.

If he was to put that $1065 in the bank then at the end of 30yrs he would have saved $676,795, as long as the house is worth more than that in 30yrs then the property investor is ahead of the bank depositor.

Mind you this does not factor in risk to the property investment but it does include $30,000 worth of maintanence over the 30yr loan period.

Oscar

27th January 2011, 15:06

So.....we're borrowing at 5.5% interest....the assets are returning 7.5%...which is 2% better than the interest on borrowings, yet he's prepared to forgo the 2% advantage .......I dunno....whatever he's doing there's bound to be a catch somewhere to his mates advantage........
With all the doom and gloom being proposed, and yes, less debt is better.

If we don't shed some debt, our Sovereign Debt is going to get more expensive.

NinjaNanna

27th January 2011, 15:07

Well - they're going down that
road already.The Private Prison industry has said it will be no less expensive - it may cost more, in fact. And what PC bullshit - a prison is a prison - private companies have a woeful record overseas of abuse and cock-ups. The punishment in prison is the loss of liberty - not some fucked up sense of second hand retribution on an offender by somebody who has the brains and reactions of a flea and that's normally enough for the bulk of the population - would you be quite happy to go to prison for say, 5 years. Despite the claims to the contrary, prisons are not 5 star hotels where you do as you like - and the loss of liberty of a citizen is not something to be handled lightly by a private corporation looking for profit!!! If you are being denied your liberty to live among the community at large, at least it should be the government who are doing that!

Prisons are not rosey places to be but they could be tougher and less comfortable. My view is make them as tough as humanely possible and incarcerate people for a shorter time. Make it the last place a criminal wants to return to rather than an undesireable consequence of if they do happen to get caught the next time they re-offend.

But anyway that's off topic isn't it.

Bald Eagle

27th January 2011, 15:09

Prisons are not rosey places to be but they could be tougher and less comfortable. My view is make them as tough as ..... possible and incarcerate people.. Make it the last place a criminal wants to return to rather .

But anyway that's off topic isn't it.

There fixed it for you

Camshaft

27th January 2011, 15:11

give him a few more terms, i have more faith in what he can do then what helen did in her 9 years.

MisterD

27th January 2011, 15:28

If you don't want to invest in markets yourself, why not just go into some form of "big pot" fund like the banks offer. You can select how risky it is etc

+1 for managed funds, unless you've got the time to do all the research yourself, they're much the best way to have money in stock markets

phill-k

27th January 2011, 17:47

I know it doesn't apply to everybody, but it applies to far too many young families. Also it's not soley these young couples that are responsible for pushing up house prices, I think more of that blame lays with Mum and Dad investors, Mum and Dad don't understand productivity but they do understand bricks and mortar, so as the baby boomers kids left home, and they paid off their family home, they now have surplus income to sink into an investment property, demand then increased so prices increased, prices are rising so it must be a good investment, more Mum and Dads jump on the bandwagon, prices keep going up. Desperate to get into their own home (and perhaps with champayne tastes on beer budgets) young couples borrow too much and against both incomes. What Mum and dad have now unwittingly done is doubled their money on an investment property but to get it they've actually taken it directly from their kids and grandkids. The other knock on effect of rising house prices is upwards wage pressure, causing all sorts of other economic pressure.

To me it seems patently stupid for a government to favour residential property investment, in my view they'd be much better off making the family home tax deductable to allow people to pay it off sooner. The sooner its paid the sooner we reduce our national debt and reliance on foriegn lending and the sooner they can put their income toward productive investments.

As for why prices haven't dropped so badly it's partly because market forces are definately still at play, buyers are still willing to mortgage their combined incomes for the next 20-30 yrs, sellers simply won't sell for less than they owe or what their perceived value is, NZ hasn't been too badly affected by unemployment so mortgage foreclosures haven't been as bad as the likes of the US.

Damn another rant ... I really should give it a rest.

I have heard your theory preached many times but would have to say the majority of those that invested in a rental property 5 yrs ago still own them all be it they may have diminished in value by 5 - 10%, however those that saw the flash add on TV such as Hanovers now have lost in some cases all their savings even though as you say it fits the governments preferred investment.
If I had a couple of hundred grand to invest I can tell you until such time as regulation is introduced that cuts the balls of the likes of those directors who at present are hiding behind trusts ect and aren't being made accountable for the millions and millions of dollars they wiped out, I would be buying rental properties because sure as eggs the housing market in NZ will grow again and real money will be there to be made, there is no other safe investment in NZ.

Winston001

27th January 2011, 20:29

Cripes! From govt asset sales to the property market. We sure cover all the bases. :D

Ok, here's my 2cents on investment:

NZ is underpopulated and a very attractive country to live in. Its fair to predict that wealthy people from other parts of the world will want to come here to escape population pressures. If that comes true, property investment will be very secure.

But even in normal times property is sound and safe.

Shares: not as risky as many think but when a company goes belly-up, you lose the lot. Houses do not go into liquidation.

The safest and simplest share investing is to buy index funds. These track share market movements, not individual companies. Managed funds are next best but quite different. There are thousands of managed funds but only a handful of managers in the entire world actually succeed. Er..yeah...like Bernard Madoff. :eek:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Madoff

FYI I have followed sharemarkets and invested in shares for 25 years. During that time I have watched and helped many ordinary people buy a home and then a holiday home or rental property. No skill or pretended cleverness, just patience and hard work.

My observation? If I'd never heard of shares and just bought houses, I'd own an MV Agusta and be living by the sea with my feet up. :sleep:

Winston001

27th January 2011, 20:40

I also find it interesting that people think prices are way overvalued. most houses that i have looked into have barely doubled over the last 15 years. While prices went up too fast I dont hink they are unreasonable now if you are unemotional and buy carefully (this obviously will be different depending on where you buy).

The method of working out house price levels - anywhere - is to look at the longterm relationship between household income and price.

In New Zealand the long-term average price is equivalent to 3.5x household income. The current household income is approx $70k x 3.5 = $245,000.

However the current average NZ house price equates to between 5.5 and 6.5x household income, depending upon where you live. So logically we have a way to go with prices dropping before we return to average.

What is more likely is prices will stay flat while wages slowly rise. Japan has had 20 years of no property growth. Indeed some prices are the same as they were in 1985.

NinjaNanna

28th January 2011, 07:18

The method of working out house price levels - anywhere - is to look at the longterm relationship between household income and price.

In New Zealand the long-term average price is equivalent to 3.5x household income. The current household income is approx $70k x 3.5 = $245,000.

However the current average NZ house price equates to between 5.5 and 6.5x household income, depending upon where you live. So logically we have a way to go with prices dropping before we return to average.

What is more likely is prices will stay flat while wages slowly rise. Japan has had 20 years of no property growth. Indeed some prices are the same as they were in 1985.

This is true, but a good percentage of the increases are also due us developing champagne tastes, the long term average captures a very large period of 2&3 bedroom homes with 1 bathroom.

I shudder when I think what the supposed average house is meant to be now.

Also somewhat perversely the old houses raised families with 2/3/4/5 kids as opposed to the McMansions that are built today with the express purpose of having enough space so you don't need to be anywhere near your teenagers.

avgas

28th January 2011, 08:19

Houses do not go into liquidation.
Yeah Nah.

Seen plenty recently of this when the debt out-ways the asset......then bank steps in because you missed a payment and blammo all your invested cash is worth nothing.

So while the house does not liquidate - until its paid for, all your cash that your paying to the banks can liquidate pretty damn quick.

MikeL

28th January 2011, 10:51

Some years ago my wife received a modest inheritance (half of her mother's estate), most of which she invested with Hanover. When the first of the investment collapses occurred, even though most people were insisting that Hanover was safe, I nagged her until she took the money out and put it into the bank. This was 3 weeks before Hanover collapsed.

And now nobody will ever persuade me to invest in anything less secure than bricks and mortar, however much you argue that it is unproductive or unhelpful to the nation's economy. Enlightened self-interest drives my financial decisions, a principle which the rich and powerful consistently apply in their own private affairs but try to persuade the rest of us to look beyond.

shrub

28th January 2011, 13:56

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20110128-0907-The_year_ahead-048.mp3

He came across as lacking in any ideas, disconnected with public opinion and even a little weak. Given it was one of his first major interviews in election year and followed his state of the nation speech, he didn't so much as come out of the blocks running as stand up, look around and wander off in the general direction of the finish line.

I had a coffee with the CEO of a firm of management consultants I contract to this morning, and she commented that she feels he has kind of lost interest in being PM. His statement that if he lost an election he'd quit politics may have been honest, but in the middle of a first term I would have expected him to say "I can't seem myself not being PM for a while, but eventually I will retire, but it will be in many years and as PM". It suggests he genuinely anticipates losing either this election or the next election.

I wonder if he hasn't realised that being PM isn't all that much fun, and because he doesn't need to and is not a career politician has got sick of it and wants to play another game.

aprilia_RS250

28th January 2011, 14:56

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20110128-0907-The_year_ahead-048.mp3

He came across as lacking in any ideas, disconnected with public opinion and even a little weak.

I still rather have Key lead the country than anyone in the beehive. To be honest sounds like being PM is easier than being an FX dealer in 80s.

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/close-up-big-dealers-john-key-1987

shrub

28th January 2011, 15:54

I still rather have Key lead the country than anyone in the beehive. To be honest sounds like being PM is easier than being an FX dealer in 80s.

http://www.nzonscreen.com/title/close-up-big-dealers-john-key-1987

Why? What characteristics has he shown in his term that qualify him as a good PM?

yachtie10

28th January 2011, 16:10

Why? What characteristics has he shown in his term that qualify him as a good PM?

while he is far from perfect, I dont remember any better ones in the past 20 years
certainly dont see anyone better in any of the current lot IMHO.

shrub

28th January 2011, 16:34

while he is far from perfect, I dont remember any better ones in the past 20 years
certainly dont see anyone better in any of the current lot IMHO.

Hmmm.. in the last 2 years (if we discount Mike Moore and Palmer who were only in for a few months) we've only had Bolger, Shipley and Clark. Shipley I didn't like, but both Bolger and Clark outperformed Key as PM in every way.

So what do you like about him? His smile? His money? His wife?

mashman

28th January 2011, 16:57

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/ntn/ntn-20110128-0907-The_year_ahead-048.mp3

"What can you achieve in opposition and the answer is, because i've been there for a long time, very little.". Does that mean opposition parties aren't needed then, because by his own admission, they do very little? other than try to make it past the judges that is:

http://www.theatermania.com/images/show/logo/145504logo.jpg

that and he never answers the question on wether the GST raise v Tax cut was neutral... wonder why?

shrub

28th January 2011, 17:00

"What can you achieve in opposition and the answer is, because i've been there for a long time, very little.". Does that mean opposition parties aren't needed then, because by his own admission, they do very little? other than try to make it past the judges that is:

http://www.theatermania.com/images/show/logo/145504logo.jpg

that and he never answers the question on wether the GST raise v Tax cut was neutral... wonder why?

Funny, I always saw a strong opposition as being a vital part of a successful parliament. Maybe he was recognising that he doesn't have any ideas, so can't contribute anything.

Brian d marge

28th January 2011, 17:03

listen to that interview with Key, couple of points

I mean as a polly he did well, but

Electricity

Health

Water

Education

Housing

ARE BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS in today's society.

If you sell half of the company the investor WILL WANT A RETURN, that return will either come from the the money the government takes OR THE PRICE will go up

its not Rocket science

to Quantify this a little better. Yes they are just selling coal and a few other bits and pieces but ( snip )
A ''think piece'' prepared at the end of last year says partial sales of power companies Meridian, Mighty River Power and Genesis and state-owned coal miner Solid Energy could see ''possible cornerstone stakes by energy multinationals'' within ten years. ( EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN OTHER COUNTRIES)

and The price WILL go up

To restate what I said Health , electricity , water , Education etc ARE BASIC HUMAN NEEDS ( RIGHTS )

That is what I pay taxes for , NOTHING ELSE NOTHING LESS

You can argue till the cows come home about whose fault it is

it doesnt matter ( BTW Lairboor are keeping quiet , which get the alarm bells ringing maybe they have been "advised " to sell , as in we have NO choice !)

Stephen

I told you this would happen ,,,but ooohhh no ya didnt listen ,,,, now look what's happened !

ps sorry for the capitals .... but how strongly can one make it stand out ....

mashman

28th January 2011, 17:14

Funny, I always saw a strong opposition as being a vital part of a successful parliament. Maybe he was recognising that he doesn't have any ideas, so can't contribute anything.

I grew up for years thinking the opposition kept the govt straight (oh how very very VERY naive :yes:), but it does make you wonder. They've only had 9 years to think about it and come up with a decent idea or two... but I guess they realise that you only have to make the PM look more "attractive" than the last one to win the vote :facepalm: so there's no need to do any real work when sell sell sell is the only idea for moving NZ forwards :blink:

yachtie10

28th January 2011, 17:59

Hmmm.. in the last 2 years (if we discount Mike Moore and Palmer who were only in for a few months) we've only had Bolger, Shipley and Clark. Shipley I didn't like, but both Bolger and Clark outperformed Key as PM in every way.

So what do you like about him? His smile? His money? His wife?

never said i liked him
but if you want to compare to clark then I would take him anyday
How someone who has been a student or a politicain her whole life, has had no kids could be a great PM, not in my opinion. didnt think much of bolger either.

I think my point is it easy to point out faults but i dont hink we have had a great PM in my adult life

shrub

28th January 2011, 18:44

never said i liked him
but if you want to compare to clark then I would take him anyday
How someone who has been a student or a politicain her whole life, has had no kids could be a great PM, not in my opinion. didnt think much of bolger either.

I think my point is it easy to point out faults but i dont hink we have had a great PM in my adult life

OK, so because Clark was highly educated (had a lot of knowledge) and had spent her life life working as a politician, working her way up from being a junior backbencher she wasn't as good a politician as Key, who has been in politics 8 years and started with a senior position? Would you rather your bike was worked on by someone who had only been around bikes for a few years and was trained as an accountant than an A grade motorcycle mechanic with 20 years experience?

And how the hell does whether she had children or not influence her ability to run the country? I have kids but a friend of mine doesn't, does that mean I am going to be better at her job than she is? Or does the fact that she has a dog and I don't make up for that?

Come on mate, apart from having kids, what makes Key a better PM?

shrub

28th January 2011, 18:44

I grew up for years thinking the opposition kept the govt straight (oh how very very VERY naive :yes:), but it does make you wonder. They've only had 9 years to think about it and come up with a decent idea or two... but I guess they realise that you only have to make the PM look more "attractive" than the last one to win the vote :facepalm: so there's no need to do any real work when sell sell sell is the only idea for moving NZ forwards :blink:

They came up with the super city - what more do you want?

Winston001

28th January 2011, 19:45

... :facepalm: so there's no need to do any real work when sell sell sell is the only idea for moving NZ forwards :blink:

Even communist economies recognise this, so "sell sell sell" is universal.

You sell your labour for payment. No payment, you go work somewhere else. That's if you want to eat. :D

Other people make boats, cheese, software, whatever they can - and sell it.

How else do you pay your bills? How else can you buy all the stuff you cannot make? Medicine, computers, motorcycles et al.

Thus it is for democratic governments. They have to find an income to provide the services demanded by voters. Taxation is the main source but it not inelastic. Raise it too high and people evade tax or leave the country.

Selling assets is another option provided those assets are not core to governing or sovereignty.

shrub

28th January 2011, 20:18

Even communist economies recognise this, so "sell sell sell" is universal.

You sell your labour for payment. No payment, you go work somewhere else. That's if you want to eat. :D

Other people make boats, cheese, software, whatever they can - and sell it.

How else do you pay your bills? How else can you buy all the stuff you cannot make? Medicine, computers, motorcycles et al.

Thus it is for democratic governments. They have to find an income to provide the services demanded by voters. Taxation is the main source but it not inelastic. Raise it too high and people evade tax or leave the country.

Selling assets is another option provided those assets are not core to governing or sovereignty.

But selling assets is not sustaiinable.

A better approach is to provide value for money - Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway all have higher personal tax rates than us, and all have more successful economies and better social services than us. I paid more for my stereo than my neighbour, but mine is much better sounding than his. We live in what is becoming a run down society with growing crime, poverty, drug problems etc, yet we want tax cuts and we want the problems solved. We can't have them both.

I'd like to see a government that built an economy that was collaborative, participatory, distributed, resilient, self-sustaining, regenerative, emergent, inspirational, future-focused. That way we'd earn more money, and if we earned more money we'd pay more tax. Me, I'd be happy to pay more tax if I earned more money.

tri boy

28th January 2011, 20:24

Come on mate, apart from having kids, what makes Key a better PM?

Financial nous.
Look, whoever is/will be in charge over the next few years, whatever party, whatever beliefs etc, one thing they will need is economic smarts.
Helen Clarke had the great fortune to precide over NZ during one of it's financialy flush periods. (whether it was all credit/smoke n mirrors isneither here nor there).
The chickens have come home to roost worldwide,and like it or not we must eat shit sandwiches for a while.
The fact that we still have a reasonable standard of living
is due toour historical record,and stable enviroment.
If we put aloose spending muppet in charge, (insert Goffs name here), then we be down rated to the shit house.
Key is the best we got. He's doing alright.

Regarding the the partial floats of some state owned entities,
News flash, the dollars are needed, and he is doing what is needed.
Yes prices will rise in the short/medium turn, but at least we will still have infrastructure, because bills will be getting paid.

Three years ago I predicted this event on this site under some fianicial rave going on at the time.
Heres another.
We got at least five years of modest pain ahead. Suck it in,and look after your loved ones.
MHO

pete376403

28th January 2011, 20:35

Is John Key truly a financial genius or is that just spin? OK he has a shit load of personal wealth, but AFAIK that was accumlated while working as a very highly paid trader in money markets. In otherwords a salesman on very high commision and bonuses, taking big risks with other peoples money. Whether that takes a lot of skill or just a lot of balls I don't know, but the GFC was precipitated by people doing pretty much that.

I recall what happened last time NZ has a national PM who was also a self proclaimed financial wizard, too. We're still paying the bill for that one.

mashman

28th January 2011, 22:17

They came up with the super city - what more do you want?

heh, health, education, justice, equity, a "safe" place for my kids to grow up, peace on earth (:rofl: j/k, kinda), a government with a conscience, a country full of people with a conscience, communit... instead of a pretty logo and a cheap umbrella... amongst other things... too much ya reckon?

Selling assets is another option provided those assets are not core to governing or sovereignty.

Do the public assets have any equity in them? I mean, would they pay for themselves and cover the interest borrowed against them (potentially from a lower interest rate loan than the public debt)? The cash "borrowed" then being put towards the public debt? Just my usual ignorant questions :niceone:

mashman

28th January 2011, 22:30

Even communist economies recognise this, so "sell sell sell" is universal.

I understand that. Communism, Capitalism, Democracy, Michels Oligarchy :msn-wink:, Labour, National, Green, Maori etc... mean nothing to me. They are just definitions of how anyone perceives an economy at a particular point in time and are used in arguments as a shield to defend a standpoint. It doesn't seem to matter whose definition of party/economic theory we use, people die, people go hungry, some people gain, a lot of people lose, the world turns and we crab sideways instead of living smarter. I understand humanity and that's about as deep as I go. Otherwise what's the point of having a government that's supposedly making things better? Making what things better? Better for who? Better for what reasons?

The above labels just confuse the issue beyond belief and divide people into camps of how things should be done... How's about a little humanity for a change?

Brian d marge

29th January 2011, 11:41

snip

"Of course Kiwis are supposed to get priority, but what in fact happens is the float's staged off, or something like that and the typical Kiwi investor probably has a short horizon and off they'll go.
"I would think the Chinese will quickly take a large interest in Solid Energy."

Cant understand youuu

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/BHFUH_frhBw" allowfullscreen="" width="480" frameborder="0" height="390"></iframe>

sorry couldn't help it ,,,chapelle is funny

Stephen

oh ps ,, The guy is also saying that the government is misquoting figures , and combining private and state debt , when actual fact our debt is only about 18 % of Gdp

ACC anyone???

Winston001

29th January 2011, 16:16

But selling assets is not sustainable.

I'd like to see a government that built an economy that was collaborative, participatory, distributed, resilient, self-sustaining, regenerative, emergent, inspirational, future-focused. That way we'd earn more money, and if we earned more money we'd pay more tax. Me, I'd be happy to pay more tax if I earned more money.

I agree with your wish for a collaborative economy.

However selling assets is sustainable if you reinvest the money. For example, a council gardener sells his home, buys 10 acres of bare land outside Christchurch, and enrolls in a horticulture course at Lincoln.

Ten years later he is selling a rare type of shallot to French restaurants for their winter season. He is now earning enough money to buy a home as well as keep his market garden business.

People do exactly that all the time. If it didn't work there would be no businesses and no employment.

Is John Key truly a financial genius or is that just spin?

OK he has a shit load of personal wealth, but AFAIK that was accumlated while working as a very highly paid trader in money markets. In otherwords a salesman on very high commision and bonuses, taking big risks with other peoples money. Whether that takes a lot of skill or just a lot of balls I don't know, but the GFC was precipitated by people doing pretty much that.

I've never heard anyone say JK is a financial genius. He isn't. What he is good at is assessing risk very quickly and managing it. Not many people can be traders, the stress and pressure burns out most who try.

But ultimately the facts speak for themselves. JK grew up in a state house - no silver spoon - and built up $50 million in assets. Good luck to him. If it was easy everyone would do it. You can trade money markets from your home computer.

The GFC is not related to money market trading. The economic bust came because of where the money ended up - people like you and me borrowing it and then being unable to pay.

Winston001

29th January 2011, 16:29

?

Do the public assets have any equity in them? I mean, would they pay for themselves and cover the interest borrowed against them (potentially from a lower interest rate loan than the public debt)? The cash "borrowed" then being put towards the public debt? Just my usual ignorant questions :niceone:

Don't be modest, that is an excellent question. It's possible that the power companies are paying 7% to the government and the govt are paying 5% to overseas lenders. If that is correct then frankly the part-sale is on thin ice.

I generally believe anyone should sell stuff to pay their bills and hope times will get better. However if the stuff (eg. tools) is providing an income then selling has to the last resort.

It doesn't seem to matter whose definition of party/economic theory we use, people die, people go hungry, some people gain, a lot of people lose, the world turns and we crab sideways instead of living smarter.

Oh dear, that is a distopian view of the world. Cheer up things aren't so bad.

What happens in an open economy (no corruption, no subsidies or interference) is that a few people gain plenty - and a lot of people gain a bit less but get ahead.

Honestly, look at the cars on the roads. Go and watch the packed planes to Oz for holidays. Consider the shopping malls and stuff we don't need - which people buy anyway. In NZ we are very well off. Wealthy in fact.

I'd agree the third world have a tough time although life is improving. Sadly, population pressures will stop that.

Highlander

29th January 2011, 17:12

whoever voted for John Key(instead of a vote for National because he is"charismatic")was deluded

Whoever voted out labour because Helen was "unattractive"was deluded

Whoever votes for the personality instead of the policy is deluded

So now it seems NZ is going to get the government it deserves.

NZ needs some tough decisions to be made,and soon.It cant keep going on with the plug hole in the bath bigger than the tap.

Having said all that,the only difference I can see between the parties is the color of their ties

In addition to that those who chose not to vote have really voted to go along with what ever the majority chose on their behalf and should not complain about the result, or As Steve Earl put it - "Don't Vote? - Don't Bitch"

mashman

29th January 2011, 18:03

?

shrub asked what more I wanted :rofl:... red rag, bull :) anyhoo...

However selling assets is sustainable if you reinvest the money

I'm still confused with JK's reasoning/position on this. On the one hand he's saying it'll help pay off the debt, on the other he says he wants to buy "other assets". How can you have both? and if indeed you can have both, then why sell anything at all? Why not borrow (at a sensible rate) against the assets you have that make a return, and put that towards paying off the debt? Keep your assets and save some money before you blow a massive chunk of it on acquisition costs :facepalm: Surely these very clever smart people must have thought of this and dismissed it for very good reasons :blink:? Unless of course there's a COMPLETELY different agenda... something some here seem to think that JK & Co are more than capable of... If JK & Co. aren't sure what they're going to do with the money from the 49% sell offs (debt, assets, both), then i doubt they've explored every avenue available to them and by default NZ... hence the hidden agenda "argument"

I generally believe anyone should sell stuff to pay their bills and hope times will get better. However if the stuff (eg. tools) is providing an income then selling has to the last resort.

So how would one go about finding out wether this is the last resort or wether this just one last rort? (bum ch bum ch huh :)) Take the govts word for it? We're not talking loose change...

Oh dear, that is a distopian view of the world. Cheer up things aren't so bad.

I'd say it was a pretty true reflection of the world we live in today. I not looking for eutopia, because I accept that humans will be human :yes:... and on that basis I still see more than just silver linings (big smile)... there are still rays of sunlight and open doors... but as per, there's a flip side to that and that's the bit that's disheartening at times... I'm not a robot and sometimes i'm bitterly dissapointed when I see countries crabbing sideways because of their lack of money, or because the smart clever people did things for the few at the cost of the many.

The thing that cracks me up. People with monetary wealth receive a higher interest rate from the bank than the likes of myself for instance (nooo this is not an envy thing, grow the fuck up, I don't envy their wealth, just the freedom it provides :)). So it would seem the more you have, the more you can accumulate with no extra effort. Banks lend money and make a very good living out of it, because everyone wants/needs more money, individually and nationally. I'll say this once, just because the KB labelers will come streaming out of the woodwork to decry the idea, because they know of a label that very VERY loosely fits what i'm talking about :facepalm:. If the world is so hungry for money, then why would we not put all of our "resources" into NZ Inc and become money lenders (keep a personal wealth ledger too :yes:). Obviously NZ society would need to "change" in order to do this. That is more than possible, and without the need for food stamps, handouts, work camps etc... :msn-wink: You want a TV, buy them in bulk, you'll get better value for money and everyone can have that nice top of the range TV (NZ may well become a prefered buyer) yadda yadda... you can see where i'm going with that, maybe, and the societal benefits pretty much speak for themselves... New Zealanders working together towards a common goal? Yes some people may decide not to work, but shock horror, that already happens :)... so what's the problem then? I think we know the answer to that, and that's why this country, and every other country in the world, will never truly move forwards. I :rofl: when I hear the "let's work smarter New Zealand" mantra... and that keeps me happy and smiling... most of the time :)...

Let the flaming labelling begin :)

What happens in an open economy (no corruption, no subsidies or interference) is that a few people gain plenty - and a lot of people gain a bit less but get ahead.

You mean everyone wins :shit:, surely not :)... careful Winston, the label brigade will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and fuuuuurious anger as one of those who attempt to poison and destroy their brothers :killingme

popelli

29th January 2011, 19:46

regardless of who is in power the simple basic economics that most fail to understand is you should spend less than what you earn

increasing taxes usually results in people resturcturing their affairs so that they actually pay less tax so that doesn't work

The government needs to trim back its expenditure so its in alignment with its income

governments seem to spend incredible amounts on their own entourage, they could start by sacking half the politicians

nz has effectively set up a system funding a huge program in promoting and funding a second language and this language industry is costing millions - has this ever been questioned or cut back because a recession has occurred ?

nz has a pension system introduced back in the mid 70's as an election bribe by the national party is it affordable, no but will anybody do anything about it ?

there are numerous other sacred cows that could be cut but most governmenst are there to feather their own nest not to run the country

mashman

30th January 2011, 09:47

increasing taxes usually results in people resturcturing their affairs so that they actually pay less tax so that doesn't work

The tax rate doesn't matter. People will always restructure their affairs so that they pay less tax. It's THEIR money after all :) and the tax system is so unfair :killingme

Winston001

30th January 2011, 12:41

shrub

30th January 2011, 14:27

I'm generally with you but don't completely agree regarding tax evasion/avoidance.

The Scandanavian countries in particular, and much of Europe too, are heavily taxed by our standards. Despite that the Scandanavians have a higher standard of living than us and are happier.

Hang on a second, are you trying to tell me that having a low tax rate isn't the sole path to wealth and happiness? I really struggle with that because for years our masters have been telling us that we will only be happy when we get a tax cut (that only their party can deliver), and I'm sure they're right. After all, paying tax means we're personally paying for the lavish lifestyles of beneficiaries and for 5 star accomodation in prisons, and THAT SUCKS AND MAKES ME ANGRY!:mad:

Skyryder

30th January 2011, 15:40

It's not surprising that Key has not been able to turn 'the economy around.' He's been to busy 'wet dreaming' about who he would like to shag.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-news/news/4597545/John-Keys-celebrity-crushes

Skyryder

davebullet

30th January 2011, 16:39

If George can turn your love around, maybe he might be able to do the economy?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8LRxw_a6j4

shrub

4th February 2011, 09:24

i knew our Beloved Leader was a lightweight, but wtf?

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=10703972

I have to say the blue really goes with his eyes, but it does make his bum look big. The bracelet is the master stroke though, all he needs to do is get his chakras balanced and he will be a superman and I wonder whether his tarot reader advised him on the election date or his astrologist?

Swoop

4th February 2011, 11:49

It is the stuff of political nightmares (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10703727). It would be a party from hell. Imagine if Hone Harawira, Sue Bradford and Matt McCarten were to form a party and actually get themselves into Parliament.

Here we have a rabid left-wing Maori nationalist, a rabid left-wing social activist with a tinge of green, and an old-fashioned union boss who is so far to the left that he could shake hands with Sir Roger Douglas on the right.

It's unlikely to happen, thank God, but the mere idea of it, floated by Mrs Bradford this week, is enough to give John Key and Phil Goff palpitations, such is the fragility of coalition alliances in this election year.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Act Party is in disarray and there is growing apprehension that it might not survive, since it is dependent on Rodney Hide's re-election in Epsom. That is in no way certain considering the many ways he has blotted his copybook in this term.

Then there's Winston Peters.

So it's shaping up to be a fascinating election year and I cannot remember another in which a campaign has begun as early as this one. The year has hardly begun and the principal parties are hard at it.

Already Mr Key and Mr Goff have announced major policies which, at last, open a clear division between the right and the left. For too long National and Labour, in their quest for that elusive, grey thing called the centre, have been almost indistinguishable from one another.

I suppose this early start has to do with the imminence of the Rugby World Cup, which will occupy the nation's attention for the critical pre-election months of September and October.

Like many other Kiwis I have but a passing interest in the game. However, I do know that the hoi polloi and the media will be totally obsessed with 30 men chasing a pumped up piece of pigskin (or whatever balls are made of these days) round a paddock and there will be little room for political discourse.

So the Prime Minister has drawn a line in the sand as the year barely hits top gear with his announcement of National's intention to partially privatise a number of state energy assets.

And Opposition Leader Phil Goff has responded with a slew of old-fangled socialist policies such as tax exemptions for the lower-paid and higher taxes on high earners, restoring handouts for early childhood education and "Mondayising" date-specific public holidays.

I can see Mr Key's motive in announcing the partial privatisations this early, for it will take a lot of time and effort to convince a once-bitten, twice-shy electorate of the benefits of such a move.

I suspect, however, that he will succeed. There is a huge difference between Mr Key and what he proposes and the stupid sacrifice of state assets by the incompetent to the point of stupidity, short-sighted Labour ideologues of the mid-1980s.

One big difference is that, unlike the Lange-Douglas-Prebble-Caygill crowd, of whom Mr Goff was a colleague, Mr Key is no economic theoretician but a highly-successful, pragmatic and independent-minded businessman, the first we have had of such ilk as Prime Minister in my lifetime.

Another big difference is that he has been and is being absolutely up front about National's state asset plans. In fact, he has laid his political future on the line. The 1980s crowd sprang asset sales (giveaways as it transpired) on a bewildered electorate with no prior warning and no consultation.

As chief executive of NZ Incorporated, we can expect Mr Key to organise the planned partial privatisations in such a way that the nation really benefits both financially and socially, and retains a majority equity in them. There are, of course, traps - and these have been made loud and clear by commentators and letter writers since the announcement was made. Mr Key is no fool, so one would expect that he will cover all those bases as the year progresses.

Mr Goff, on the other hand, whose background is university lecturing, union organising and politicking, refuses to acknowledge that the country is so far in debt that it is almost flat broke and cannot describe in any detail how on Earth he proposes to finance the handouts he has so far announced.

It would be great if Mr Key would also revisit the idea of sacrificing a few acres of useless bushlands in the interests of giving access to large deposits of hugely valuable minerals, and run that past the electorate over the next few months.

These riches don't belong to a handful of trampers, bird-watchers, bug lovers or tree huggers but to all of us, and it is extraordinarily selfish of them to try to deprive the nation of the means by which to lift itself out of penury.

I've had a gutsful of coalition governments. They're part of the reason we're in such a parlous state. So let's pray for a National landslide, and stand-alone, one-party governance.

By Garth George, NZ HERALD.

Skyryder

4th February 2011, 12:00

MisterD

4th February 2011, 12:37

A new party based around Bradford, McCArten and Harawira has been in the pipeline for some time.

Depends if Hone is kicked out of the Maori Party. I doubt if Sharples and Turia give shit about Hone forming another Party. They have nothing to lose either way as the Maori Party have stated they will work with Labour if Labour can put a coalition together. Hone would bring in Bradford and McCarten along with others as he is shoe in for his elctorate seat. If Peters gets in that's one less for Key. Under normal circumstances a left wing party would take votes away from Labour. But these votes if Hone forms another Party will take votes away from the Maori Party. Bradford will not take many away from the Greens
McCarten will take some from Labour and the Alliance. All in all Key has played his cards too soon.

Skyryder

I don't think that Hone's a dead cert by any means if the Maori Party were to put up a credible Northern Tribe candidate. There's more to the electorate than his mum's rent-a-crowd.

Putting that to one side though, to bring in list members this new party has to get votes from somewhere - the Maori party only got like 3% last time so it can only be from the Greens and Labour. All it will alter is the size of the overhang not the size of the "left block".

Winnie is the joker in the pack, but for my money, JK's announcement that he won't work with him has ensured that any protest vote by natural Nat voters over the ETS or smacking or F&S will go to ACT. There's a good chance that this new party could drop the Greens under 5% but imagine the fun in trying to hold a Labour-Green-Nutters-MP-Winston coalition together, could be the death of MMP!

Bald Eagle

4th February 2011, 12:40

could be the death of MMP!

so something good might actually come out of this election then.

shrub

4th February 2011, 13:36

so something good might actually come out of this election then.

Unfortunately that would mean the return of FPP, and that is a major retrograde step. MMP is possibly not as good as STV, but it will take forever to get the electorate to understand anything else - they still don't get MMP!. Proportional representation is the only thing that keeps our political system genuinely representative and it keeps the pollies honest. It is very unlikely that the madness of the Muldoon or Lange/Douglas era would have happened under proportional representation.

Muldoon once famously said that he could have an idea while shaving and it would be law by lunchtime - this was while he led a government that the majority of NZ voters hadn't voted for!

SPman

4th February 2011, 16:21

I don't think that Hone's a dead cert by any means if the Maori Party were to put up a credible Northern Tribe candidate. There's more to the electorate than his mum's rent-a-crowdYou don't know the mood of Northern Maori very well then, do you? Hone has the most mana of any MP up there - because he tells it like it is and isn't running scared....of his party, or any other party

It is the stuff of political nightmares (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10703727). It would be a party from hell. Imagine if Hone Harawira, Sue Bradford and Matt McCarten were to form a party and actually get themselves into Parliament. Yeah - interesting - would certainly have the rabid right in a lather..........it's not even an established fact (and probably won't eventuate) and they're already foaming at the mouth!

Anyway, what's JK's response to the economy and unemployment - "wait and see, it'll all be better tomorrow"

Jesus wept..........