Rogernomics

[chickenfunkstar]

I've noticed a few people in a previous thread complain about Rogernomics.

Although i'm too young to remember what it was like in the 'good ol' days',
I seriously doubt if your average New Zealander would be better off if Roger Douglas' reforms didn't occour.

I doubt our export industry would be half of what it is today.

Planned economy's are horribly inefficient.

Thoughts?

[TwoSeven]

Rogernomics is what fixed muldoonism - its still used today (but just dont tell anyone).

Rogernomics is anti-planned economy - it supports free market enterprise with socialist reform (new labour).

[Oscar]

The reduction of government control of the economy by privatizing gummint owned businesses and relaxing economic regulations. Previously things like exchange rates and interest rates were gummint regulated - the idea was to let the market find it's own level.

There also used to be a whole range of tariffs protecting NZ industry, which were removed. This lead to the death of several industries (local car assembly a good example) and the rise of the Warehouse.

Along with tariff protection, the Gummint used to subsidise primary industries and/or exporters (supplemetry minimum pricing for meat and wool is an example). These were removed.

It was a brutal business, and lots of people were hurt - but it probably saved this country from third world status.

[chickenfunkstar]

I'm sure Rogernomics was negative in the short term, but once the economy's level of capital and sectoral shifts (unemployment), had sorted its self out, surely the ecomomy was in a better state.

I can't really see an alternative to the free market economy.

If two countries who trade both have tariffs and subsidies, then no one wins.

[Oscar]

I'm sure Rogernomics was negative in the short term, but once the economy's level of capital and sectoral shifts (unemployment), had sorted its self out, surely the ecomomy was in a better state.

I can't really see an alternative to the free market economy.

If two countries who trade both have tariffs and subsidies, then no one wins.

The problem was that we had no tariffs and an open market but damn near everyone else had 'em...

[chickenfunkstar]

The problem was that we had no tariffs and an open market but damn near everyone else had 'em...

Before or after the reforms?

[Oscar]

Before or after the reforms?
We were one of the most regulated economies (short of being a commie state), anywhere pior to 1984. Suddenly we were one of the least regulated....

[Lou Girardin]

I'm sure Rogernomics was negative in the short term, but once the economy's level of capital and sectoral shifts (unemployment), had sorted its self out, surely the ecomomy was in a better state.

I can't really see an alternative to the free market economy.

If two countries who trade both have tariffs and subsidies, then no one wins.

Free markets aren't that free. For example; the US steel industry, the US grain producers, most of the EU primary producers, Australian Apple growers.
Like the Kyoto protocol, we thought that if we led, others would follow.
The trouble was that the rest of the world viewed us as lab rats. Noted the price paid and declined to do the same. Now we are scratching for market access anywhere we can get it. The wonder is that we have done as well as we have. But the price we've paid is plain in our crime and social ills.
Australia has had greater growth without half the pain.
If Rogernomics was attractive, ACT wouldn't be on the verge of oblivion.

[TonyB]

Ah, Kyoto-"Oooo look, my quick calculations show that we'll get half a billion a year from it. Let DO IT!! We're such a BIIIIG important country and world leader that everyone will follow our brave lead" Trouble is- no one important followed.......and now they realise that they made a mistake and it's going to COST half a billion... :clap: :clap: :clap:

[chickenfunkstar]

Free markets aren't that free. For example; the US steel industry, the US grain producers, most of the EU primary producers, Australian Apple growers.
Like the Kyoto protocol, we thought that if we led, others would follow.
The trouble was that the rest of the world viewed us as lab rats. Noted the price paid and declined to do the same. Now we are scratching for market access anywhere we can get it. The wonder is that we have done as well as we have. But the price we've paid is plain in our crime and social ills.
Australia has had greater growth without half the pain.
If Rogernomics was attractive, ACT wouldn't be on the verge of oblivion.

Sorry, I should have said 'free market economy with a certain amount of government intervention'
I know a 'true free market economy' would never work. Some goods are definatly best provided by the government.

I don't think crime and social ills can be attributed to our surrent system of economy though.
Thats likley to have more to do with government policies and a variety of other issues.

[chickenfunkstar]

Ah, Kyoto-"Oooo look, my quick calculations show that we'll get half a billion a year from it. Let DO IT!! We're such a BIIIIG important country and world leader that everyone will follow our brave lead" Trouble is- no one important followed.......and now they realise that they made a mistake and it's going to COST half a billion... :clap: :clap: :clap:

I agree, but hasn't that got more to do with adding economic regulations rather than removing them?

[Motu]

It was a tough time,and seemed to go against everything Labour stood for,which was basicly socialst policies,power to the worker and all that,not Lenin's version.The 60's and 70s were the heyday,if you could get a job in a Government run industry you were set for life - Post Office,Power Board,Railways etc were cushy numbers,you could start your retirement the day you started,to work for your pay was not required and the ''perks'' industry was more productive than the industry supporting it.I know in one Post Office Workshop a 5 ton truck would go out every friday morning with the weeks orders.Even private industry was run along the same lines,it had to - when I worked for General Foods there was an old cooler truck body in the corner of the yard that sold contraband goods....people used to come onto the site,past the security gate and ask where the xxxstore was,we would point them in the right direction.Unions ruled and were crippling our industry,we were going to go down the same sink hole as Brittain.
Something had to be done and Roger started it,in the backlash against Labour National was back in and Ruthless Ruth carried on with the wholesale slaughter.

It had to be done and I suppose I have to say it was a good thing....but I miss the easy life.It's the loss to industry that hurts me most,we could do anything...because we had to - the can do,Kiwi ingenuity approach,make it ourselves ability was lost.In our car assembly it was not just assmebling CKD cars - we trimmed them,carpets and upolsutory,painted them with our own paints,fitted our own tyres,made our own exhaust systems,started them with our own batteries...we did it all here.Ok,so they were rough,but it was all we could get and a brand new HQ Holden was the envy of every kid on the street.My mother worked in production engineering shops all her life,as kids she worked making Tonka Toys,pretty good stuff,then she worked on capstian lathes churning out thousands upon thousands of little components that make up lawnmowers and washing machines and farm equipment.

Roger Douglas destroyed a lifestyle....and it was a good thing....kinda.

[TonyB]

I was a teenager living on my parents farm when Rogernomics came to be. I have never met a farmer who didn’t think the reforms needed to happen- the problem was it all happened virtually overnight. I remember all of the mortgagee/ forclosure sales and autions. People loosing the farms their families had lived on for generations, loosing their homes, being made bankrupt. I remember when the freezing works were buying sheep for $1.00. $0.99 of that was for the pelt, the carcass was about 1 cent. Didn’t happen for long, but it did happen- meanwhile the board of directors for the works was getting over $100K a year and the workers were on strike damn near more often than not.

A lot of people will blab on about how the good farmers hung on and the crap ones went bankrupt. In some cases that’s true, but a lot of bloody good farmers went under, simply because they had invested heavily in equipment etc and couldn’t make the payments when their stock was worth next to nothing and the interest rates were so high. As a result of what I saw, I completely lost all interest in farming, as did all of my mates. My parents were lucky- they still have the farm, but they had to go for years and years without putting on fertilizer or investing in any equipment or maintenance…

A few years ago a rumour started saying the reason why Douglas was so hard on farmers was because his brother was a farmer and they couldn’t stand eachother.

[Brian d marge]

Sorry, I should have said 'free market economy with a certain amount of government intervention'
I know a 'true free market economy' would never work. Some goods are definatly best provided by the government.

I don't think crime and social ills can be attributed to our surrent system of economy though.
Thats likley to have more to do with government policies and a variety of other issues.

Now It was me,,
who complained about Rogernomics ,,, for a good reason .,,,,NO other country as far as I know has/did what NZ has done with the speed at which it did,
Austrialia has done similar reforms at a lot slower pacer , NZ in terms of economic growth hasnt been outstanding ( compared with OECD mates ..we are more along the lines of Hungry ,,, ,,,in other words After Kregler dumped NZ money causing devaluation ,,etc ,,if we had weathered that devaluation, which i believe we would have,and the freeing up of the markets was taken slowly ..more along the lines of Aussie...the important thing here is the time and education the bring people up to speed
The other thing was they used ( as far as I know completely untried theory straight out of the neo classic text book ),,,
The end result is that there is a large under class thet has been created ...

( on a percentage of income basis I will need to bring in aprox 600 -700 a week to have the same level/standard of living as I do now ..exple our electricity bill during peak time is 0.024 percent of my monthly wage ...
There is a graph called the Phillips curve which show that there is a relationship between inflation ( I think) and crime ,,, and it stands to reason ..if you pull 330 a week taskforce green , and you want the new playstation ....well If your scruples havent been instilled by good Parenting OR Peer group ( dodgy mates) then .....how are you going to get the playstation ....
The price of goods in the shops and the availability certainly has inproved , though a low wage economy has its draw backs ,,,
To be honest my family are debating what to do ...on the one had I want my son to have the freedom I had ,,,( ripping around paddocks on a err older bike lets just say !!!) but on the other hand financially we are saving andd can afford to buy the things we like ,,,, The health care is good and readily available ,,and the schools are good ( untill high school then I have BIG issues ) trouble is I live in the worlds biggest carpark ...

So , my next step needs to be planned very carefully ,,, and the problem is what gets me uo in the morning is playing around with bikes ,,,,any one have any good ideas on how to become rich through bikes???

Stephen
Now I didnt study economics ,,,( the wife drip feeds me my pocket money ,,which shows the grasp I have on the subject ) so those who have please feel free to jump in

[TwoSeven]

Ah, Kyoto-"Oooo look, my quick calculations show that we'll get half a billion a year from it. Let DO IT!! We're such a BIIIIG important country and world leader that everyone will follow our brave lead" Trouble is- no one important followed.......and now they realise that they made a mistake and it's going to COST half a billion... :clap: :clap: :clap:

Kyoto is interesting because it meant the government had to put a stick in the ground and say how clean is NZ. The embarrasement is that it turned out to show how polluted NZ was - about $500m polluted.

I notice that both parties are staying away from that issue.

The biggest problem is that labour wont hand the carbon credits over to the companies that are actually earning them. So effectively they have taken away the incentive to modernise. Most companies would easily upgrade their equipment and invest in clean technology, if they could then sell their carbon credits (even back to the government) in order to pay for it. Thats the standard 'economics' way of doing it.

However, some greedy countries who thought they'd be in for a payout decided to put the money straight into the governments pockets (typical bloody labour). Guess who got caught out robbing peter then. Looks like that money that was going to paul, didnt eventuate - hence the government looks so embarrased.

Thats no reason to pull out of the protocol - its just a valid reason to force labour to get their act together, stop screwing the population and do the job properly.

[TonyB]

I notice that both parties are staying away from that issue.

The biggest problem is that labour wont hand the carbon credits over to the companies that are actually earning them. So effectively they have taken away the incentive to modernise. Most companies would easily upgrade their equipment and invest in clean technology, if they could then sell their carbon credits (even back to the government) in order to pay for it. Thats the standard 'economics' way of doing it.

I wonder why National isn't making more of a fuss about it- it really is a huge cockup...

They also won't give carbon credits to landowners or investors with forest plantations- keeping that for themselves they are. But no doubt when you chop them down you'll have to pay some sort of penalty. Kiwi's need to learn not to put up with this shit! Look how powerful the French farmers are politically- park a few hundred tractors on the main highways and suddenly their problems go away...

[Lou Girardin]

I don't think crime and social ills can be attributed to our surrent system of economy though.
Thats likley to have more to do with government policies and a variety of other issues.

Oue economy is Govt policy.
We are coming out of the trough slowly but the huge amount of joblessness in prior years has cost us dearly.
It's the old saying, the devil makes work for idle hands. Working people have less inclination to steal, burgle etc.

[chickenfunkstar]

Now It was me,,
who complained about Rogernomics ,,, for a good reason .,,,,NO other country as far as I know has/did what NZ has done with the speed at which it did,
Austrialia has done similar reforms at a lot slower pacer , NZ in terms of economic growth hasnt been outstanding ( compared with OECD mates ..we are more along the lines of Hungry ,,, ,,,in other words After Kregler dumped NZ money causing devaluation ,,etc ,,if we had weathered that devaluation, which i believe we would have,and the freeing up of the markets was taken slowly ..more along the lines of Aussie...the important thing here is the time and education the bring people up to speed
The other thing was they used ( as far as I know completely untried theory straight out of the neo classic text book ),,,
The end result is that there is a large under class thet has been created ...

( on a percentage of income basis I will need to bring in aprox 600 -700 a week to have the same level/standard of living as I do now ..exple our electricity bill during peak time is 0.024 percent of my monthly wage ...
There is a graph called the Phillips curve which show that there is a relationship between inflation ( I think) and crime ,,, and it stands to reason ..if you pull 330 a week taskforce green , and you want the new playstation ....well If your scruples havent been instilled by good Parenting OR Peer group ( dodgy mates) then .....how are you going to get the playstation ....
The price of goods in the shops and the availability certainly has inproved , though a low wage economy has its draw backs ,,,
To be honest my family are debating what to do ...on the one had I want my son to have the freedom I had ,,,( ripping around paddocks on a err older bike lets just say !!!) but on the other hand financially we are saving andd can afford to buy the things we like ,,,, The health care is good and readily available ,,and the schools are good ( untill high school then I have BIG issues ) trouble is I live in the worlds biggest carpark ...

So , my next step needs to be planned very carefully ,,, and the problem is what gets me uo in the morning is playing around with bikes ,,,,any one have any good ideas on how to become rich through bikes???

Stephen
Now I didnt study economics ,,,( the wife drip feeds me my pocket money ,,which shows the grasp I have on the subject ) so those who have please feel free to jump in


I agree that the Roger Douglas and his crew should of introduced the reforms more slowly to give people more time to adjust.
I'm not sure how it has contributed to crime and social ills though.

I bet the vast majority of people are better off post Douglas.
There's still a reasonable amount of protection for people who work in some of the lower paying jobs (like me), such as minimum wage, unemployment insurance, etc.
Nearly everyone wants things that they can't afford.
There's always people who will be willing to steal such things.

The phillips curve is a short run trade off between inflation and unemployment. It doesn't always hold anyway (USA in the 1970's, high inflation and unemployment)

If we continued under a planned economy I think that nearly everyone would be less wealthy.

Sorry if i've missed your point. I wasn't entirly sure what you were trying to say in the above post.

[chickenfunkstar]

Oue economy is Govt policy.
We are coming out of the trough slowly but the huge amount of joblessness in prior years has cost us dearly.
It's the old saying, the devil makes work for idle hands. Working people have less inclination to steal, burgle etc.

You're right, but I'm not sure exactly how much crime you can attribute directly to unemployment.
I'm not sure that crime will dramatically reduce now that unemployment is at the lowest level its been for years.

[Winston001]

The Lange Labour government were like a breath of fresh air after years of Muldoon's heavy handed management. The reforms were startling but needed. Unfortunately they were also unbalanced.

In one single year NZ farmers had their subsidies removed. But manufacturers continued to be protected by trade tarrifs until the late 1990s. Good farmers went down with the bad. It was savage.

The argument against the Chicago School of Economics (locally Rogernomics) approach was that all our competitors used subsidies and trade barriers. And this is still true today. Frankly it is a miracle that agriculture has survived let alone bloomed in NZ.

But slowly those barriers are disappearing. We tend to overlook the fact that there are plenty of nations worse off than NZ. South American and African farmers can't sell their cotton for above a pittance because the good ol' USA subsidises its farmers way above the world price. Thus these rich Americans can produce all the cotton they like for nothing because their government pays them to keep doing it.

That is what GATT is all about and gradually trade restrictions are being removed. We just happened to be first aboard. First among Western countries that is. Third World nations don't have the luxury of subsidies.

[Hitcher]

Instead of indulging in sloganeering (e.g. "Rogernomics", "Muldoonism") take a look at what polcy decisions were actually made and why.

The sooner people grow up and realise that we should be focused on baking a larger economic cake rather than becoming anally fixated on "fairly" allocating the crumbs of what we currently call an economy, the better off everybody should be.

[Skyryder]

Free markets aren't that free. For example; the US steel industry, the US grain producers, most of the EU primary producers, Australian Apple growers.
Like the Kyoto protocol, we thought that if we led, others would follow.
The trouble was that the rest of the world viewed us as lab rats. Noted the price paid and declined to do the same. Now we are scratching for market access anywhere we can get it. The wonder is that we have done as well as we have. But the price we've paid is plain in our crime and social ills.
Australia has had greater growth without half the pain.
If Rogernomics was attractive, ACT wouldn't be on the verge of oblivion.

Ditto. Will say no more as I entirely agree.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

The Lange Labour government were like a breath of fresh air after years of Muldoon's heavy handed management. The reforms were startling but needed. Unfortunately they were also unbalanced.

In one single year NZ farmers had their subsidies removed. But manufacturers continued to be protected by trade tarrifs until the late 1990s. Good farmers went down with the bad. It was savage.

The argument against the Chicago School of Economics (locally Rogernomics) approach was that all our competitors used subsidies and trade barriers. And this is still true today. Frankly it is a miracle that agriculture has survived let alone bloomed in NZ.

But slowly those barriers are disappearing. We tend to overlook the fact that there are plenty of nations worse off than NZ. South American and African farmers can't sell their cotton for above a pittance because the good ol' USA subsidises its farmers way above the world price. Thus these rich Americans can produce all the cotton they like for nothing because their government pays them to keep doing it.

That is what GATT is all about and gradually trade restrictions are being removed. We just happened to be first aboard. First among Western countries that is. Third World nations don't have the luxury of subsidies.


Third world nations don't have luxeries period.

One of the problems with New Zealand is that both the of the Lange Governments and National that followed put other countries interests head of our own. And that my friends is not my opinion but that of an American economist who was sitting next to me on my flight home from the states shortly after GW Bush was 'apponted' to his first Presidency. You have only to look at the policies of the Buisness Round Table to figure that out. And it was these guys that both Labour and National 'listened' too when forming economic policy.

Skyryder

[Skyryder]

I bet the vast majority of people are better off post Douglas.
There's still a reasonable amount of protection for people who work in some of the lower paying jobs (like me), such as minimum wage, unemployment insurance, etc.


Yes people are better off but it has noting to do with post Rodgernomics but more to do with the time factor and the cumilation wealth.

The protection that you speak of is encompessed in the Employment Relations Act 2000. Prior to that there was the Employment Contracts Act. In this 'enlightned' piece of social progress you were paid the lowest rate that management dictated by way of an indavidual contract. The Employment Contracts Act was designed to break up the bargaining power of the collective workforce.

Skyryder

[DingDong]

Rodger Douglas had a great idea that basicly should have raised the tax of the wealthy and reduce the tax of the average Joe, The PM of the time David L (as I understand it) decided to alter the plan of the expert and root the whole basis of the idea... Mr Douglas had a raw deal and has been prosecuted ever since.

It not rogernomics... it's Davids fuck up :yes:

As I understand it... but I not too bright anyway :weird:

[TwoSeven]

One of the benefits of free trade is that it takes out the industries that are least competitive and REPLACES them with more competitive ones.

It is important to remember that initially you do get unemployment as untrained staff are layed off, then retrained, relocated and reemployed in more benificial employment. You have to remember that it does take time.

If that wasnt true, then we wouldnt have one of the lowest unemployment rates ever along with the most open trade barriers ever.

One of the reasons why i'm looking forward to the free trade with china. We get the selection of their cheap muck (which helps us poor folks) and we get to sell our expensive stuff back (there are more rich people in china than there are people in new zealand).

[Skyryder]

Rodger Douglas had a great idea that basicly should have raised the tax of the wealthy and reduce the tax of the average Joe, The PM of the time David L (as I understand it) decided to alter the plan of the expert and root the whole basis of the idea... Mr Douglas had a raw deal and has been prosecuted ever since.

It not rogernomics... it's Davids fuck up :yes:

As I understand it... but I not too bright anyway :weird:

Wrong Wayn. The Labour Party caucus works through by way of the democratic process. In other words policy of the party is delivered by the caucus majority. Douglas had the majority of votes for his reforms by way of Prebble, Moore, Clarke, Caygill etc. In the later stages of the fifth Labour Government Lange was many times presented with a fait accompli. He had lost control of his caucus.

Act has never suggested raising the tax of the wealthy.

Skyryder

[geoffm]

The reforms were needed, but th eimplementation left a bit to be desired. Both the speed and the manner that it all happened was flawed, IMO. I suspect the reason was to get them in place before the next election, or the Labour caucus of the time got cold feet.
THings like donating Telecom to the Americans, who screwed NZers over for $700m per year, without any maintenance, and this is ongooing now. Ditto for the railways. Fay and Richwhite made a lot of money at the time - you have to wonder about kickbacks.
The railways employed 20,000 people in 1984, and were losing money hand over fist. It was a good place to retire at 20. They cust staff to 6000 within a few years. On the other hand, they had great apprentice training, and we are paying for the loss of this, and other apprentice schemes now.
Muldoon, IMO, was one of the biggest political disasters in NZ history. His think Big schemes cost billions (back when a billion was a lot of money) for no return. Many were mothballed or given away. One of the best examples was the natural gas to gasoline plant in Motonui - it wasted 97% of the gas and cost billions. Now we have run out of gas in the maui field due to this sort of wastage. It would have made much more sense, and cost 1% of the price to give everyone in NZ a free CNG kit. NZ used to be the world leader in CNG and LPG car conversions - all that has gone now.

Rogernomics is much maligned, with some reason, but only Jim Anderton would want to go back to 1984.
Geoff

[MikeL]

I bet the vast majority of people are better off post Douglas.


They think they are, because they can buy cheap Japanese cars and video recorders and DVD players, and eat out every night of the week, and fly to Sydney for weekend shopping, and send their friends text messages and photos and videos on their cellphones, and pretend that they are living the same lifestyle as people in Southern California or the Gold Coast or Tuscany...
And they never stop to think that staying until after 9 pm at the office every night and spending an hour commuting to work and needing two full-time incomes and having to put off having children and having monthly mortgage commitments that would save a thousand African children from starvation for a year might be too high a price to pay, or that their electricity and telephone bills and bank fees don't have to be that high, except that dividends need to be paid out, and more often than not to people living thousands of miles away who don't give a damn about this country except for their financial investment in it. And that a properly-resourced tax-payer funded health and education system might actually work out cheaper in the long run than private schools and health insurance even though taxes would have to rise. And that while they have been beguiled and distracted with the flood of glittering goodies from China and Japan at bargain prices, the real wealth of this country - the land, the originality and self-sufficiency of its people, and the uniqueness of an unspoiled environment - have been quietly stolen from under their noses.
Better off?? Yeah, right...

[TwoSeven]

Muldoon, IMO, was one of the biggest political disasters in NZ history. His think Big schemes cost billions (back when a billion was a lot of money) for no return.

Not quite true.

No short term gain. Pretty much all of the projects are doing well in the long term.

What actually cost muldoon money was that NZ borrowed from overseas (at reasonably cheap rates) to cover the costs. Then there was a recession/war/somethinglikethat and the interest rates went up causing the country to nearly go bankrupt.

The problem was that tarrifs and protectionism was so high that we couldnt import anything and our goods cost so much, no-one would buy them. When the oil crisis highlighted our dependancy on foreign goods, the muldoon government decided to invest in internal infrastructure.

However, it must be understood that productivity in NZ was almost zero at that time. You had railways investing millions on stuff they couldnt and didnt use - including labour that did nothing. You had state forestry buying hardware that sat idle, factories producing goods no-one wanted etc.

[Pixie]

The reduction of government control of the economy by privatizing gummint owned businesses and relaxing economic regulations. Previously things like exchange rates and interest rates were gummint regulated - the idea was to let the market find it's own level.

There also used to be a whole range of tariffs protecting NZ industry, which were removed. This lead to the death of several industries (local car assembly a good example) and the rise of the Warehouse.

Along with tariff protection, the Gummint used to subsidise primary industries and/or exporters (supplemetry minimum pricing for meat and wool is an example). These were removed.

It was a brutal business, and lots of people were hurt - but it probably saved this country from third world status.
Gummint (means taxpayers)

[Pixie]

Oue economy is Govt policy.
We are coming out of the trough slowly but the huge amount of joblessness in prior years has cost us dearly.
It's the old saying, the devil makes work for idle hands. Working people have less inclination to steal, burgle etc.
How come? with the lowest unempoyment in history (according to Clark) do we have so much crime? :devil2: :devil2:

[TwoSeven]

We dont, the crime rate is about the same - just the types of crime have changed - if you look into it, you'll find that there is more drug related stuff, but then there are more serious drugs now than there were.

[Winston001]

Good stuff above. I don't agree with all of it but everyone is entitled to their view. :whistle: I believed and still believe that the 1984 reforms were essential for NZ. But the irony is that if they hadn't happened, we would still be experiencing the current economic boom.

NZ is a tiny country, not just in size but as an economy. We have no control at all over our fortunes. We rely on the rest of the world to sell us manufactured goods such as cars, computers, tractors, etc. To buy the stuff we have to export like crazy and grab tourists so we can get some money to spend. We are simply unable to manufacture ourselves everything we think we need as a first world nation.

The current boom has nothing to do with government policies, or urban industry. It is purely commodity driven - plus tourism. World prices for agricultural products have been healthy for the past 4 years which translates into plenty of money coming to us. It has been a long long wait.

Unfortunately the $NZ has risen over the 4 years in recognition of our added wealth with the result that the boom is being strangled. Nothing lasts forever. The $NZ should start to fall from now because of our serious current account deficit but petrol will rise etc etc.

[Brian d marge]

My take on things,,,

Ill go back and show what was happening and why the changes were made ...the the effects , and what i like and dont like

Wayy back when ,,,,Bretton woods ,,they all got together and agreed on a price for money ( or how can we extract more money from Stephen ,,they planned ahead ,,you see)
Anyway that fell apart ..So that didnt work ,,,
Then a fella called Milton Freidman ..( what was his mother short for a name so she used the baby bottle sterilizing fluid Miltons as a name)...He went to school in chicargo and loved money ,,people called him a moneytourist ..)

Lots of people liked his ideas ....

Then in about 1972 the chicargo mercantile introduced an Idea currency contracts ....initially only seven were offered and on the first day there were 911 contract traded ( wierd Spooky or what ,,,,,)
Back in the pacific ...Stephen was running around in grey shorts no shoes and a ..I love the Bay city Rollers Tee shirt ,,,and was without both money and care ,,,,,,

So these overseas people ,,started moving BIG money around the world REAL quick So that the future price of money was being set ,,,Speculators came in ,,,,,and Small countries with low cash reserves had difficulty is with standing these shocks ....Stephen going to the bookshop and seeing the top shelf ,,,and having low currency reserves ,,,experiences a financial set back ....

So the powers that be knew this was going on,,,,,but this was a new way of setting the price of money ,,,No longer could they add a touch of lead to me soverein....

THEN while the powers that be were running round like headless chickens a fella called Andy krieger...bought some souviniers.... like most of NZ money ..He openly sold NZ s entire money supply on the open market and made a killing ,,,( I remember the adds on TV asking for any loose change you could spare,,,gold wedding rings ,,) ,,so The government devalued ,,,,well they had to ,,as we had no money ...

This meant that when Stephen went back to the bookshop ,,the scraps in his pocket were no match for the top shelf ,,,he couldnt afford Stuff,,,,

So
Messers , dean whane and Kerr ,,said Hang on ,,we have been telling you all along that we Know how to work in this sort of deregulated money enviroment ,,truuuussst us ssssss ....
Hookey said the powers that be ,,,,,,,
First You have to make NZ an attractive place for investors ,,ie if they give you money which we then Use ,,,you give them something back . so Lets go and make this place an attractive place for money to live ,,,,
And the three little Baskets went off happly into the sunset raping an pillaging all in a good cause ,,,,,,,

The Student load ,,,,Looks good on paper ,, I mean it goes down as an asset ,,,,NOT a DEBT ,,,,so I can see they aint going to change that soon ...mean while familys lose sons an daughters overseas due to big debts

So
The changes were going to happen ,,,But they sort of changed the rules ,,without informing the players ( or teaching the players how to use the new rules ) and for A LONG time most folk didnt know HOW to deal with the new improved game ,,( I also think it unfair to expect a person in their 50 s to try and retrain ,,,reskill or what eer you call it and what happened to the farmers was ,,,down right rude.... )

So we were left with a lot of people who well ..now on the bones of their arse ...a large underclass was created ( due to the speed and thoughtlessness at which the changes were implimented ) ...Now Idle hands,,,,do the devils work...

Now The phillips curve in an inverse relationship between inflation and unemployment ...and unemployment is High when inflation is low ( Did we have low inflation around 1992 ..??? oh well never let a bit of bollocks stand in the way of a good story,,,,:devil2:)

Anyway The crime rate according to Crime,com,nz ,co , blah ....said that NZ crime rate has doubled since 1970 with the biggest gain being burgulary ,,,,,( sounds like people needing money to me ) ...with a Peak in crime in 1992 ... being around 60 percent being dishonesty ...

So by not doing anything ( unlike Maori who stood up for what they wanted and now have it ,,,) middle class NZ didnt do much ,,,and now have a gap between those with skills and those without ,,and that gap is getting bigger ,,,,With the associated problem of an under educated , poor underclass, ( As I said I would need about 6 to 700 a week to maintain my current lifestyle WHICH is NOT excessive ,,,,so if u are on 350 with a family or anything to do with being a student ,,,,,)

Other countrys who made the changes put in place the infrastructure before changing , so the population were eased into the new game,,,, we didnt,

So I guess what I am pissed about is , MY life has been compramised by a group of people who were at the end of the day thinking only of themselves . ( was going to say gibbs and kerr dean etc but it also extends to white middle class NZ who did not a lot to stop the rot ( see french farmers for a case in point )

So When I come back from me travels ,,I find the place in ruins ,,,,AND a country which to be honest is moving more and more away from the country I grew up in and like ....( I battered my head trying to do something ,,and will continue ...)
Things ( basics ) such as health, education , and electricity SHOULD NOT be in the HANDS of a PROFIT MAKING entity ( Since when is education a profit generating industry ...its an investment in your own country ,,, like a company training its staff,,,)
I am Ranting now arnt I ,,,,,,sorry ,,I think I will have to return you all to your regular sheduled programme........

BUT <<<<<<
Ye goverment has a responsability to the people AND the people have a responsability To themselves. AND TO others, to Produce a society in which ALL members have an Equal chance/oppertunity... to lead productive happy lives ...( sounds like a bit of wank ,,but no we are only here once so theres no point in living like shit ,,in the mean time ,,,,when its possible to change it )

For example ...ACC ...to return to the no fault system we had ...as far as I know would require a tax increase of ..... a couple of cents..( I think 1 cent in the dollar ) ,,,,,..I think I could live with that ,,,,

Stephen ...signing off before I enithatize 200 odd people with boredom ....

BTW
Lazy buggers should have a 3 week induction course in the army with regular refresher courses ...and SHOT ,,,if they use the phrase ,,Shee ll be right ,,,mate ,,:no: ( hate that phrase ,,,,):bleh:

[Fart]

Rogernomics is what fixed muldoonism - its still used today (but just dont tell anyone).

Rogernomics is anti-planned economy - it supports free market enterprise with socialist reform (new labour).

Muldoon's "Think Big" project and his economic policies cost NZ tens of billions of dollars in which we are still paying off today and will do so for generations to come. NZ had no choice after Muldoon with our huge Trade deficit and large overseas debt, but to re-structure. Rogernomics was a strategy to restructure our economy through privatisation to relieve some of that debt and to free up our economy and our market.

Nz is experience economic growth today for the last three years is because of Rogernomics. If Rogernomics was not implemented, I doubt we will see a properous NZ we are experiencing today. We sacrifice short term pain for long term growth.

[TwoSeven]

New zealand is also in a unique position at the moment, because the value of our currency is dictated by money supply controlled by the reserve bank.

Money supply is dictated by exports minus imports. That is the demand for our currency minus our demand for foreign currency (what we sell less what we buy).

Inflation is the demand for our money. The reserve bank act means that inflation has to be between 0% and 3% (currently its 2.5%) of GDP (exports-imports).

Inflation is good, because it means there is demand for our products we make (people have to buy our currency to then buy our goods). Demand for a fixed resource (money) dictates its price (value of that money). Hence, when the Reserve bank reduces the supply of money, inflation increases and prices go up, this reduces the demand for our goods and exports drop.

The reverse also happens, the reserve bank increases money supply which reduces demand (as everyone finds it easier to buy our currency), the value of the money drops and so does inflation - however, exports then increase.

The main way for new zealand to get richer is for everyone to get off their collective asses and become more efficient (in both technology and production). It means we can skim more of the profit off. Also, stop borrowing (mortages, credit cards etc). When we borrow, it means we have to buy foreign currency to finance that borrowing - when we take out a mortgage, the bank has to borrow from its reserve banks currency account to finance the loan, the reserve bank then has to sell new zealand dollars at the going rate in order to finance the loan, in order to get a good rate it has to decrease money supply which increases inflation and makes everything more expensive - if our current account wasnt in such a bad shape and we all didnt owe money, we'd all be filthy rich.

[MikeL]

if our current account wasnt in such a bad shape and we all didnt owe money, we'd all be filthy rich.

And if we didn't think that economics was the most important thing in life, we could even be happy...

[DingDong]

Wrong Wayn. The Labour Party caucus works through by way of the democratic process. In other words policy of the party is delivered by the caucus majority. Douglas had the majority of votes for his reforms by way of Prebble, Moore, Clarke, Caygill etc. In the later stages of the fifth Labour Government Lange was many times presented with a fait accompli. He had lost control of his caucus.

Act has never suggested raising the tax of the wealthy.

Skyryder
I know how caucus works, democratic process chaired by that party leader who has no influence on what happens...? thats crap. :clap:
Douglas's idea was ripped to threads and flipped upside down and past on...
PM lost control, yes he did didnt he... wonder why?????? :whistle:
I didnt suggest ACT did anything... perhaps I should have explained better, I was thinking of going through my text books just to set it straight, nah... It was just my opinion, and thats yours... besides I've read those things enough already. :yes:

[Winston001]

More good stuff. We face an odd dichotomy. We are both a wealthy country - and poor. Wealthy compared to most of the world, but poor compared to Europe, USA, and Australia. And unfortunately human nature is that we look at those who have more and become envious. We don't look at Nigeria or Fiji and say "poor bastards, aren't we lucky".

In fact we have first rate health and education. But some other countries have a bit more so we become dissatisfied. We also have sod-all natural resources to plunder, unlike Australia. When they have a recession, they just dig out some more coal/copper/uranium/etc.

We instead have to sell whatever we can to the world so we can buy their medicines, books, computer software etc. And what we are particularly good at is agriculture. Not sexy or a vote buyer, but true. But this leaves us vulnerable to world commodity prices.

Ideally NZ would also exclusively make and export expensive widgets which every millionaire on the planet wanted. And needed new ones every 6 months.
So have a look in your garage - you never know what might be there. :devil2:

[Fart]

The Nz economy is currently in very good shape. We have had good domestic and export growth for the last 4 years out pacing most OECD nations. The strength of our economy is clearly indicated in the strength of our $NZ and our interest rate. The high global commodity prices is reflected in our primary sector export, which in turn boost the entire NZ economy. The key is can we sustain this growth without creating a boom and bust cycle.

[Skyryder]

I know how caucus works, democratic process chaired by that party leader who has no influence on what happens...? thats crap. :clap:
Douglas's idea was ripped to threads and flipped upside down and past on...
PM lost control, yes he did didnt he... wonder why?????? :whistle:
I didnt suggest ACT did anything... perhaps I should have explained better, I was thinking of going through my text books just to set it straight, nah... It was just my opinion, and thats yours... besides I've read those things enough already. :yes:

I have no idea what your textbooks say but some time ago Lange was being interviewd on TV about his time as PM. One of the things (the only one now) that I remember him saying was that 'Rodger' had the numbers in caucus to implement his reforms. And that he was more often than not taken by surprise. Now I don't know if you have any contacts in political circles but if so check out Trevor de Cleenes role in all of this. He was Douglas's hatchet man at the time. The enforcer in modern parlanece.



Skyryder