So now we know...

[Mully]

He had his chance under Labour and completely fucked up. Roger fucken nomics. Never again.

Can someone unbiased about Rogernomics please PM me.

My understanding (I'm 28 for reference purposes) is that it was a bitter pill to swallow at the time, but it was, on reflection, a good thing for the country (removed trade barriers, etc).

Don't want to take this off topic, so if someone could PM me about it, that'd be good.

[Grumpy Gnomb]

But which govt got us into this mess in the first place. It was not National that made the big whole in all the accounts and than not tell anyone about it. Labour had 9 years in power so dont blame the new govt

[Naki Rat]

Get you fricken head out of the sand you fool!!! I'm glad genius's like you don't have anything to do with politics!!

Well said. But to prove that we do have 'geniuses' involved in politics it has been very humourous to hear Phil Goff mouthing off about the budget and proving exactly why Liarbour went for the high jump 6 months ago.

[steve_t]

Get you fricken head out of the sand you fool!!! I'm glad genius's like you don't have anything to do with politics!!

But they do! This is why democracy is doomed for failure. Everyone's vote is just as valid and valuable as the next person's. Once the ignorant outnumber the informed, Labour will be back in power Actually, I think this has already happened but luckily a lot of the ignorant are too apathetic to get to a polling booth

[MisterD]

Key specifically sold the tax cuts to the electorate as an economic package to stimulate the economy. Fact.

The Nats were claiming at the last election that the economy was in a mess. Fact This was stated in a number of occasions by Key in the TV debates. Fact.

...and how many holes did Labour hide in the prefu? FFS, the treasury predictions were for a $3bn surplus, we now have a $8bn deficit! A downgrade of our credit rating would have cost a conservative estimate of $600m for absolutely nothing.

So why in a recession would Key not want to use the measures (tax cuts) that he said would work in his election campaign?

Because it's political pragmatism - it's easier to take away something that was promised but not yet given than something the electorate already have. What part of that don't you understand, or are you also having trouble re-adjusting to a government that makes sensible pragmatic decisions rather than being a bunch of ideologically driven idiots?

And I need not remind that Tax cuts were the main election policy of the Nats. Oh and another fact is that Keys word means absolutly nothing.

1) Just because the elecorate latched onto the promise because they were desperate after years of being robbed by Cullen does not make it "the main policy". You and Phil-in may passionately believe that tax cuts were the only reason that Liarbore lost, but you're kidding yourselves.

2) Liarbore had no election policy other than "throw shit at John Key" so STFU.

[MSTRS:Me]

What's this about a 'tax cut party' ???
National simply said they would meet Liarbore's promises. The very ones that Liarbore had whittered on about for years, but failed to really live up to...have you finished your chewing gum yet?

[Hitcher]

I agree Sir Roger should be in the chair. I'll help you plug it in and throw the switch if you like.

He had his chance under Labour and completely fucked up. Roger fucken nomics. Never again.

Roger Douglas and the Lange Government have been harshly and unfairly judged by people with short term memories and tenuous grips on reality.

Rob Muldoon called a snap election in 1984 for three reasons: 1. Marilyn Waring had recent crossed the floor to vote with the opposition on nuclear free legislation, 2. the economy was worse than a basket case, and 3. he was pissed and thought it was a good idea.

The economy was an absolute basket case, largely due to a significantly overvalued dollar and a regulatory framework that some observers to note perceptively that it was worse than a Polish shipyard.

The incoming government really had no option other than to embark on the Roger Douglas-led reforms -- many of which (such as the floating dollar, workplace unions, and absence of foreign exchange regulations) endure.

I am curious to know how people who lambast Roger Douglas believe he has inflicted on them that is worthy of the venom they level at him. He was a visionary reformer at a time when New Zealand needed one.

[MSTRS:Me]

Can someone unbiased about Rogernomics please PM me.

My understanding (I'm 28 for reference purposes) is that it was a bitter pill to swallow at the time, but it was, on reflection, a good thing for the country (removed trade barriers, etc).

Don't want to take this off topic, so if someone could PM me about it, that'd be good.

Bugger the PM, lots of younguns might want to know...
My take, in a nutshell, was that when Liarbore took the '84 election, the country was in the shit due to Muldoon's style of government. So Rogernomics concentrated on reducing debt by selling off some strategic SOEs, and altering the way business of all types was done by removing tariffs on imported goods, and ceasing farmer subsidies. In other words, creating a free-market system. A local manufacturer had to compete against cheaper overseas (read Asian) products, or go under. Most went under.

[Brett]

Yeah sure....

The worlds economy is falling apart at the seams, governments are desperately trying to stimulate economies yet bolster the necessary spending (and extra spending they are having to make) and yet, we are still entitled to a tax break?

I read a really interesting book a while ago and it said something interesting and true.

Paraphrased:

The people who are complaining about taxes are the poor and middle class. The rish use their financial aids (such as accountants etc.) to minimise their tax liabilities and pay as little tax as possible.

Now I am not in the rish category *yet*, but I see truth in this arguement. My father in law for example who was paying personal income tax just from his day job well into the upper tax bracket and then still had significant income generated from a stocks portfolio and still legitimately got his tax bill down to 2% of his total income...
Stop the bitching and moaning and look for ways to help yourself out without the government having to do it for you.
FACT - No government is looking out for your specific well being, you need to do that yourself. So get onto it.

[Hitcher]

A local manufacturer had to compete against cheaper overseas (read Asian) products, or go under. Most went under.

But again it's not as simple as that. Most New Zealand manufacturing was heavily subsidised and so too was agriculture. This took the form of either direct government financial support or other mechanisms such as import licensing. The costs of this were spectacular. Government support of the sheepmeat industry cost $1 million a day for the 1,000 days it ran. The auto-assembly industry cost the taxpayer $275,000 per job. Those examples are tasters for similar scenarios across the economy.

Prior to import restrictions being phased out a $5 T-shirt cost $65. Now they cost $5.

The State-Owned Enterprise issue is a whole different can of worms. But there were good reasons for the decisions made in 1984 -- NZ Rail, for example, employed over 20,000 people doing god-knows what. There were similarly bloated government agencies all over the place.

[Marmoot]

...how much a personal guarantee from John Key is worth.

Bet all you geniuses who voted for "the tax cut party" are feeling really smart now, huh?

The tax cut became a moot point as soon as the billion-dollar hole in ACC pocket was revealed.

I bet you geniuses who voted for "the ACC party" in the previous election are feeling really smart now, huh?

[Winston001]

My understanding (I'm 28 for reference purposes) is that it was a bitter pill to swallow at the time, but it was, on reflection, a good thing for the country (removed trade barriers, etc).

The above answers are good.

Essentially NZ in 1984 was a command economy, controlled by Robert Muldoon, labelled Fortress New Zealand. The economic principle was "borrow and hope". Make imports expensive, subsidise areas of the economy, and wait for world meat/wool/dairy/fish/timber prices to recover. When that happened we'd recover and be rich.

The fact that it took until 2000 for this to happen could never have been foreseen by Muldoon.

But forget about Muldoon. From about 1981 the USA under Reagan and the UK under Thatcher began to change to open market economies. Other nations followed.

The changes were influenced by Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics in what is called neo-classicism and liberalism. Free markets.

Many Kiwis are so insular they do not realise that Roger Douglas was far from alone on the world stage and his ideas were shared by many other governments. The reason there is so much hot comment about Douglas is the speed of change and shock to a socialist nation. There is still bitterness 25 years later.

It is fair to say that neo-classicism has it's faults - eg. the dot.com bubble, and the current recession caused by unregulated capital flows.

[Mully]

The tax cut became a moot point as soon as the billion-dollar hole in ACC pocket was revealed.

I bet you geniuses who voted for "the ACC party" in the previous election are feeling really smart now, huh?

Ironically, if the Nats had carried on with the tax cuts, this thread would be the whinging lefties screaming about how it's unaffordabe and irresponsible, etc.......

Good times.

[monkeymcbean]

But again it's not as simple as that. Most New Zealand manufacturing was heavily subsidised and so too was agriculture. This took the form of either direct government financial support or other mechanisms such as import licensing. The costs of this were spectacular. Government support of the sheepmeat industry cost $1 million a day for the 1,000 days it ran. The auto-assembly industry cost the taxpayer $275,000 per job. Those examples are tasters for similar scenarios across the economy.

Prior to import restrictions being phased out a $5 T-shirt cost $65. Now they cost $5.

The State-Owned Enterprise issue is a whole different can of worms. But there were good reasons for the decisions made in 1984 -- NZ Rail, for example, employed over 20,000 people doing god-knows what. There were similarly bloated government agencies all over the place.

Sir Rogers whole reason for being was the removal of privilege, which the bleaters want reinstated.

[rainman]

Well, that was the most fun I've had all week...

Anyone who votes for a political party purely on the basis of "promises" deserves the resulting gaping anus.

True, and kinda part of my point.

And I think more people voted against Liarbour than voted for National

Absolutely true. But not the only option.

I happen to think hes alright but, and naturally, his pre-election policies were just that...pre. What would you expect from a person who desperately wanted the Prime job? Say whatever it takes, once in power, you can change the game plan.

I believe people (such as me) were making this point before the election, but were roundly denounced for saying such rude things about that trustworthy Mr Key.

Who'd you vote for?

Green. For their integrity, but also because they're least worst. Yes seriously.

Get you fricken head out of the sand you fool!!! I'm glad genius's like you don't have anything to do with politics!!

LOLZ On so many levels.

Tell me I don't know anything, but....
it seems to me that possibly just possibly when Key/National made "promises" of tax cuts the extent of the financial recession was not fully known.

Personally, I had no issue with tax levels pre-election and said then that it should not have been the main issue of the election, but the electorate got pretty fired up about the way that "Liabour" had been stealing from them for years, too much of their money going to causes they don't support etc.

We are now left with a choice, either:
1. Key and the Nats lied to gain office and are as much a bunch of brazen power seekers as Labour. Bill's taped comments at that Nat function were true, in other words.
2. They are incompetent at risk management - either not foreseeing the current state of the economy, or making a bunch of bold assumptions about the state of the NZ books.

Either way they can't be trusted - particularly as these are dark times. Given they campaigned on trust (and Labour campaigned against their trustworthiness) this is significant, and so I thought I'd do the public service of pointing it out.

surely,
you didn't really think they could do tax cuts when the world economy is going to hell.

No. But then I was sure they were bullshitting all along.

1, Tax cuts obviously means sweet fuck all...
however they did harp on about it for like 3 years, so it's a bit of a pain as it was one of their main election "promises"....
You may say, well Labour should've given tax cuts earlier. Well if they had we'd be in even bigger shite now and even more in dept.

Think not putting into super and decreasing funding for R & D, will come back to bite us in the arse, but only time will tell.

Insulation subsidy is good seeing as NZ houses are fucking cold.

Would've liked to see something to help stimulate job growth.

6/6. Agreed on all fronts.

Seen the papers lately? You might want to have a look, there’s some things going on with the economy you may be interested in ...

Was easy to forecast and I don't believe they did not know this was coming. Or they're fuckwits. Pick one.

Key sold the tax cuts as a means of stimulating the economy now he has changed his mind to soften up the public for further asset sales on the grounds that private industry can make a better go than government.

Indeed, ideology, not pragmatism, is sadly what drives NZ politics.

The Labour ( Failure ) party were very ''economical with the truth'' re how actually bare the cupboard was....

Irrelevant, see above.

I didnt vote for National because of the tax cut policy, Ive always voted for them because they have a better balanced philosophy and they dont attract morons like Ruth Dyson and Trevor Mallard into their fold.

C'mon, Trev's a quality bloke.

So instead we should have voted for the other lot who left the Government's accounts in tatters, deliberately misleading the New Zealand electorate about the ACC deficit or the true cost of the Kiwi Rail purchase, amongst other things?...
A stable Standard & Poor's AA+ rating is a magnificent outcome, all things considered.

Not the only option, stop thinking FPP. And I see you've fallen for the S&P bogeyman story.

I agree Sir Roger should be in the chair. I'll help you plug it in and throw the switch if you like.

Pure comedy gold! Bling on the way..

But they do! This is why democracy is doomed for failure. Everyone's vote is just as valid and valuable as the next person's. Once the ignorant outnumber the informed, Labour will be back in power Actually, I think this has already happened but luckily a lot of the ignorant are too apathetic to get to a polling booth

You have a better system in mind?

The worlds economy is falling apart at the seams, governments are desperately trying to stimulate economies yet bolster the necessary spending (and extra spending they are having to make) and yet, we are still entitled to a tax break?...

Nope, but that was my point pre-election - and tax cuts are meant to be a stimulus, right? The Gospel of Libertarianism says that money spent by you is always better than money spent by government, right? Governments are so inefficient they even overcome the advantages of scale they get, an we should drown them in bathtubs. Right?

I'm just crowing over being right.

FACT - No government is looking out for your specific well being, you need to do that yourself. So get onto it.

True. But perhaps not how you may mean it.