John Key has been unable to turn our economy around

[shrub]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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 ( 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

[mashman]

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

I understand that. Communism, Capitalism, Democracy, Michels Oligarchy , 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]

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




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]

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]

?



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

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]

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]

?

shrub asked what more I wanted ... 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 Surely these very clever smart people must have thought of this and dismissed it for very good reasons ? 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 ... 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 . 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 ). 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... 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 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 , 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

[popelli]

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]

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

[Winston001]

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

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.

[shrub]

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!

[Skyryder]

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/n...ebrity-crushes


Skyryder