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...

[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...

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...

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.