Cunliffe's constituent Liu?

**Ocean1** · 22nd June 2014, 17:11

QUOTE=mada;1130736842]Like I said, look at the past history with polls - they are not reliable. [/QUOTE]

http://www.interactives.co.nz/2013/J...thodology.html

Click image for larger version.

Name: NZ_opinion_polls_2011-2014-majorparties.png
Views: 4
Size: 12.1 KB
ID: 298305

[

NEXT!

Originally Posted by mada

Things would be much better if we were a right wing bastion of free markets - where the productive sector made up the bulk of the economy and the service sector made sweet fuck all.

There's a country that works like that - it's called Somalia.

Free market concepts aren't an artefact of the right, they're simply the baseline against which all commercial performance should be measured.

Somalia is in fact the perfect example of the natural consequence of unrestrained socialism: 0% producers, 100% non-producers.

Originally Posted by mada

I love when people bring up the argument about "the productive sector" and everyone who sponges of them...

Based on this view a motorcycle mechanic who doesn't produce anything is arguably worthless compared to Harley Davidson, Honda etc. who pump out the bikes. What a load of crap.

My point was to highlight how fucking ridiculous it is to refer to those who actually produce something of some value as a "sector", as if it's perfectly reasonable to expect to be part of some alternative. It's not. And the service "sector" IS part of the productive sector, anyone who provides something someone else wants is by definition productive.

Originally Posted by mada

Those who bleat the loudest about beneficiaries would be the first to complain if everyone had a job and inflation was to rise or they had troubles finding a worker who would accept crap pay.

They would, eh?

Well at least it'd make a change from beneficiaries bleating about not wanting to work for the presumably uncrap pay they're currently not earning.

Originally Posted by mada

It's not left wing economics that creates unemployment and beneficaries, right wing economics requires it - otherwise the labour market is not "competitive".

Yes. Which "right wing" economics require unemployment and beneficiaries?

Never mind. I can see you're another who feels strongly enough about some fuzzy bourgeoisie not to confuse facts with opinion.

Go away.

**mada** · 22nd June 2014, 17:46

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion...and_key_events

Shows it all. Poll range pre-2011 election for National lowest = 47% and highest = 57.4%. Most polls in mid 50's. On election date, Nationals result = 47%. Like I said, if you're so confident about the polls you wont need to turn up. It's a Dunne deal right?!

NZ's monetary policy:

http://nzier.org.nz/economics/monetary-policy

"The inflation tradeoff

In an economy, policy changes are about tradeoffs. With inflation the tradeoff is with unemployment. The Phillips curve, pioneered by New Zealand economist Bill Phillips, showed that when inflation rises unemployment falls and vice versa.

High levels of inflation are undesirable. However, if inflation is reduced by choking economic growth, this will lead to a rise in unemployment. Mass unemployment is also undesirable. Hence the RBNZ is charged with the delicate task of balancing inflation and unemployment."

Mainstream economics following Friedman's theories (right wing)

"Unemployment above 0% is seen as necessary to control inflation, to keep inflation from accelerating, i.e., from rising from year to year. This view is based on a theory centering on the concept of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU); in the current era, the majority of mainstream economists mean NAIRU when speaking of "full" employment. The NAIRU has also been described by Milton Friedman, among others, as the "natural" rate of unemployment."

"In monetarist economics, particularly the work of Milton Friedman,[1] NAIRU is an acronym for non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment,[2] and refers to a level of unemployment below which inflation rises. It is widely used in mainstream economics. It was first introduced as NIRU (non-inflationary rate of unemployment) in Modigliani ï¿½ Papademos (1975), as an improvement over the "natural rate" of unemployment concept.[3][4][5]

According to the economics Cambridge IGCSE specification, NAIRU involves allowing just enough unemployment in the economy to prevent inflation rising above a given target figure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU

Where are all these lazy beneficiaries bleating about crap pay and it being too hard to work, I always hear righties go on about them - yet when it comes to providing proof, they are somehow scant with their evidence? They hanging out with the mythical hundreds of thousands of young women who have babies to go on the dole?

NZ's largest group of beneficiaries number 600,000 and they take approx $11 billion each year from pensioners. I'm sure like most other righties you wont dip your hand into the socialist kittys of pension and free health care.

**AllanB** · 22nd June 2014, 18:06

Watched him on TV this morning. Do not like his 'style' arrogant. One more strike and Labour is truely stuffed for this election. THe problem with that is The friggen Greens will just get more votes

**Akzle** · 22nd June 2014, 18:18

Originally Posted by mada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion...and_key_events

Shows it all. Poll range pre-2011 election for National lowest = 47% and highest = 57.4%. Most polls in mid 50's. On election date, Nationals result = 47%. Like I said, if you're so confident about the polls you wont need to turn up. It's a Dunne deal right?!

NZ's monetary policy:

http://nzier.org.nz/economics/monetary-policy

"The inflation tradeoff

In an economy, policy changes are about tradeoffs. With inflation the tradeoff is with unemployment. The Phillips curve, pioneered by New Zealand economist Bill Phillips, showed that when inflation rises unemployment falls and vice versa.

High levels of inflation are undesirable. However, if inflation is reduced by choking economic growth, this will lead to a rise in unemployment. Mass unemployment is also undesirable. Hence the RBNZ is charged with the delicate task of balancing inflation and unemployment."

Mainstream economics following Friedman's theories (right wing)

"Unemployment above 0% is seen as necessary to control inflation, to keep inflation from accelerating, i.e., from rising from year to year. This view is based on a theory centering on the concept of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU); in the current era, the majority of mainstream economists mean NAIRU when speaking of "full" employment. The NAIRU has also been described by Milton Friedman, among others, as the "natural" rate of unemployment."

"In monetarist economics, particularly the work of Milton Friedman,[1] NAIRU is an acronym for non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment,[2] and refers to a level of unemployment below which inflation rises. It is widely used in mainstream economics. It was first introduced as NIRU (non-inflationary rate of unemployment) in Modigliani � Papademos (1975), as an improvement over the "natural rate" of unemployment concept.[3][4][5]

According to the economics Cambridge IGCSE specification, NAIRU involves allowing just enough unemployment in the economy to prevent inflation rising above a given target figure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU

Where are all these lazy beneficiaries bleating about crap pay and it being too hard to work, I always hear righties go on about them - yet when it comes to providing proof, they are somehow scant with their evidence? They hanging out with the mythical hundreds of thousands of young women who have babies to go on the dole?

NZ's largest group of beneficiaries number 600,000 and they take approx $11 billion each year from pensioners. I'm sure like most other righties you wont dip your hand into the socialist kittys of pension and free health care.

i'm'a buy you a beer onetime

**oldrider** · 22nd June 2014, 18:41

Originally Posted by mada

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion...and_key_events

Shows it all. Poll range pre-2011 election for National lowest = 47% and highest = 57.4%. Most polls in mid 50's. On election date, Nationals result = 47%. Like I said, if you're so confident about the polls you wont need to turn up. It's a Dunne deal right?!

NZ's monetary policy:

http://nzier.org.nz/economics/monetary-policy

"The inflation tradeoff

In an economy, policy changes are about tradeoffs. With inflation the tradeoff is with unemployment. The Phillips curve, pioneered by New Zealand economist Bill Phillips, showed that when inflation rises unemployment falls and vice versa.

High levels of inflation are undesirable. However, if inflation is reduced by choking economic growth, this will lead to a rise in unemployment. Mass unemployment is also undesirable. Hence the RBNZ is charged with the delicate task of balancing inflation and unemployment."

Mainstream economics following Friedman's theories (right wing)

"Unemployment above 0% is seen as necessary to control inflation, to keep inflation from accelerating, i.e., from rising from year to year. This view is based on a theory centering on the concept of the Non-Accelerating Inflation Rate of Unemployment (NAIRU); in the current era, the majority of mainstream economists mean NAIRU when speaking of "full" employment. The NAIRU has also been described by Milton Friedman, among others, as the "natural" rate of unemployment."

"In monetarist economics, particularly the work of Milton Friedman,[1] NAIRU is an acronym for non-accelerating inflation rate of unemployment,[2] and refers to a level of unemployment below which inflation rises. It is widely used in mainstream economics. It was first introduced as NIRU (non-inflationary rate of unemployment) in Modigliani ï¿½ Papademos (1975), as an improvement over the "natural rate" of unemployment concept.[3][4][5]

According to the economics Cambridge IGCSE specification, NAIRU involves allowing just enough unemployment in the economy to prevent inflation rising above a given target figure."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAIRU

Where are all these lazy beneficiaries bleating about crap pay and it being too hard to work, I always hear righties go on about them - yet when it comes to providing proof, they are somehow scant with their evidence? They hanging out with the mythical hundreds of thousands of young women who have babies to go on the dole?

NZ's largest group of beneficiaries number 600,000 and they take approx $11 billion each year from pensioners. I'm sure like most other righties you wont dip your hand into the socialist kittys of pension and free health care.

Labours latest forum election period poster plant has emerged ... wondered when you guys would start to show up!

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/member.php/39033-mada