So we got a new Government, and a new Leader

[Forest]

There's a whole gernaration who never 'experianced' living under
Rodgernomics. It is just a name bandied about and had little to do with their own experiance. Most of Key's front rank are names assosiated with these times and are sympethetic to the ideology. They are going to find out real fast.

Skyryder

There are some things you should know about Rogernomics.

(a) Roger Douglas was the Finance Minister in a Labour Party government when he began to restructure the economy.

(b) The Rogernomics program began in 1984. The NZ voters must have approved of the changes as both Roger Douglas and the Labour Party were re-elected in 1987.

(c) The economic changes implemented under Rogernomics were both necessary and correct. Consequently neither National or Labour have undone any of the key Rogernomic policies i.e. we still have low levels of import-protection, sensible monetary and fiscal policies, deregulated financial markets, and limited subsidies or other government interventions in the economy

My only regret is that Rogernomics didn't go far enough. We really should have got the flat tax system that was being proposed.

[xwhatsit]

Arse. `New' National are centrist enough perhaps not to worry me too greatly, although I am more than a little concerned about how people like (for instance) my girlfriend's mother, who recently had a severe stroke and requires fairly constant support in her own home will be treated under a National regime. What Jim2 is saying is more than a little frightening. However the biggest worry is who they've jumped into bed with; ACT (lunatic right-wingers, Sir Roger Douglas ferchrissakes) and old bible-belt Intelligently Designed Peter Dunne.

It's frightening, because within that whole government, there isn't one remotely socially-orientated bunch of politicians. If they'd at least jumped into bed with the Greens (*shudder*) maybe things might be OK, but there's only right-centrists and far right in there. We might end up with more money but I don't know if we're going to be a very happy, healthy, educated nation in three years. White middle-class males, celebrate!

[trustme]

What the left fail to understand is that to pay for all the socially orientated services they have to grow the business of NZ inc in order to generate additional income to pay for more services. Labour only looked after half of the equation , thats why we will be running a govt deficit for the next 10 years, & why we have to start running trade surpluses, if we dont head in that direction sooner or later it all catches up & what do you know , welcome back Rogernomics.
I am no fan of Rogernomics but increased social spending is no answer
You have to earn the money before you spend it.

[jrandom]

White middle-class males, celebrate!

Thank you. I am.

[xwhatsit]

You have to earn the money before you spend it.

I was saying the same thing despite not voting for National; they want to cut taxes and sell off potentially profitable public assets, and they want to spend less on public services? Isn't that sort of like burning the candle at both ends?

Thank you.

@JRandom: The gap between us (WMCMs) and the rest of society is going to get bigger and bigger over the next few years.

[Skyryder]

There are some things you should know about Rogernomics.

(a) Roger Douglas was the Finance Minister in a Labour Party government when he began to restructure the economy.

(b) The Rogernomics program began in 1984. The NZ voters must have approved of the changes as both Roger Douglas and the Labour Party were re-elected in 1987.

(c) The economic changes implemented under Rogernomics were both necessary and correct. Consequently neither National or Labour have undone any of the key Rogernomic policies i.e. we still have low levels of import-protection, sensible monetary and fiscal policies, deregulated financial markets, and limited subsidies or other government interventions in the economy

My only regret is that Rogernomics didn't go far enough. We really should have got the flat tax system that was being proposed.

Tell me something I don't know.

You have forgotten the current world wide recession which many now believe are a direct consequence of free market economy and no regulatory checks.

Skyryder

[Jantar]

......National; they want to cut taxes and sell off potentially profitable public assets.....

Please elaborate. What potentially profitable public assets is it that they want to sell?

Oh, and please do remember that Labour have sold off far more assets than National ever have in the past.

[trustme]

I was saying the same thing despite not voting for National; they want to cut taxes and sell off potentially profitable public assets, and they want to spend less on public services? Isn't that sort of like burning the candle at both ends?
.

Cutting tax may very well increase the tax take for the govt , strange but true.
When tax went to 39% my accountant stated his role changed overnight from a business advisor to a tax advisor , Why you ask, cos 39% + gst meant people were paying over 50% in tax on every dollar they spent , it was a pill to bitter to swallow & people arranged their affairs to suit except for the poor mugs who didn't have such avenues available to them , They have been screwed by this govt & they are the ones who kicked them out
What public assets are they going to sell , Kiwi Bank is not for sale, they can't ditch rail because only an absolute moron would buy it , and our morons have reached their use by date .

[trustme]

Tell me something I don't know.

You have forgotten the current world wide recession which many now believe are a direct consequence of free market economy and no regulatory checks.

Skyryder

Clinton kicked it off by forcing Fannie & Freddie to lend money to poor people who had no hope of repaying housing loans. Too much unsecured lending , too much speculative borrowing.

Rogernomics was right but it's execution was apalling.

Our own current situation is not because of the overseas meltdown it has been caused by the govt & the reserve bank, the overseas shit is still coming.

[Swoop]

The winds of change have blown through the country. At last...

Particularly disturbing if you kept it under 140 when heading North today!

[Forest]

Clinton kicked it off by forcing Fannie & Freddie to lend money to poor people who had no hope of repaying housing loans. Too much unsecured lending , too much speculative borrowing.

Rogernomics was right but it's execution was apalling.

Our own current situation is not because of the overseas meltdown it has been caused by the govt & the reserve bank, the overseas shit is still coming.

Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae never made loans to home owners.

They were set up by the US government to purchase home loans from mortgage lenders, consolidate them into bundled securities, and then sell those securities to investors. The purpose for all this was to guarantee liquidity in the home lending market.

In other words, it was actually the private banks who lowered the lending standards for home loans.

But I agree with you about the unsecured lending and speculative borrowing. This crisis has been caused by a generation who chose to spend beyond their means, and by the lenders who extended them the credit to do so.

[Forest]

Tell me something I don't know.

You have forgotten the current world wide recession which many now believe are a direct consequence of free market economy and no regulatory checks.

And you seem to have forgotten that New Zealand is now a significantly wealthier country than it was in 1984.

This is a consequence of a free market economy and reduced government intervention.

[SARGE]

+1.


Subscribing to Kyoto.

yea .. i remember the shit storm the US landed in when GW refused to join up..

not as dumb as he looks huh?

[trustme]

Fannie Mac and Freddie Mae never made loans to home owners.

They were set up by the US government to purchase home loans from mortgage lenders, consolidate them into bundled securities, and then sell those securities to investors. The purpose for all this was to guarantee liquidity in the home lending market.

In other words, it was actually the private banks who lowered the lending standards for home loans.

As I understand it Clinton encouraged F & F to in effect purchase loans with reduced security , the banks duly complied by providing FA security, chicken or the egg , nett effect was the same, it is to a certain extent irrelevant to this debate.

[scumdog]

A
It's frightening, because within that whole government, there isn't one remotely socially-orientated bunch of politicians.

A shame Labour rammed 'socially-orientated' policies down our throat - the way THEY wanted us to have it, not what we actually needed.

And Labour might have stood a chance at the election if it's leader was not a magalomaniac lying two faced (and ugly to boot) bitch.