So now we know...

[rainman]

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.

I LOL'ed. You're good...

[MSTRS:Me]

But again it's not as simple as that.

It was simple, in essence. Subsidies and tariffs allowed locally produced and forced imported goods to be overpriced. And exporters may have been getting rich, but it wasn't from the price that 'our' goods recd overseas...'we' all paid extra so that Mrs Mop in Liverpool could have a cheap Sunday roast of NZ lamb.
It was also around this time that Britain was becoming more involved with the EEC (as it was then) and backing away from the previously cosy deal (for them and our farmers) with NZ for our produce, so our traditional market was disappearing.
All the problems that this caused could be laid at Muldoon's door - the money he paid out in subsidies was not balanced out by the tariffs on imported goods, so had to be borrowed, along with that required for the so-called ThinkBig projects of the 70's.
The sale of SOEs was intended to repay that massive debt, and the change to a market economy was intended to stop the reason for that debt from recurring.
Rogernomics, as it got called, was a painful chapter, but had to happen.

[Oscar]

...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?

Er - both parties offered tax cuts.
And it would be pretty stupid to continue with a promise that has been overtaken by world events. Or do you think electing a Labour Govt. in NZ would have stopped a worldwide recession?

[Pixie]

...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?

Many tossers who said giving tax cuts would ruin the country and is a really bad idea,are now saying John Key has broken his promises even though giving tax cuts would really be a bad idea.

This is known as hypocrisy and the tossers are generally pinkos

[Robert Taylor]

So what has your implied statism got to do with Key reneging on his tax policy??



Skyryder

I get it, you dont.

[Squiggles]

I'd still vote for them.

[rainman]

Many tossers who said giving tax cuts would ruin the country and is a really bad idea,are now saying John Key has broken his promises even though giving tax cuts would really be a bad idea.

This is known as hypocrisy and the tossers are generally pinkos

Disagree. This is known in my book as pointing out that someone else has no integrity. My views on tax don't really enter into the transaction.

And I'm happy to be called a pinko. Better than being a useful idiot.

[Winston001]

I LOL'ed. You're good...

I aim to please.

It was simple, in essence. Subsidies and tariffs allowed locally produced and forced imported goods to be overpriced. And exporters may have been getting rich, but it wasn't from the price that 'our' goods recd overseas...'we' all paid extra so that Mrs Mop in Liverpool could have a cheap Sunday roast of NZ lamb.
It was also around this time that Britain was becoming more involved with the EEC (as it was then) and backing away from the previously cosy deal (for them and our farmers) with NZ for our produce, so our traditional market was disappearing.
All the problems that this caused could be laid at Muldoon's door - the money he paid out in subsidies was not balanced out by the tariffs on imported goods, so had to be borrowed, along with that required for the so-called ThinkBig projects of the 70's.
The sale of SOEs was intended to repay that massive debt, and the change to a market economy was intended to stop the reason for that debt from recurring.
Rogernomics, as it got called, was a painful chapter, but had to happen.

Muldoon is unfairly demonised these days. I didn't like the man but accept the principle which NZ operated under back then.

In 1972 the UK committed to the Common Market (EU) and stopped its preferential buying of meat from NZ. That was a huge blow to our economy.

Then in 1973 OPEC flexed its muscles for the first time and doubled the price of oil. Our economy tanked.

People still remembered the 1950 wool boom and hoped it (or something similar) could happen again. So the government (both Labour then National) used tariffs and subsidies to tide us over until the good times arrived.

Think Big - these misunderstood projects were aimed at making NZ independent of international industries. We could make our own steel, methanol etc. Electrification of the NI main trunk. A third potline at Tiwai.

The conventional view is Think Big was a failure - yet most of the plants and infrastructure built continue in production today. Unfortunately they aren't now owned by the govt.

[MSTRS:Me]

The interdependent nature of it all...
Timing is everything. That, and brinksmanship. A good hand is not always a winner.

[PuppetMaster]

Disagree. This is known in my book as pointing out that someone else has no integrity. My views on tax don't really enter into the transaction.

You've had too many blows to the head.

[Hitcher]

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

Hmmm, removal of inefficiencies and waste more likely.

In hindsight the sequencing of events could have been a bit cleverer, as could the way state assets were split up. Separating Telecom's network from its retail business would have helped, ditto for rail and electricity assets.

[Skyryder]

...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.




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?



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.

Nothing you have said come close as to why tax cuts won't work now that NZs in a recession when Key said that they would stimulate the economy when we were heading into one during the election. Key is also on record stating at the Job summit that the NZ economy is in pretty good shape. (my words)

Your STFU remark clearly indicates your inability to come up with a viable answer.

Have a happy day.


Skyryder

[Winston001]

NZ was already in recession when National was elected. However - many people including the governor of the Reserve Bank believed the worst was over because we didn't have sub-prime mortgages and similar investments. So things looked dull but not too bad.

6 months later commodity prices are still going down and wealthy western nations - whom we sell to - are reintroducing trade barriers. Things now look seriously bleak. It would be irresponsible of any government to continue spending while reducing tax income. I don't like it but accept it.

[MisterD]

Your STFU remark clearly indicates your inability to come up with a viable answer.

For the benefit of other leftards, I shall make the implicit explicit:

You're bleating about one of many policies National campaigned on being deferred because Cullen left us deeper in the shit that we imagined we were...whereas your side had an election campaign based around mud slinging and lies with no actual policy at all.

Hence the STFU.

[Naki Rat]

This article by Gareth Morgan gives a overview of the current economic situation in his usual no-punches-pulled style. It makes sense of where the budget fits into the bigger picture.

Very insightful but bleak reading