The 2017 Election Thread

[husaberg]

The downward trend (not spiral) I spoke of was in regard to the debt/GDP ratio figures, which I thought so obviously a good thing I would not have to spell it out for you. What I'm calling you out on, is the drivel you spout about how much better red is than blue, when the trend remains unchanged, it does not back up your assertions in the slightest. When the trend is 2 months log it is statistically insignificant, thus my questioning around trying to find the subsequent 7 months of data...

I know you're not the smartest, but even you should be able to grasp these very simple concepts.

As i have said i have never said red is better then blue i have only responded with rather obvious data that shows what you and ocean have spouted it ttotal crap not backed by actual figures or actual hard data.
you can question all you like the data has not been calculated yet.
how many times do you need the same answer to the same troll question

Exactly, noble intentions with near 0 chance of success. Kind of like their debt reduction 'policy' does anyone else wonder if the graph Husaberg posted was deliberately cut short to avoid showing what labor is doing to the national debt?

What year is it? What year does the graph go to?
Isn't it? What about free market competition?

Year, but it does seem like there could be something rather important that happened in the 2017 year when trying to compare red/vs blue performance on govt debt...

will the trend continue downwards or will it reverse? That's the Red vs Blue question you seem determined to not answer...

Where's the last 7 months on that graph?

When the trend is 2 months log it is statistically insignificant, thus my questioning around trying to find the subsequent 7 months of data...
I know you're not the smartest, but even you should be able to grasp these very simple concepts.

[Graystone]

As i have said i have never said red is better then blue i have only responded with rather obvious data that shows what you and ocean have spouted it ttotal crap not backed by actual figures or actual hard data.
you can question all you like the data has not been calculated yet.
how many times do you need the same answer to the same troll question

Well you call them Labor and National, I use red and blue to highlight the moronically partisan approach you take to political policy.

Look for the deeper question and answer, if you do not have the data, do not draw the conclusion. We have no idea if labour would have performed any better over the years national raised our debt, to estimate it we would have to look at when govt changed but circumstances did not, which hasn't happened since '96 where a downwards trend from '90 simply continued. The previous govt change does show a trend reversal though... What we do know, and what Ocean pointed out, is that NZ performed very well (relatively) through the trying times of the 2008 GFC.

[Swoop]

We would have been royally fucked if labour was in charge during the GFC. Plain and simple.
In comparison, we were only "mildly" affected.

NO NEW TAXES!

Did anyone over six years old really fall for that?

Yup. Those deluded by a smile & short memories.

including raising GST which they promised they would not do.

They were forced to do that because of liarbour emptying the piggybank on a broken trainset (to buy the rail union votes...). That was a wonderful move now that everything is being transported by rail [/sarcasm mode].

[Viking01]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/pol...ell-not-really

[Grumph]

We would have been royally fucked if labour was in charge during the GFC. Plain and simple.
In comparison, we were only "mildly" affected.

I can't let that pass without comment. The ChCh earthquakes were the salvation of the govt at the time. So much insurance money came into NZ in the 3 -4 years post quakes that we looked bloody good on paper....

Most ChCh residents would also now hold the belief that under a Labour govt priorities would have been different. Housing rather than business premises would probably have had priority - as it has become apparent it should have been.

[husaberg]

. What we do know, and what Ocean pointed out, is that NZ performed very well (relatively) through the trying times of the 2008 GFC.

Relativity well is not what ocean said though was it.

It's a fucking joke. A
Seriously, dude give it a rest, it does absolutely nothing to change the facts that this lot are fucking up a historically good economic run. You had a decade to bleat about how your pet bogymen supposedly fucked up, it's time to hold this lot accountable for their bullshit.

Also the whole time labour was in power aggressively paying off debt, national was yapping that they should have been cutting tax.... go figure it yourself

[Graystone]

Relativity well is not what ocean said though was it.
Also the whole time labour was in power aggressively paying off debt, national was yapping that they should have been cutting tax.... go figure it yourself

It was probably another term that should not have required spelling out for you.
And you think their decision not to cut tax makes Red better than Blue?

[husaberg]

We would have been royally fucked if labour was in charge during the GFC. Plain and simple.
In comparison, we were only "mildly" affected.
Yup. Those deluded by a smile & short memories

They were forced to do that because of liarbour emptying the piggybank on a broken trainset (to buy the rail union votes...). That was a wonderful move now that everything is being transported by rail [/sarcasm mode].

Rail union votes seriously rail union votes...................

[husaberg]

It was probably another term that should not have required spelling out for you.
And you think their decision not to cut tax makes Red better than Blue?

Do i think its better to pay off debt rather than endlessly borrowing money to fund corporate tax cuts while just raking up more interest on debt why yes.
As do most people who can add.

[Graystone]

Do i think its better to pay off debt rather than endlessly borrowing money to fund corporate tax cuts while just raking up more interest on debt why yes.
As do most people who can add.

Endlessly borrowing? I must have missed that part of the policy... I know how you like to stick to simple concepts like addition (even when interest is clearly multiplication), but; sometimes, it is worth borrowing up front, to realise net gains overall. It's kind of why mortgages are a thing. Do you know how much low value goods we export because we haven't invested in the plant required to process it to high value? Politicans have a propensity to fuck things up, but a plan to value add prior to export would certainly get my vote, looking for future gains in GDP that might go beyond a govt term often requires debt.

[husaberg]

[Swoop]

Rail union votes seriously rail union votes...................

People like to claim that "big business pulls national's strings" but they forget who is pulling labours. Businesses are at least predictabe in as much as they want to make a profit and they also employ people. Labour, on the other hand, have political machinations and all sorts of other interests "dabbling" in the background for their own agendas. With socialists' it is a simple matter of personal power and gains whilst claiming they are working for the betterment of everyone.

How much benefit has the railway returned to NZ since being purchased? A better approach would have simply left the Australian owners to sell off rail at a "knock-down" price and purchase it at that stage, rather than purchasing at a premium rate - which emptied the coffers of all the savings (taxpayers being bled dry... again) they had made over their 9yr reign of terror.

[husaberg]

People like to claim that "big business pulls national's strings" but they forget who is pulling labours. Businesses are at least predictabe in as much as they want to make a profit and they also employ people. Labour, on the other hand, have political machinations and all sorts of other interests "dabbling" in the background for their own agendas. With socialists' it is a simple matter of personal power and gains whilst claiming they are working for the betterment of everyone.

How much benefit has the railway returned to NZ since being purchased? A better approach would have simply left the Australian owners to sell off rail at a "knock-down" price and purchase it at that stage, rather than purchasing at a premium rate - which emptied the coffers of all the savings (taxpayers being bled dry... again) they had made over their 9yr reign of terror.

They paid $1 for the railway network but it was substantially more than it was worth.
Due to its run down condition.
I seriously do not believe there was a railway union that had any pull or any large number of members.

rail and maritime union has 4,658. members

the retail union FIRST has 27,500 members

No idea how many Etu has but it pretty big

PSA has 63,000 members

so to suggest the railway union big enough to control the goverment is pretty funny.

[Ocean1]

People like to claim that "big business pulls national's strings" but they forget who is pulling labours.

The unions don't pull labour's strings. They don't have to, they built the party, launched it and have controlled it ever since. They retain voting rights on caucus appointments as both affiliates AND as party members. Make no mistake, labour aren't influenced by the unions in NZ, they ARE the unions in NZ.

[Ocean1]

They paid $1 for the railway network but it was substantially more than it was worth.
Due to its run down condition.
I seriously do not believe there was a railway union that had any pull or any large number of members.

They paid $1 for the infrastructure assets.

http://www.kiwirail.co.nz/about-us/h...atisation.html

But.

The Government chose the purchase option and after protracted negotiations with Toll, bought the business in 2008 for $665 million.

Not including a maintenance contract with Toll as the beneficiary, costing even more.

Govt's have subsequently lost further hundreds of millions keeping the fucking business afloat.