Discussion:
Is this the death of neoliberalism?
Add Reply
Rich80105
2020-05-05 09:20:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12329251

Covid 19 coronavirus: Simon Wilson: Is this the death of
neoliberalism?

5 May, 2020 By: Simon Wilson NZ Herald

Everywhere we see the signs. Here and overseas, politicians who
usually insist that the market knows best have fallen silent.
Corporates that have benefitted from light-handed regulation now want
protection. Business lobbyists who complain about tax have their hands
out for help.

In March, Steve Baker, a leading libertarian MP in Britain, was
reportedly "nearly in tears" as he spoke in the House of Commons in
support of a massive economic aid package to address the Covid-19
pandemic.
"Libertarian though I may be, this is the right thing to do," he said.
"But, my goodness, we ought not to allow this situation to endure one
moment longer than is absolutely necessary to save lives and preserve
jobs."

Which is another way of saying his precious world view – that
governments should get out of everyone's way – was currently not only
useless, but dangerous.

He also said, "We are implementing tonight, in this bill, at least a
dystopian society."

A dystopian society? Or a society finding within itself the strength
of common purpose to defeat a pernicious enemy and rebuild itself from
the wreckage? What's dystopian about that? Being stronger together is
why we choose to live in societies in the first place.

What we are doing now has the makings of a great achievement of
civilisation. Those societies that get their pandemic response right
have the chance to become more resilient, less burdened by their
current failings, better able to face the next crisis and the next.

We're one of them.

You want to know what dystopia looks like? New York.

Some of the former cheerleaders of neoliberalism are smart enough to
have already flown the coop. In Britain the Economist, once a champion
of the Reagan/Thatcher economic revolution, is now firmly entrenched
in the mixed-economy camp. The Financial Times last month talked up
the value of redistributive taxes and more central planning.

Here and overseas, though, other champions are digging themselves in.
It's been suggested the Government should not try to choose which
industries to support during the recovery, as if "picking winners",
which is difficult, is the same thing as identifying necessary
industries and helping them to survive and evolve.

Seriously? We know we have an important future in food production. We
also know there's a technological revolution afoot which the
Government must ensure has every chance of thriving here. It's
happening in medicine, communications, education, logistics, farming
... it's not hard to add to this list.

Well, not literally "every chance": allowing corporates not to pay
tax, which is acceptable to neoliberals, can't be allowed to continue.

And can we agree that wherever we invest, we do so with a focus on the
future. More sustainable land use; better allocation of resources to
need; more flexible and rewarding ways to live, work and play.
That requires inspired Government direction. Right now, with billions
of dollars on the table, is the perfect moment to embed this thinking.

Which does point to one of the big fears of the remaining neoliberals:
we could be about to take the climate crisis seriously.

There's another: that we might take poverty more seriously. It's been
proposed the Government should roll back the April 1 increase in the
minimum wage, because it hurts small employers. But that doesn't even
make narrow economic sense, because what those employers need most of
all is spending to return to the economy. If you give poor people more
money, they will spend it.

Also under attack: the Provincial Growth Fund, branded as the "New
Zealand First slush fund". Let's be clear about this: how it's run
bears scrutiny, but that fund is designed to bring economic life back
to the regions. The alternative, pursued under neoliberalism, was to
leave some of them to rot.

One of the most treasured beliefs is that only an anointed few have
the proper skills to run a Government. Thus Prime Minister Jacinda
Ardern and her Finance Minister Grant Robertson are said to lack "real
world experience" – something which supposedly made their predecessors
"capable, intelligent and eloquent".

After 35 years of neoliberalism, let's just remember what those
"capable" leaders bequeathed us. A level of poverty that should be a
scandal in a developed society. A broken health system, a deeply
embedded housing crisis, rising carbon emissions and dysfunctional
transport in our major city.

None of these were "unintended consequences": they are the inevitable
result of the neoliberal policies pursued for so long in this country.
Real-world experience? Life in the rarefied, unproductive and utterly
amoral world of financial trading is about as unreal as it gets.
Sadly, neoliberalism isn't about to die just yet. In many parts of the
world, those in power are still happy to insist that if you focus
wealth on the wealthy, everyone else will benefit too. Trickle-down
economics.

The immediate problem here is transition. How do we do it? We're good
at reactive and compartmentalised thinking: pre-Budget, most
commentary has focused on immediate proposals: is this tax package
good enough, what will happen to that wage subsidy? These are
important questions but they channel us away from structural change.
They assume that all we want is a return to business as usual.
How will the Government jump? It's still susceptible to neoliberal
thinking but it is also committed to the Wellbeing Budget strategy.
Last year we saw the first, limited iteration. With a new Budget next
week, the great test is now.

Winston Peters had something to say about this last week, arguing for
a return to local manufacturing.

Why is that a bad idea? We're not going to start making Trekka cars
again, but is there a future in 3D-printed autonomous electric
vehicles? Maybe it's not 3D, or not yet, but maybe that technology can
be used, at scale, for other products?

Peters is inviting us to think about how we take charge of our own
destiny. It's the right question to ask.

Will we ask it? We want prosperity, but also biodiversity and the
sustainable management of resources. We don't yet know what a new
political economy that can deliver all that will look like.

But it isn't neoliberalism. If we didn't know that already, we
certainly do now.
Crash
2020-05-05 09:39:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12329251
Covid 19 coronavirus: Simon Wilson: Is this the death of
neoliberalism?
5 May, 2020 By: Simon Wilson NZ Herald
Everywhere we see the signs. Here and overseas, politicians who
usually insist that the market knows best have fallen silent.
Corporates that have benefitted from light-handed regulation now want
protection. Business lobbyists who complain about tax have their hands
out for help.
In March, Steve Baker, a leading libertarian MP in Britain, was
reportedly "nearly in tears" as he spoke in the House of Commons in
support of a massive economic aid package to address the Covid-19
pandemic.
"Libertarian though I may be, this is the right thing to do," he said.
"But, my goodness, we ought not to allow this situation to endure one
moment longer than is absolutely necessary to save lives and preserve
jobs."
Which is another way of saying his precious world view – that
governments should get out of everyone's way – was currently not only
useless, but dangerous.
He also said, "We are implementing tonight, in this bill, at least a
dystopian society."
A dystopian society? Or a society finding within itself the strength
of common purpose to defeat a pernicious enemy and rebuild itself from
the wreckage? What's dystopian about that? Being stronger together is
why we choose to live in societies in the first place.
What we are doing now has the makings of a great achievement of
civilisation. Those societies that get their pandemic response right
have the chance to become more resilient, less burdened by their
current failings, better able to face the next crisis and the next.
We're one of them.
You want to know what dystopia looks like? New York.
Some of the former cheerleaders of neoliberalism are smart enough to
have already flown the coop. In Britain the Economist, once a champion
of the Reagan/Thatcher economic revolution, is now firmly entrenched
in the mixed-economy camp. The Financial Times last month talked up
the value of redistributive taxes and more central planning.
Here and overseas, though, other champions are digging themselves in.
It's been suggested the Government should not try to choose which
industries to support during the recovery, as if "picking winners",
which is difficult, is the same thing as identifying necessary
industries and helping them to survive and evolve.
Seriously? We know we have an important future in food production. We
also know there's a technological revolution afoot which the
Government must ensure has every chance of thriving here. It's
happening in medicine, communications, education, logistics, farming
... it's not hard to add to this list.
Well, not literally "every chance": allowing corporates not to pay
tax, which is acceptable to neoliberals, can't be allowed to continue.
And can we agree that wherever we invest, we do so with a focus on the
future. More sustainable land use; better allocation of resources to
need; more flexible and rewarding ways to live, work and play.
That requires inspired Government direction. Right now, with billions
of dollars on the table, is the perfect moment to embed this thinking.
we could be about to take the climate crisis seriously.
There's another: that we might take poverty more seriously. It's been
proposed the Government should roll back the April 1 increase in the
minimum wage, because it hurts small employers. But that doesn't even
make narrow economic sense, because what those employers need most of
all is spending to return to the economy. If you give poor people more
money, they will spend it.
Also under attack: the Provincial Growth Fund, branded as the "New
Zealand First slush fund". Let's be clear about this: how it's run
bears scrutiny, but that fund is designed to bring economic life back
to the regions. The alternative, pursued under neoliberalism, was to
leave some of them to rot.
One of the most treasured beliefs is that only an anointed few have
the proper skills to run a Government. Thus Prime Minister Jacinda
Ardern and her Finance Minister Grant Robertson are said to lack "real
world experience" – something which supposedly made their predecessors
"capable, intelligent and eloquent".
After 35 years of neoliberalism, let's just remember what those
"capable" leaders bequeathed us. A level of poverty that should be a
scandal in a developed society. A broken health system, a deeply
embedded housing crisis, rising carbon emissions and dysfunctional
transport in our major city.
None of these were "unintended consequences": they are the inevitable
result of the neoliberal policies pursued for so long in this country.
Real-world experience? Life in the rarefied, unproductive and utterly
amoral world of financial trading is about as unreal as it gets.
Sadly, neoliberalism isn't about to die just yet. In many parts of the
world, those in power are still happy to insist that if you focus
wealth on the wealthy, everyone else will benefit too. Trickle-down
economics.
The immediate problem here is transition. How do we do it? We're good
at reactive and compartmentalised thinking: pre-Budget, most
commentary has focused on immediate proposals: is this tax package
good enough, what will happen to that wage subsidy? These are
important questions but they channel us away from structural change.
They assume that all we want is a return to business as usual.
How will the Government jump? It's still susceptible to neoliberal
thinking but it is also committed to the Wellbeing Budget strategy.
Last year we saw the first, limited iteration. With a new Budget next
week, the great test is now.
Winston Peters had something to say about this last week, arguing for
a return to local manufacturing.
Why is that a bad idea? We're not going to start making Trekka cars
again, but is there a future in 3D-printed autonomous electric
vehicles? Maybe it's not 3D, or not yet, but maybe that technology can
be used, at scale, for other products?
Peters is inviting us to think about how we take charge of our own
destiny. It's the right question to ask.
Will we ask it? We want prosperity, but also biodiversity and the
sustainable management of resources. We don't yet know what a new
political economy that can deliver all that will look like.
But it isn't neoliberalism. If we didn't know that already, we
certainly do now.
I can understand this viewpoint but with COVID-19 business owners were
blown out of the water of their marketplace by something they could
never have foreseen combined by unimaginable government actions taken
that blew away their ability to do business with no more than 48 hours
notice. While some support measures were hastily (by necessity) put
in place many business-owners foundered in the face of 48-hours notice
of no income.

The corollary of this is that people will no longer go into business.
Why would you start a new business when after spending years to
develop that idea into a profitable enterprise, your entire business
is blown apart with 48-hours notice because of a threat you could
never envisage? That is one of the major issues we face in the next
5-10 years - that our innovators will stick with their no-risk
salaried jobs rather than take a punt.


--
Crash McBash
JohnO
2020-05-05 20:09:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Simon Wilson is a political dinosaur who favours big government trying to pick winners. He gets it exactly round the wrong way. Welcome back to Muldoonism.

Ashley Church gets it though.
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/37877

As does Oliver Hartwich.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/05/coronavirus-government-s-post-covid-recovery-should-take-a-leaf-out-of-germany-s-book-economist.amp.html

History is littered with economic failure by government getting in the way of free enterprise.
Rich80105
2020-05-05 22:33:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Simon Wilson is a political dinosaur who favours big government trying to pick winners. He gets it exactly round the wrong way. Welcome back to Muldoonism.
Ashley Church gets it though.
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/37877
As does Oliver Hartwich.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/05/coronavirus-government-s-post-covid-recovery-should-take-a-leaf-out-of-germany-s-book-economist.amp.html
History is littered with economic failure by government getting in the way of free enterprise.
The answer to everything is tax cuts, JohnO.
9 Billion dollars of GST reductions!

And what's even better is is retrospective; it goes straight to
profits. None of it wasted on employees.

True crony capitalism; lets get government small enough to drown in a
bathtub - after all government has just got in the way with this
Covid nonsense - if we had ignored it a few old people would have
died, but otherwise we could have just kept on truckin'!
Rich80105
2020-05-07 03:36:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Simon Wilson is a political dinosaur who favours big government trying to pick winners. He gets it exactly round the wrong way. Welcome back to Muldoonism.
Ashley Church gets it though.
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/37877
As does Oliver Hartwich.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/05/coronavirus-government-s-post-covid-recovery-should-take-a-leaf-out-of-germany-s-book-economist.amp.html
History is littered with economic failure by government getting in the way of free enterprise.
The answer to everything is tax cuts, JohnO.
9 Billion dollars of GST reductions!
And what's even better is is retrospective; it goes straight to
profits. None of it wasted on employees.
True crony capitalism; lets get government small enough to drown in a
bathtub - after all government has just got in the way with this
Covid nonsense - if we had ignored it a few old people would have
died, but otherwise we could have just kept on truckin'!
I got it wrong johnO, soprry
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich80105
2020-05-07 04:53:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Rich80105
Post by JohnO
Simon Wilson is a political dinosaur who favours big government trying to pick winners. He gets it exactly round the wrong way. Welcome back to Muldoonism.
Ashley Church gets it though.
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/37877
As does Oliver Hartwich.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/05/coronavirus-government-s-post-covid-recovery-should-take-a-leaf-out-of-germany-s-book-economist.amp.html
History is littered with economic failure by government getting in the way of free enterprise.
The answer to everything is tax cuts, JohnO.
9 Billion dollars of GST reductions!
And what's even better is is retrospective; it goes straight to
profits. None of it wasted on employees.
True crony capitalism; lets get government small enough to drown in a
bathtub - after all government has just got in the way with this
Covid nonsense - if we had ignored it a few old people would have
died, but otherwise we could have just kept on truckin'!
I got it wrong johnO, soprry
Whoever wrote that did indeed get it wrong - impersonating another
poster is very wrong.
James Christophers
2020-05-05 23:10:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Simon Wilson is a political dinosaur who favours big government trying to pick winners. He gets it exactly round the wrong way. Welcome back to Muldoonism.
Ashley Church gets it though.
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/37877
As does Oliver Hartwich.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/05/coronavirus-government-s-post-covid-recovery-should-take-a-leaf-out-of-germany-s-book-economist.amp.html
History is littered with economic failure by government getting in the way of free enterprise.
Likewise, History is littered with its hordes of self-interested Economics "gurus", Mr CVhurch being only one of them:

“Instead of funding corporate welfare, reduce, or even remove, company taxes for a set period of time. The incentive created will spark a period of economic growth unseen in our history.” Ashley Church.

Where has this previously happened? It would be germane to know, but Mr Church omits to say. After all, it's not as though there haven't been enough opportunities over the past 30 years to provide examples.

Doubtless Mr Church could usefully back what he says with all kinds of verifiable, authenticated stats to show exactly how his ideas would develop and swell the nation’s **real** per-capita productivity - but again, the estimable Mr Church does not reveal.

However, to make clear where Mr Church’s own interests actually lie:

Ashley Church is a “property professional” - IOW, a common-or-garden Mr-4%-Commission estate agent. He has also been sometime CEO of the (deferential cough) Property Institute of New Zealand, and I quote verbatim:

“These days, the Institute’s membership is mostly made up of Valuers, Property and Facilities Managers, Property Advisors, Consultants, and Infrastructure, Plant and Machinery Valuers.” (from the PINZ’s own PR handout)

So there you have it. But there’s more...

“The dark clouds of economic nationalism (the economic bedfellow of Nazism) are already gathering,” a doom-mongering Mr Church warns us.

I have news for Mr Church:

Economic nationalism is exactly what is now happening in the hard-right, realtor-infested sector of US where tax cuts for the already wealthy - such as those of Ashley Church’s stripe - has been the all-consuming preoccupation of the Oval Office since Trump took over.
JohnO
2020-05-06 02:33:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Simon Wilson is a political dinosaur who favours big government trying to pick winners. He gets it exactly round the wrong way. Welcome back to Muldoonism.
Ashley Church gets it though.
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/37877
As does Oliver Hartwich.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/05/coronavirus-government-s-post-covid-recovery-should-take-a-leaf-out-of-germany-s-book-economist.amp.html
History is littered with economic failure by government getting in the way of free enterprise.
“Instead of funding corporate welfare, reduce, or even remove, company taxes for a set period of time. The incentive created will spark a period of economic growth unseen in our history.” Ashley Church.
Where has this previously happened? It would be germane to know, but Mr Church omits to say. After all, it's not as though there haven't been enough opportunities over the past 30 years to provide examples.
Doubtless Mr Church could usefully back what he says with all kinds of verifiable, authenticated stats to show exactly how his ideas would develop and swell the nation’s **real** per-capita productivity - but again, the estimable Mr Church does not reveal.
“These days, the Institute’s membership is mostly made up of Valuers, Property and Facilities Managers, Property Advisors, Consultants, and Infrastructure, Plant and Machinery Valuers.” (from the PINZ’s own PR handout)
So there you have it. But there’s more...
“The dark clouds of economic nationalism (the economic bedfellow of Nazism) are already gathering,” a doom-mongering Mr Church warns us.
Economic nationalism is exactly what is now happening in the hard-right, realtor-infested sector of US where tax cuts for the already wealthy - such as those of Ashley Church’s stripe - has been the all-consuming preoccupation of the Oval Office since Trump took over.
Right - you won't accept Church's argument not because of his argument but because of how he makes a living? Good to see you are open about that.

And how about Dr Hartwich, a PhD economist who has similar ideas to Mr Church. Will you likewise disregard those because he's a Kraut?
Gordon
2020-05-06 04:34:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Simon Wilson is a political dinosaur who favours big government trying to pick winners. He gets it exactly round the wrong way. Welcome back to Muldoonism.
Ashley Church gets it though.
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/37877
As does Oliver Hartwich.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/05/coronavirus-government-s-post-covid-recovery-should-take-a-leaf-out-of-germany-s-book-economist.amp.html
History is littered with economic failure by government getting in the way of free enterprise.
“Instead of funding corporate welfare, reduce, or even remove, company taxes for a set period of time. The incentive created will spark a period of economic growth unseen in our history.” Ashley Church.
Where has this previously happened? It would be germane to know, but Mr Church omits to say. After all, it's not as though there haven't been enough opportunities over the past 30 years to provide examples.
Doubtless Mr Church could usefully back what he says with all kinds of verifiable, authenticated stats to show exactly how his ideas would develop and swell the nation’s **real** per-capita productivity - but again, the estimable Mr Church does not reveal.
“These days, the Institute’s membership is mostly made up of Valuers, Property and Facilities Managers, Property Advisors, Consultants, and Infrastructure, Plant and Machinery Valuers.” (from the PINZ’s own PR handout)
So there you have it. But there’s more...
“The dark clouds of economic nationalism (the economic bedfellow of Nazism) are already gathering,” a doom-mongering Mr Church warns us.
Economic nationalism is exactly what is now happening in the hard-right, realtor-infested sector of US where tax cuts for the already wealthy - such as those of Ashley Church’s stripe - has been the all-consuming preoccupation of the Oval Office since Trump took over.
Right - you won't accept Church's argument not because of his argument but because of how he makes a living? Good to see you are open about that.
And how about Dr Hartwich, a PhD economist who has similar ideas to Mr Church. Will you likewise disregard those because he's a Kraut?
Heck, why not? Keeps things simple eh?
James Christophers
2020-05-06 23:46:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Simon Wilson is a political dinosaur who favours big government trying to pick winners. He gets it exactly round the wrong way. Welcome back to Muldoonism.
Ashley Church gets it though.
https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/37877
As does Oliver Hartwich.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2020/05/coronavirus-government-s-post-covid-recovery-should-take-a-leaf-out-of-germany-s-book-economist.amp.html
History is littered with economic failure by government getting in the way of free enterprise.
“Instead of funding corporate welfare, reduce, or even remove, company taxes for a set period of time. The incentive created will spark a period of economic growth unseen in our history.” Ashley Church.
Where has this previously happened? It would be germane to know, but Mr Church omits to say. After all, it's not as though there haven't been enough opportunities over the past 30 years to provide examples.
Doubtless Mr Church could usefully back what he says with all kinds of verifiable, authenticated stats to show exactly how his ideas would develop and swell the nation’s **real** per-capita productivity - but again, the estimable Mr Church does not reveal.
“These days, the Institute’s membership is mostly made up of Valuers, Property and Facilities Managers, Property Advisors, Consultants, and Infrastructure, Plant and Machinery Valuers.” (from the PINZ’s own PR handout)
So there you have it. But there’s more...
“The dark clouds of economic nationalism (the economic bedfellow of Nazism) are already gathering,” a doom-mongering Mr Church warns us.
Economic nationalism is exactly what is now happening in the hard-right, realtor-infested sector of US where tax cuts for the already wealthy - such as those of Ashley Church’s stripe - has been the all-consuming preoccupation of the Oval Office since Trump took over.
Right - you won't accept Church's argument not because of his argument but because of how he makes a living?
Is it even an argument? I suggest it's no more than the thinnest of crudely wrought tracts in support of his and his cadre's parasitic ways.
Post by JohnO
Good to see you are open about that.
Indeed so. In fact couldn't have been more open in that I made plain to the reader exactly where Church is coming from.
Post by JohnO
And how about Dr Hartwich, a PhD economist who has similar ideas to Mr Church. Will you likewise disregard those because he's a Kraut?
By no means to be disregarded if only to point out that, be he "kraut" or no (why do you need so gratuitously to denigrate the man so?), his outfit is merely a tricked-out version of those of the "perfect knowledge" Douglas and Richardson persuasion and it's foghorn, the Business Round Table.

Dr Hartwich does make several points worthy of note, though. However, for an academic - and a PhD at that - his self-interest and his biases are too obvious for his prose to be taken at face value.

For example, much of what he says about Germany's recovery after WW2 is perfectly valid but it's what he doesn't tell us that matters. Giving his "once-over-lightly" treatment of what was during that period a highly complex economic and social process simply won't do. Crucially, he doesn't tell us that Germany received US funding enabling rapidly rebuild both its industrial base and its housing. This policy was to provide an economic, political and military buffer and protection against its aggressive cross-border neighbour, i.e. communist Russia under Stalin. Germany has never been asked to pay these billions back. However...

A well read and informed Chris Trotter provides the needed historical background to Dr Hartwich's piece. He gives a far more complete and accurate account of the people and circumstances surrounding what Hartwich has to say. To his great credit, he also goes some way to compensating for academic Hartwich's surprising lapse of intellectual rigour.

https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/104713/chris-trotter-argues-version-west-germanys-post-war-economic-miracle-presented-nz

Trotter is of the left persuasion and makes no bones about it. But the accuracy of the history he gives and the reasons behind it, including mention of the "atonement and reparation psyche" of the post-war German, are pretty well exactly how I recall them, having lived and grown with them almost within spitting distance over the first 40 or so years of my life.

Even so, to cut Dr Hartwich some slack: he is only 45 years old, having had neither first-hand knowledge nor any first-hand presence and involvement in Germany's post-WW2 recovery. Again, he is both child and 100% beneficiary of that same recovery and of the Western Alliances full economic and military support of his beloved vaterland during that period.

So, having never lived under the yoke of economic and political repression, he can well afford to hold and freely propound his libertarian views.

So, for the reader, this is an instance where it pays to bear in mind both relevance and context, both of story and of teller.
JohnO
2020-05-07 04:58:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
You and Trotter miss the point. Germany needed funding because its factories, power plants, railways, ports and so on had been destroyed. New Zealand doesn't have to replace infrastructure. It needs to get the economy moving and people employed productively doing things that are needed.

The lesson Hartwich gives us is about the decision making progress. It should be done by businesses not politicians. Free enterprise and capitalism... Experts with experience and skills in the game. Not some 'crats. Not throwing borrowed money around like confetti.

You lefties never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by a committee and throwing someone else's money at it.
James Christophers
2020-05-07 23:16:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
You and Trotter miss the point. Germany needed funding because its factories, power plants, railways, ports and so on had been destroyed.
Trotter touches on this early in his piece. The Marshall Plan.

Unlike the other nations funded by the post-war recovery Marshall Plan, these funds were handed by the Americans to Germany with no obligation to repay. Same went for Japan. Both countries and always have been legendary for their intellectual strengths and work ethic. No wonder then, that equipped across-the-board with brand new factories and the latest plant and technology - plus an intellectual input second to none - both nations rose quickly after the 1950s to dominate a modernising global economy for the next 50 years.
Post by JohnO
New Zealand doesn't have to replace infrastructure.
Really? Who told you this? Dr Oliver Hartwich PhD?

Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Stephen Selwood describes New Zealand's infrastructure deficit as “massive.”

“Nationwide we have an enormous challenge in front of us. The problem is just getting bigger and bigger. The evidence is clear.”

https://www.interest.co.nz/news/93445/scale-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-infrastructure-deficit-massive-and-cant-be-fixed-without-billions
Post by JohnO
It needs to get the economy moving and people employed productively doing things that are needed.
Productively? Governments have spent the last 50 years doing anything but. In fact, the last National government proved itself no better than any of its party's predecessors. Why? No vision, no strategy, no intellectual "bottom" nothing but drift and stagnation brought on by smartarse complacency and arrogance. And you know it.

So, adding Selwood's concerns to the unedifying Key/English mess of potage, why have you - a proud New Zealander no less - permitted such laisser-faire decadence to grow and now hold your own country so haplessly to ransom, and for so long?
Post by JohnO
The lesson Hartwich gives us is about the decision making progress. It should be done by businesses not politicians.
The kind of businesses that have been behind New Zealand's 50+ years of economic drift and stagnation? Really?
Post by JohnO
Free enterprise and capitalism...
No worries, provided their core imperative is real productivity and not today's fast-buck, zero-productivity money-churning. Sadly, previous experiences suggests this would be an ask too far.
Post by JohnO
Experts with experience and skills in the game.
That's just fine. But since Hartwich does not identify these people, perhaps you now will?
Post by JohnO
Not some 'crats.
Like Chinese 'crats' - i.e. technocrats - the men behind China's growth and development? Or German 'crats' for that matter? Why not, indeed?

Just a passing thought, though: right now, who and where are their New Zealander equivalents standing ready with all the skills and experience you say will be needed?
Post by JohnO
Not throwing borrowed money around like confetti.
Every country does it. Nothing easier than spending someone else's money, especially when it'll be future governments who'll be staving off their overseas creditors.
Post by JohnO
You lefties never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by a committee and throwing someone else's money at it.
Too keep things fair and balanced you might also have said you right-ards never saw a problem caused by corporate fraud and greed that couldn't be solved either by throwing hard-working taxpayers' money at it and/or taking on overseas debt that your luckless descendants will be lumbered with for generations.
Rich80105
2020-05-08 01:12:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 7 May 2020 16:16:07 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
You and Trotter miss the point. Germany needed funding because its factories, power plants, railways, ports and so on had been destroyed.
Trotter touches on this early in his piece. The Marshall Plan.
Unlike the other nations funded by the post-war recovery Marshall Plan, these funds were handed by the Americans to Germany with no obligation to repay. Same went for Japan. Both countries and always have been legendary for their intellectual strengths and work ethic. No wonder then, that equipped across-the-board with brand new factories and the latest plant and technology - plus an intellectual input second to none - both nations rose quickly after the 1950s to dominate a modernising global economy for the next 50 years.
Post by JohnO
New Zealand doesn't have to replace infrastructure.
Really? Who told you this? Dr Oliver Hartwich PhD?
Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Stephen Selwood describes New Zealand's infrastructure deficit as “massive.”
“Nationwide we have an enormous challenge in front of us. The problem is just getting bigger and bigger. The evidence is clear.”
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/93445/scale-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-infrastructure-deficit-massive-and-cant-be-fixed-without-billions
Post by JohnO
It needs to get the economy moving and people employed productively doing things that are needed.
Productively? Governments have spent the last 50 years doing anything but. In fact, the last National government proved itself no better than any of its party's predecessors. Why? No vision, no strategy, no intellectual "bottom" nothing but drift and stagnation brought on by smartarse complacency and arrogance. And you know it.
So, adding Selwood's concerns to the unedifying Key/English mess of potage, why have you - a proud New Zealander no less - permitted such laisser-faire decadence to grow and now hold your own country so haplessly to ransom, and for so long?
Post by JohnO
The lesson Hartwich gives us is about the decision making progress. It should be done by businesses not politicians.
The kind of businesses that have been behind New Zealand's 50+ years of economic drift and stagnation? Really?
Post by JohnO
Free enterprise and capitalism...
No worries, provided their core imperative is real productivity and not today's fast-buck, zero-productivity money-churning. Sadly, previous experiences suggests this would be an ask too far.
Post by JohnO
Experts with experience and skills in the game.
That's just fine. But since Hartwich does not identify these people, perhaps you now will?
Post by JohnO
Not some 'crats.
Like Chinese 'crats' - i.e. technocrats - the men behind China's growth and development? Or German 'crats' for that matter? Why not, indeed?
Just a passing thought, though: right now, who and where are their New Zealander equivalents standing ready with all the skills and experience you say will be needed?
Post by JohnO
Not throwing borrowed money around like confetti.
Every country does it. Nothing easier than spending someone else's money, especially when it'll be future governments who'll be staving off their overseas creditors.
Post by JohnO
You lefties never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by a committee and throwing someone else's money at it.
Too keep things fair and balanced you might also have said you right-ards never saw a problem caused by corporate fraud and greed that couldn't be solved either by throwing hard-working taxpayers' money at it and/or taking on overseas debt that your luckless descendants will be lumbered with for generations.
I have been impressed by the ready acquiescence and support from the
Leader of the Opposition to the actions of government in the wage
subsidies and many other financial decisions to spend money to keep
people in work and to keep businesses going - indeed he would like the
government to go further by waiving $9 billion of GST in the next
year. In a time of crisis we all expect government to have (and spend)
the resources necessary to respond to the needs of our people and
businesses.
James Christophers
2020-05-08 05:19:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
On Thu, 7 May 2020 16:16:07 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
You and Trotter miss the point. Germany needed funding because its factories, power plants, railways, ports and so on had been destroyed.
Trotter touches on this early in his piece. The Marshall Plan.
Unlike the other nations funded by the post-war recovery Marshall Plan, these funds were handed by the Americans to Germany with no obligation to repay. Same went for Japan. Both countries and always have been legendary for their intellectual strengths and work ethic. No wonder then, that equipped across-the-board with brand new factories and the latest plant and technology - plus an intellectual input second to none - both nations rose quickly after the 1950s to dominate a modernising global economy for the next 50 years.
Post by JohnO
New Zealand doesn't have to replace infrastructure.
Really? Who told you this? Dr Oliver Hartwich PhD?
Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Stephen Selwood describes New Zealand's infrastructure deficit as “massive.”
“Nationwide we have an enormous challenge in front of us. The problem is just getting bigger and bigger. The evidence is clear.”
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/93445/scale-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-infrastructure-deficit-massive-and-cant-be-fixed-without-billions
Post by JohnO
It needs to get the economy moving and people employed productively doing things that are needed.
Productively? Governments have spent the last 50 years doing anything but. In fact, the last National government proved itself no better than any of its party's predecessors. Why? No vision, no strategy, no intellectual "bottom" nothing but drift and stagnation brought on by smartarse complacency and arrogance. And you know it.
So, adding Selwood's concerns to the unedifying Key/English mess of potage, why have you - a proud New Zealander no less - permitted such laisser-faire decadence to grow and now hold your own country so haplessly to ransom, and for so long?
Post by JohnO
The lesson Hartwich gives us is about the decision making progress. It should be done by businesses not politicians.
The kind of businesses that have been behind New Zealand's 50+ years of economic drift and stagnation? Really?
Post by JohnO
Free enterprise and capitalism...
No worries, provided their core imperative is real productivity and not today's fast-buck, zero-productivity money-churning. Sadly, previous experiences suggests this would be an ask too far.
Post by JohnO
Experts with experience and skills in the game.
That's just fine. But since Hartwich does not identify these people, perhaps you now will?
Post by JohnO
Not some 'crats.
Like Chinese 'crats' - i.e. technocrats - the men behind China's growth and development? Or German 'crats' for that matter? Why not, indeed?
Just a passing thought, though: right now, who and where are their New Zealander equivalents standing ready with all the skills and experience you say will be needed?
Post by JohnO
Not throwing borrowed money around like confetti.
Every country does it. Nothing easier than spending someone else's money, especially when it'll be future governments who'll be staving off their overseas creditors.
Post by JohnO
You lefties never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by a committee and throwing someone else's money at it.
Too keep things fair and balanced you might also have said you right-ards never saw a problem caused by corporate fraud and greed that couldn't be solved either by throwing hard-working taxpayers' money at it and/or taking on overseas debt that your luckless descendants will be lumbered with for generations.
I have been impressed by the ready acquiescence and support from the
Leader of the Opposition to the actions of government in the wage
subsidies and many other financial decisions to spend money to keep
people in work and to keep businesses going - indeed he would like the
government to go further by waiving $9 billion of GST in the next
year.
The shortfall in the tax take would need eventually to be made good.

To achieve this painlessly, increased **real** per-capita productivity would plainly be numero uno favourite - but face it, what are the chances of this ever happening, eh?

However, assuming such a waiver were in fact implemented, then all shelf prices should continue to be marked as including full GST as previously to keep things looking familiar, with the 15% waiver showing up only in the total charged at the check-out, (the "discount" in every case being 13.04%)

This is so that before parting with their loot, the customers can immediately satisfy themselves that the GST waiver has been applied **in full**, hence relieving any justifiable suspicion that the dealer may have dipped into the "discount" to increase his non-GST profit margin.

As for such justification, it's not as if New Zealanders aren't already being gouged more than enough even on basics, is it?
JohnO
2020-05-08 05:05:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
You and Trotter miss the point. Germany needed funding because its factories, power plants, railways, ports and so on had been destroyed.
Trotter touches on this early in his piece. The Marshall Plan.
Unlike the other nations funded by the post-war recovery Marshall Plan, these funds were handed by the Americans to Germany with no obligation to repay. Same went for Japan. Both countries and always have been legendary for their intellectual strengths and work ethic. No wonder then, that equipped across-the-board with brand new factories and the latest plant and technology - plus an intellectual input second to none - both nations rose quickly after the 1950s to dominate a modernising global economy for the next 50 years.
Post by JohnO
New Zealand doesn't have to replace infrastructure.
Really? Who told you this? Dr Oliver Hartwich PhD?
Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Stephen Selwood describes New Zealand's infrastructure deficit as “massive.”
We are talking about getting back to something resembling pre-covid economy and employment. You are talking about remedying infrastructure deficit and conflating getting over the Covid disaster with improving the pre-Covid status quo to justify your argument about needing funding.

I cant be bothered with you if you are just going to move around the goalposts at every obstacle.
Post by James Christophers
“Nationwide we have an enormous challenge in front of us. The problem is just getting bigger and bigger. The evidence is clear.”
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/93445/scale-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-infrastructure-deficit-massive-and-cant-be-fixed-without-billions
Which as *nothing* to do with repairing the damage to the economy caused by the Covid-19 response.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
It needs to get the economy moving and people employed productively doing things that are needed.
Productively? Governments have spent the last 50 years doing anything but. In fact, the last National government proved itself no better than any of its party's predecessors. Why? No vision, no strategy, no intellectual "bottom" nothing but drift and stagnation brought on by smartarse complacency and arrogance. And you know it.
I really shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, but the point is to return to pre-Covid status as a minimum, not fix existing problems.
Post by James Christophers
So, adding Selwood's concerns to the unedifying Key/English mess of potage, why have you - a proud New Zealander no less - permitted such laisser-faire decadence to grow and now hold your own country so haplessly to ransom, and for so long?
Off topic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
The lesson Hartwich gives us is about the decision making progress. It should be done by businesses not politicians.
The kind of businesses that have been behind New Zealand's 50+ years of economic drift and stagnation? Really?
Yep. It's better than having politicians pick winners. Who wants Winston's version of Muldoonism?
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Free enterprise and capitalism...
No worries, provided their core imperative is real productivity and not today's fast-buck, zero-productivity money-churning. Sadly, previous experiences suggests this would be an ask too far.
Previous previous experience shows it's the best we've got.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Experts with experience and skills in the game.
That's just fine. But since Hartwich does not identify these people, perhaps you now will?
The same ones we have now,
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not some 'crats.
Like Chinese 'crats' - i.e. technocrats - the men behind China's growth and development? Or German 'crats' for that matter? Why not, indeed?
China is not governed by 'crats. It is governed by totalitarians.
Post by James Christophers
Just a passing thought, though: right now, who and where are their New Zealander equivalents standing ready with all the skills and experience you say will be needed?
Asked and answered
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not throwing borrowed money around like confetti.
Every country does it.
That is not a justification
Post by James Christophers
Nothing easier than spending someone else's money, especially when it'll be future governments who'll be staving off their overseas creditors.
Post by JohnO
You lefties never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by a committee and throwing someone else's money at it.
Too keep things fair and balanced you might also have said you right-ards never saw a problem caused by corporate fraud and greed that couldn't be solved either by throwing hard-working taxpayers' money at it and/or taking on overseas debt that your luckless descendants will be lumbered with for generations.
Total cost of such fraud and greed would be miniscule compared to the cost of decisions made by political committees.

Do you honestly believe that politicians with degrees in Communications or Political Studies know where best to deploy our capital?
James Christophers
2020-05-09 02:53:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
You and Trotter miss the point. Germany needed funding because its factories, power plants, railways, ports and so on had been destroyed.
Trotter touches on this early in his piece. The Marshall Plan.
Unlike the other nations funded by the post-war recovery Marshall Plan, these funds were handed by the Americans to Germany with no obligation to repay. Same went for Japan. Both countries and always have been legendary for their intellectual strengths and work ethic. No wonder then, that equipped across-the-board with brand new factories and the latest plant and technology - plus an intellectual input second to none - both nations rose quickly after the 1950s to dominate a modernising global economy for the next 50 years.
Post by JohnO
New Zealand doesn't have to replace infrastructure.
Really? Who told you this? Dr Oliver Hartwich PhD?
Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Stephen Selwood describes New Zealand's infrastructure deficit as “massive.”
We are talking about getting back to something resembling pre-covid economy and employment. You are talking about remedying infrastructure deficit and conflating getting over the Covid disaster with improving the pre-Covid status quo to justify your argument about needing funding.
I cant be bothered with you if you are just going to move around the goalposts at every obstacle.
Post by James Christophers
“Nationwide we have an enormous challenge in front of us. The problem is just getting bigger and bigger. The evidence is clear.”
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/93445/scale-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-infrastructure-deficit-massive-and-cant-be-fixed-without-billions
Which as *nothing* to do with repairing the damage to the economy caused by the Covid-19 response.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
It needs to get the economy moving and people employed productively doing things that are needed.
Productively? Governments have spent the last 50 years doing anything but. In fact, the last National government proved itself no better than any of its party's predecessors. Why? No vision, no strategy, no intellectual "bottom" nothing but drift and stagnation brought on by smartarse complacency and arrogance. And you know it.
I really shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, but the point is to return to pre-Covid status as a minimum, not fix existing problems.
Post by James Christophers
So, adding Selwood's concerns to the unedifying Key/English mess of potage, why have you - a proud New Zealander no less - permitted such laisser-faire decadence to grow and now hold your own country so haplessly to ransom, and for so long?
Off topic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
The lesson Hartwich gives us is about the decision making progress. It should be done by businesses not politicians.
The kind of businesses that have been behind New Zealand's 50+ years of economic drift and stagnation? Really?
Yep. It's better than having politicians pick winners. Who wants Winston's version of Muldoonism?
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Free enterprise and capitalism...
No worries, provided their core imperative is real productivity and not today's fast-buck, zero-productivity money-churning. Sadly, previous experiences suggests this would be an ask too far.
Previous previous experience shows it's the best we've got.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Experts with experience and skills in the game.
That's just fine. But since Hartwich does not identify these people, perhaps you now will?
The same ones we have now,
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not some 'crats.
Like Chinese 'crats' - i.e. technocrats - the men behind China's growth and development? Or German 'crats' for that matter? Why not, indeed?
China is not governed by 'crats. It is governed by totalitarians.
Post by James Christophers
Just a passing thought, though: right now, who and where are their New Zealander equivalents standing ready with all the skills and experience you say will be needed?
Asked and answered
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not throwing borrowed money around like confetti.
Every country does it.
That is not a justification
Post by James Christophers
Nothing easier than spending someone else's money, especially when it'll be future governments who'll be staving off their overseas creditors.
Post by JohnO
You lefties never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by a committee and throwing someone else's money at it.
Too keep things fair and balanced you might also have said you right-ards never saw a problem caused by corporate fraud and greed that couldn't be solved either by throwing hard-working taxpayers' money at it and/or taking on overseas debt that your luckless descendants will be lumbered with for generations.
Total cost of such fraud and greed would be miniscule compared to the cost of decisions made by political committees.
Do you honestly believe that politicians with degrees in Communications or Political Studies know where best to deploy our capital?
Likewise, do you honestly believe that a decidedly minor think tank economist with no known, declared or documented corporate or financial competence or expertise, and who heads some piddling little vanity think tank of no international repute in some remote, minor economy, must know where best to deploy our capital?

Really?
Crash
2020-05-09 03:33:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:53:16 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
You and Trotter miss the point. Germany needed funding because its factories, power plants, railways, ports and so on had been destroyed.
Trotter touches on this early in his piece. The Marshall Plan.
Unlike the other nations funded by the post-war recovery Marshall Plan, these funds were handed by the Americans to Germany with no obligation to repay. Same went for Japan. Both countries and always have been legendary for their intellectual strengths and work ethic. No wonder then, that equipped across-the-board with brand new factories and the latest plant and technology - plus an intellectual input second to none - both nations rose quickly after the 1950s to dominate a modernising global economy for the next 50 years.
Post by JohnO
New Zealand doesn't have to replace infrastructure.
Really? Who told you this? Dr Oliver Hartwich PhD?
Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Stephen Selwood describes New Zealand's infrastructure deficit as “massive.”
We are talking about getting back to something resembling pre-covid economy and employment. You are talking about remedying infrastructure deficit and conflating getting over the Covid disaster with improving the pre-Covid status quo to justify your argument about needing funding.
I cant be bothered with you if you are just going to move around the goalposts at every obstacle.
Post by James Christophers
“Nationwide we have an enormous challenge in front of us. The problem is just getting bigger and bigger. The evidence is clear.”
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/93445/scale-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-infrastructure-deficit-massive-and-cant-be-fixed-without-billions
Which as *nothing* to do with repairing the damage to the economy caused by the Covid-19 response.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
It needs to get the economy moving and people employed productively doing things that are needed.
Productively? Governments have spent the last 50 years doing anything but. In fact, the last National government proved itself no better than any of its party's predecessors. Why? No vision, no strategy, no intellectual "bottom" nothing but drift and stagnation brought on by smartarse complacency and arrogance. And you know it.
I really shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, but the point is to return to pre-Covid status as a minimum, not fix existing problems.
Post by James Christophers
So, adding Selwood's concerns to the unedifying Key/English mess of potage, why have you - a proud New Zealander no less - permitted such laisser-faire decadence to grow and now hold your own country so haplessly to ransom, and for so long?
Off topic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
The lesson Hartwich gives us is about the decision making progress. It should be done by businesses not politicians.
The kind of businesses that have been behind New Zealand's 50+ years of economic drift and stagnation? Really?
Yep. It's better than having politicians pick winners. Who wants Winston's version of Muldoonism?
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Free enterprise and capitalism...
No worries, provided their core imperative is real productivity and not today's fast-buck, zero-productivity money-churning. Sadly, previous experiences suggests this would be an ask too far.
Previous previous experience shows it's the best we've got.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Experts with experience and skills in the game.
That's just fine. But since Hartwich does not identify these people, perhaps you now will?
The same ones we have now,
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not some 'crats.
Like Chinese 'crats' - i.e. technocrats - the men behind China's growth and development? Or German 'crats' for that matter? Why not, indeed?
China is not governed by 'crats. It is governed by totalitarians.
Post by James Christophers
Just a passing thought, though: right now, who and where are their New Zealander equivalents standing ready with all the skills and experience you say will be needed?
Asked and answered
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not throwing borrowed money around like confetti.
Every country does it.
That is not a justification
Post by James Christophers
Nothing easier than spending someone else's money, especially when it'll be future governments who'll be staving off their overseas creditors.
Post by JohnO
You lefties never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by a committee and throwing someone else's money at it.
Too keep things fair and balanced you might also have said you right-ards never saw a problem caused by corporate fraud and greed that couldn't be solved either by throwing hard-working taxpayers' money at it and/or taking on overseas debt that your luckless descendants will be lumbered with for generations.
Total cost of such fraud and greed would be miniscule compared to the cost of decisions made by political committees.
Do you honestly believe that politicians with degrees in Communications or Political Studies know where best to deploy our capital?
Likewise, do you honestly believe that a decidedly minor think tank economist with no known, declared or documented corporate or financial competence or expertise, and who heads some piddling little vanity think tank of no international repute in some remote, minor economy, must know where best to deploy our capital?
Really?
Depends on who you are referring to James. Care to name them?


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-05-09 03:38:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:53:16 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
You and Trotter miss the point. Germany needed funding because its factories, power plants, railways, ports and so on had been destroyed.
Trotter touches on this early in his piece. The Marshall Plan.
Unlike the other nations funded by the post-war recovery Marshall Plan, these funds were handed by the Americans to Germany with no obligation to repay. Same went for Japan. Both countries and always have been legendary for their intellectual strengths and work ethic. No wonder then, that equipped across-the-board with brand new factories and the latest plant and technology - plus an intellectual input second to none - both nations rose quickly after the 1950s to dominate a modernising global economy for the next 50 years.
Post by JohnO
New Zealand doesn't have to replace infrastructure.
Really? Who told you this? Dr Oliver Hartwich PhD?
Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Stephen Selwood describes New Zealand's infrastructure deficit as “massive.”
We are talking about getting back to something resembling pre-covid economy and employment. You are talking about remedying infrastructure deficit and conflating getting over the Covid disaster with improving the pre-Covid status quo to justify your argument about needing funding.
I cant be bothered with you if you are just going to move around the goalposts at every obstacle.
Post by James Christophers
“Nationwide we have an enormous challenge in front of us. The problem is just getting bigger and bigger. The evidence is clear.”
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/93445/scale-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-infrastructure-deficit-massive-and-cant-be-fixed-without-billions
Which as *nothing* to do with repairing the damage to the economy caused by the Covid-19 response.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
It needs to get the economy moving and people employed productively doing things that are needed.
Productively? Governments have spent the last 50 years doing anything but. In fact, the last National government proved itself no better than any of its party's predecessors. Why? No vision, no strategy, no intellectual "bottom" nothing but drift and stagnation brought on by smartarse complacency and arrogance. And you know it.
I really shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, but the point is to return to pre-Covid status as a minimum, not fix existing problems.
Post by James Christophers
So, adding Selwood's concerns to the unedifying Key/English mess of potage, why have you - a proud New Zealander no less - permitted such laisser-faire decadence to grow and now hold your own country so haplessly to ransom, and for so long?
Off topic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
The lesson Hartwich gives us is about the decision making progress. It should be done by businesses not politicians.
The kind of businesses that have been behind New Zealand's 50+ years of economic drift and stagnation? Really?
Yep. It's better than having politicians pick winners. Who wants Winston's version of Muldoonism?
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Free enterprise and capitalism...
No worries, provided their core imperative is real productivity and not today's fast-buck, zero-productivity money-churning. Sadly, previous experiences suggests this would be an ask too far.
Previous previous experience shows it's the best we've got.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Experts with experience and skills in the game.
That's just fine. But since Hartwich does not identify these people, perhaps you now will?
The same ones we have now,
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not some 'crats.
Like Chinese 'crats' - i.e. technocrats - the men behind China's growth and development? Or German 'crats' for that matter? Why not, indeed?
China is not governed by 'crats. It is governed by totalitarians.
Post by James Christophers
Just a passing thought, though: right now, who and where are their New Zealander equivalents standing ready with all the skills and experience you say will be needed?
Asked and answered
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not throwing borrowed money around like confetti.
Every country does it.
That is not a justification
Post by James Christophers
Nothing easier than spending someone else's money, especially when it'll be future governments who'll be staving off their overseas creditors.
Post by JohnO
You lefties never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by a committee and throwing someone else's money at it.
Too keep things fair and balanced you might also have said you right-ards never saw a problem caused by corporate fraud and greed that couldn't be solved either by throwing hard-working taxpayers' money at it and/or taking on overseas debt that your luckless descendants will be lumbered with for generations.
Total cost of such fraud and greed would be miniscule compared to the cost of decisions made by political committees.
Do you honestly believe that politicians with degrees in Communications or Political Studies know where best to deploy our capital?
Likewise, do you honestly believe that a decidedly minor think tank economist with no known, declared or documented corporate or financial competence or expertise, and who heads some piddling little vanity think tank of no international repute in some remote, minor economy, must know where best to deploy our capital?
Really?
Depends on who you are referring to James. Care to name them?
Ona quick read through the thread, the names Oliver Hartwich and
Stephen Selwood are mentioned - areeither of these gentlemen people
that we should rely on for financial advice ahead of Treasury, the
Reserve Bank and other Government Departments? Whose advice do you
favour, Crash?
Crash
2020-05-09 08:08:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:53:16 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
You and Trotter miss the point. Germany needed funding because its factories, power plants, railways, ports and so on had been destroyed.
Trotter touches on this early in his piece. The Marshall Plan.
Unlike the other nations funded by the post-war recovery Marshall Plan, these funds were handed by the Americans to Germany with no obligation to repay. Same went for Japan. Both countries and always have been legendary for their intellectual strengths and work ethic. No wonder then, that equipped across-the-board with brand new factories and the latest plant and technology - plus an intellectual input second to none - both nations rose quickly after the 1950s to dominate a modernising global economy for the next 50 years.
Post by JohnO
New Zealand doesn't have to replace infrastructure.
Really? Who told you this? Dr Oliver Hartwich PhD?
Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Stephen Selwood describes New Zealand's infrastructure deficit as “massive.”
We are talking about getting back to something resembling pre-covid economy and employment. You are talking about remedying infrastructure deficit and conflating getting over the Covid disaster with improving the pre-Covid status quo to justify your argument about needing funding.
I cant be bothered with you if you are just going to move around the goalposts at every obstacle.
Post by James Christophers
“Nationwide we have an enormous challenge in front of us. The problem is just getting bigger and bigger. The evidence is clear.”
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/93445/scale-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-infrastructure-deficit-massive-and-cant-be-fixed-without-billions
Which as *nothing* to do with repairing the damage to the economy caused by the Covid-19 response.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
It needs to get the economy moving and people employed productively doing things that are needed.
Productively? Governments have spent the last 50 years doing anything but. In fact, the last National government proved itself no better than any of its party's predecessors. Why? No vision, no strategy, no intellectual "bottom" nothing but drift and stagnation brought on by smartarse complacency and arrogance. And you know it.
I really shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, but the point is to return to pre-Covid status as a minimum, not fix existing problems.
Post by James Christophers
So, adding Selwood's concerns to the unedifying Key/English mess of potage, why have you - a proud New Zealander no less - permitted such laisser-faire decadence to grow and now hold your own country so haplessly to ransom, and for so long?
Off topic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
The lesson Hartwich gives us is about the decision making progress. It should be done by businesses not politicians.
The kind of businesses that have been behind New Zealand's 50+ years of economic drift and stagnation? Really?
Yep. It's better than having politicians pick winners. Who wants Winston's version of Muldoonism?
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Free enterprise and capitalism...
No worries, provided their core imperative is real productivity and not today's fast-buck, zero-productivity money-churning. Sadly, previous experiences suggests this would be an ask too far.
Previous previous experience shows it's the best we've got.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Experts with experience and skills in the game.
That's just fine. But since Hartwich does not identify these people, perhaps you now will?
The same ones we have now,
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not some 'crats.
Like Chinese 'crats' - i.e. technocrats - the men behind China's growth and development? Or German 'crats' for that matter? Why not, indeed?
China is not governed by 'crats. It is governed by totalitarians.
Post by James Christophers
Just a passing thought, though: right now, who and where are their New Zealander equivalents standing ready with all the skills and experience you say will be needed?
Asked and answered
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not throwing borrowed money around like confetti.
Every country does it.
That is not a justification
Post by James Christophers
Nothing easier than spending someone else's money, especially when it'll be future governments who'll be staving off their overseas creditors.
Post by JohnO
You lefties never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by a committee and throwing someone else's money at it.
Too keep things fair and balanced you might also have said you right-ards never saw a problem caused by corporate fraud and greed that couldn't be solved either by throwing hard-working taxpayers' money at it and/or taking on overseas debt that your luckless descendants will be lumbered with for generations.
Total cost of such fraud and greed would be miniscule compared to the cost of decisions made by political committees.
Do you honestly believe that politicians with degrees in Communications or Political Studies know where best to deploy our capital?
Likewise, do you honestly believe that a decidedly minor think tank economist with no known, declared or documented corporate or financial competence or expertise, and who heads some piddling little vanity think tank of no international repute in some remote, minor economy, must know where best to deploy our capital?
Really?
Depends on who you are referring to James. Care to name them?
Ona quick read through the thread, the names Oliver Hartwich and
Stephen Selwood are mentioned - areeither of these gentlemen people
that we should rely on for financial advice ahead of Treasury, the
Reserve Bank and other Government Departments? Whose advice do you
favour, Crash?
Irrelevant. I was asking James who he was referring to.


--
Crash McBash
Rich80105
2020-05-09 08:22:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:53:16 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
You and Trotter miss the point. Germany needed funding because its factories, power plants, railways, ports and so on had been destroyed.
Trotter touches on this early in his piece. The Marshall Plan.
Unlike the other nations funded by the post-war recovery Marshall Plan, these funds were handed by the Americans to Germany with no obligation to repay. Same went for Japan. Both countries and always have been legendary for their intellectual strengths and work ethic. No wonder then, that equipped across-the-board with brand new factories and the latest plant and technology - plus an intellectual input second to none - both nations rose quickly after the 1950s to dominate a modernising global economy for the next 50 years.
Post by JohnO
New Zealand doesn't have to replace infrastructure.
Really? Who told you this? Dr Oliver Hartwich PhD?
Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Stephen Selwood describes New Zealand's infrastructure deficit as “massive.”
We are talking about getting back to something resembling pre-covid economy and employment. You are talking about remedying infrastructure deficit and conflating getting over the Covid disaster with improving the pre-Covid status quo to justify your argument about needing funding.
I cant be bothered with you if you are just going to move around the goalposts at every obstacle.
Post by James Christophers
“Nationwide we have an enormous challenge in front of us. The problem is just getting bigger and bigger. The evidence is clear.”
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/93445/scale-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-infrastructure-deficit-massive-and-cant-be-fixed-without-billions
Which as *nothing* to do with repairing the damage to the economy caused by the Covid-19 response.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
It needs to get the economy moving and people employed productively doing things that are needed.
Productively? Governments have spent the last 50 years doing anything but. In fact, the last National government proved itself no better than any of its party's predecessors. Why? No vision, no strategy, no intellectual "bottom" nothing but drift and stagnation brought on by smartarse complacency and arrogance. And you know it.
I really shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, but the point is to return to pre-Covid status as a minimum, not fix existing problems.
Post by James Christophers
So, adding Selwood's concerns to the unedifying Key/English mess of potage, why have you - a proud New Zealander no less - permitted such laisser-faire decadence to grow and now hold your own country so haplessly to ransom, and for so long?
Off topic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
The lesson Hartwich gives us is about the decision making progress. It should be done by businesses not politicians.
The kind of businesses that have been behind New Zealand's 50+ years of economic drift and stagnation? Really?
Yep. It's better than having politicians pick winners. Who wants Winston's version of Muldoonism?
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Free enterprise and capitalism...
No worries, provided their core imperative is real productivity and not today's fast-buck, zero-productivity money-churning. Sadly, previous experiences suggests this would be an ask too far.
Previous previous experience shows it's the best we've got.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Experts with experience and skills in the game.
That's just fine. But since Hartwich does not identify these people, perhaps you now will?
The same ones we have now,
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not some 'crats.
Like Chinese 'crats' - i.e. technocrats - the men behind China's growth and development? Or German 'crats' for that matter? Why not, indeed?
China is not governed by 'crats. It is governed by totalitarians.
Post by James Christophers
Just a passing thought, though: right now, who and where are their New Zealander equivalents standing ready with all the skills and experience you say will be needed?
Asked and answered
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not throwing borrowed money around like confetti.
Every country does it.
That is not a justification
Post by James Christophers
Nothing easier than spending someone else's money, especially when it'll be future governments who'll be staving off their overseas creditors.
Post by JohnO
You lefties never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by a committee and throwing someone else's money at it.
Too keep things fair and balanced you might also have said you right-ards never saw a problem caused by corporate fraud and greed that couldn't be solved either by throwing hard-working taxpayers' money at it and/or taking on overseas debt that your luckless descendants will be lumbered with for generations.
Total cost of such fraud and greed would be miniscule compared to the cost of decisions made by political committees.
Do you honestly believe that politicians with degrees in Communications or Political Studies know where best to deploy our capital?
Likewise, do you honestly believe that a decidedly minor think tank economist with no known, declared or documented corporate or financial competence or expertise, and who heads some piddling little vanity think tank of no international repute in some remote, minor economy, must know where best to deploy our capital?
Really?
Depends on who you are referring to James. Care to name them?
Ona quick read through the thread, the names Oliver Hartwich and
Stephen Selwood are mentioned - areeither of these gentlemen people
that we should rely on for financial advice ahead of Treasury, the
Reserve Bank and other Government Departments? Whose advice do you
favour, Crash?
Irrelevant. I was asking James who he was referring to.
Since the ony other two names mentioned were Winston and Muldoon who
else do you think he may have been referring to, Crash?
Crash
2020-05-09 08:26:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:53:16 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
You and Trotter miss the point. Germany needed funding because its factories, power plants, railways, ports and so on had been destroyed.
Trotter touches on this early in his piece. The Marshall Plan.
Unlike the other nations funded by the post-war recovery Marshall Plan, these funds were handed by the Americans to Germany with no obligation to repay. Same went for Japan. Both countries and always have been legendary for their intellectual strengths and work ethic. No wonder then, that equipped across-the-board with brand new factories and the latest plant and technology - plus an intellectual input second to none - both nations rose quickly after the 1950s to dominate a modernising global economy for the next 50 years.
Post by JohnO
New Zealand doesn't have to replace infrastructure.
Really? Who told you this? Dr Oliver Hartwich PhD?
Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Stephen Selwood describes New Zealand's infrastructure deficit as “massive.”
We are talking about getting back to something resembling pre-covid economy and employment. You are talking about remedying infrastructure deficit and conflating getting over the Covid disaster with improving the pre-Covid status quo to justify your argument about needing funding.
I cant be bothered with you if you are just going to move around the goalposts at every obstacle.
Post by James Christophers
“Nationwide we have an enormous challenge in front of us. The problem is just getting bigger and bigger. The evidence is clear.”
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/93445/scale-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-infrastructure-deficit-massive-and-cant-be-fixed-without-billions
Which as *nothing* to do with repairing the damage to the economy caused by the Covid-19 response.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
It needs to get the economy moving and people employed productively doing things that are needed.
Productively? Governments have spent the last 50 years doing anything but. In fact, the last National government proved itself no better than any of its party's predecessors. Why? No vision, no strategy, no intellectual "bottom" nothing but drift and stagnation brought on by smartarse complacency and arrogance. And you know it.
I really shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, but the point is to return to pre-Covid status as a minimum, not fix existing problems.
Post by James Christophers
So, adding Selwood's concerns to the unedifying Key/English mess of potage, why have you - a proud New Zealander no less - permitted such laisser-faire decadence to grow and now hold your own country so haplessly to ransom, and for so long?
Off topic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
The lesson Hartwich gives us is about the decision making progress. It should be done by businesses not politicians.
The kind of businesses that have been behind New Zealand's 50+ years of economic drift and stagnation? Really?
Yep. It's better than having politicians pick winners. Who wants Winston's version of Muldoonism?
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Free enterprise and capitalism...
No worries, provided their core imperative is real productivity and not today's fast-buck, zero-productivity money-churning. Sadly, previous experiences suggests this would be an ask too far.
Previous previous experience shows it's the best we've got.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Experts with experience and skills in the game.
That's just fine. But since Hartwich does not identify these people, perhaps you now will?
The same ones we have now,
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not some 'crats.
Like Chinese 'crats' - i.e. technocrats - the men behind China's growth and development? Or German 'crats' for that matter? Why not, indeed?
China is not governed by 'crats. It is governed by totalitarians.
Post by James Christophers
Just a passing thought, though: right now, who and where are their New Zealander equivalents standing ready with all the skills and experience you say will be needed?
Asked and answered
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not throwing borrowed money around like confetti.
Every country does it.
That is not a justification
Post by James Christophers
Nothing easier than spending someone else's money, especially when it'll be future governments who'll be staving off their overseas creditors.
Post by JohnO
You lefties never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by a committee and throwing someone else's money at it.
Too keep things fair and balanced you might also have said you right-ards never saw a problem caused by corporate fraud and greed that couldn't be solved either by throwing hard-working taxpayers' money at it and/or taking on overseas debt that your luckless descendants will be lumbered with for generations.
Total cost of such fraud and greed would be miniscule compared to the cost of decisions made by political committees.
Do you honestly believe that politicians with degrees in Communications or Political Studies know where best to deploy our capital?
Likewise, do you honestly believe that a decidedly minor think tank economist with no known, declared or documented corporate or financial competence or expertise, and who heads some piddling little vanity think tank of no international repute in some remote, minor economy, must know where best to deploy our capital?
Really?
Depends on who you are referring to James. Care to name them?
Ona quick read through the thread, the names Oliver Hartwich and
Stephen Selwood are mentioned - areeither of these gentlemen people
that we should rely on for financial advice ahead of Treasury, the
Reserve Bank and other Government Departments? Whose advice do you
favour, Crash?
Irrelevant. I was asking James who he was referring to.
Since the ony other two names mentioned were Winston and Muldoon who
else do you think he may have been referring to, Crash?
Again, completely irrelevant. I asked James who he was referring to.
What is it that leads you to believe that I am interested in
speculating on what I have asked James for? When or if James responds
I may or may not respond further.


--
Crash McBash
James Christophers
2020-05-10 03:09:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:53:16 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
You and Trotter miss the point. Germany needed funding because its factories, power plants, railways, ports and so on had been destroyed.
Trotter touches on this early in his piece. The Marshall Plan.
Unlike the other nations funded by the post-war recovery Marshall Plan, these funds were handed by the Americans to Germany with no obligation to repay. Same went for Japan. Both countries and always have been legendary for their intellectual strengths and work ethic. No wonder then, that equipped across-the-board with brand new factories and the latest plant and technology - plus an intellectual input second to none - both nations rose quickly after the 1950s to dominate a modernising global economy for the next 50 years.
Post by JohnO
New Zealand doesn't have to replace infrastructure.
Really? Who told you this? Dr Oliver Hartwich PhD?
Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Stephen Selwood describes New Zealand's infrastructure deficit as “massive.”
We are talking about getting back to something resembling pre-covid economy and employment. You are talking about remedying infrastructure deficit and conflating getting over the Covid disaster with improving the pre-Covid status quo to justify your argument about needing funding.
I cant be bothered with you if you are just going to move around the goalposts at every obstacle.
Post by James Christophers
“Nationwide we have an enormous challenge in front of us. The problem is just getting bigger and bigger. The evidence is clear.”
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/93445/scale-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-infrastructure-deficit-massive-and-cant-be-fixed-without-billions
Which as *nothing* to do with repairing the damage to the economy caused by the Covid-19 response.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
It needs to get the economy moving and people employed productively doing things that are needed.
Productively? Governments have spent the last 50 years doing anything but. In fact, the last National government proved itself no better than any of its party's predecessors. Why? No vision, no strategy, no intellectual "bottom" nothing but drift and stagnation brought on by smartarse complacency and arrogance. And you know it.
I really shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, but the point is to return to pre-Covid status as a minimum, not fix existing problems.
Post by James Christophers
So, adding Selwood's concerns to the unedifying Key/English mess of potage, why have you - a proud New Zealander no less - permitted such laisser-faire decadence to grow and now hold your own country so haplessly to ransom, and for so long?
Off topic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
The lesson Hartwich gives us is about the decision making progress. It should be done by businesses not politicians.
The kind of businesses that have been behind New Zealand's 50+ years of economic drift and stagnation? Really?
Yep. It's better than having politicians pick winners. Who wants Winston's version of Muldoonism?
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Free enterprise and capitalism...
No worries, provided their core imperative is real productivity and not today's fast-buck, zero-productivity money-churning. Sadly, previous experiences suggests this would be an ask too far.
Previous previous experience shows it's the best we've got.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Experts with experience and skills in the game.
That's just fine. But since Hartwich does not identify these people, perhaps you now will?
The same ones we have now,
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not some 'crats.
Like Chinese 'crats' - i.e. technocrats - the men behind China's growth and development? Or German 'crats' for that matter? Why not, indeed?
China is not governed by 'crats. It is governed by totalitarians.
Post by James Christophers
Just a passing thought, though: right now, who and where are their New Zealander equivalents standing ready with all the skills and experience you say will be needed?
Asked and answered
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not throwing borrowed money around like confetti.
Every country does it.
That is not a justification
Post by James Christophers
Nothing easier than spending someone else's money, especially when it'll be future governments who'll be staving off their overseas creditors.
Post by JohnO
You lefties never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by a committee and throwing someone else's money at it.
Too keep things fair and balanced you might also have said you right-ards never saw a problem caused by corporate fraud and greed that couldn't be solved either by throwing hard-working taxpayers' money at it and/or taking on overseas debt that your luckless descendants will be lumbered with for generations.
Total cost of such fraud and greed would be miniscule compared to the cost of decisions made by political committees.
Do you honestly believe that politicians with degrees in Communications or Political Studies know where best to deploy our capital?
Likewise, do you honestly believe that a decidedly minor think tank economist with no known, declared or documented corporate or financial competence or expertise, and who heads some piddling little vanity think tank of no international repute in some remote, minor economy, must know where best to deploy our capital?
Really?
Depends on who you are referring to James. Care to name them?
Ona quick read through the thread, the names Oliver Hartwich and
Stephen Selwood are mentioned - areeither of these gentlemen people
that we should rely on for financial advice ahead of Treasury, the
Reserve Bank and other Government Departments? Whose advice do you
favour, Crash?
Irrelevant. I was asking James who he was referring to.
Rich almost nails it with the two options he names.

So it looks like Hobson's choice to me. [Hint: JohnO inelegantly dubs said Teuton as a "Kraut" - but that's JohnO for you. Allowances must as always be made.]

Over to you then, Crash ;-)
Crash
2020-05-10 04:05:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sat, 9 May 2020 20:09:41 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by Crash
Post by Rich80105
Post by Crash
On Fri, 8 May 2020 19:53:16 -0700 (PDT), James Christophers
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
You and Trotter miss the point. Germany needed funding because its factories, power plants, railways, ports and so on had been destroyed.
Trotter touches on this early in his piece. The Marshall Plan.
Unlike the other nations funded by the post-war recovery Marshall Plan, these funds were handed by the Americans to Germany with no obligation to repay. Same went for Japan. Both countries and always have been legendary for their intellectual strengths and work ethic. No wonder then, that equipped across-the-board with brand new factories and the latest plant and technology - plus an intellectual input second to none - both nations rose quickly after the 1950s to dominate a modernising global economy for the next 50 years.
Post by JohnO
New Zealand doesn't have to replace infrastructure.
Really? Who told you this? Dr Oliver Hartwich PhD?
Infrastructure New Zealand chief executive Stephen Selwood describes New Zealand's infrastructure deficit as “massive.”
We are talking about getting back to something resembling pre-covid economy and employment. You are talking about remedying infrastructure deficit and conflating getting over the Covid disaster with improving the pre-Covid status quo to justify your argument about needing funding.
I cant be bothered with you if you are just going to move around the goalposts at every obstacle.
Post by James Christophers
“Nationwide we have an enormous challenge in front of us. The problem is just getting bigger and bigger. The evidence is clear.”
https://www.interest.co.nz/news/93445/scale-new-zealand%E2%80%99s-infrastructure-deficit-massive-and-cant-be-fixed-without-billions
Which as *nothing* to do with repairing the damage to the economy caused by the Covid-19 response.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
It needs to get the economy moving and people employed productively doing things that are needed.
Productively? Governments have spent the last 50 years doing anything but. In fact, the last National government proved itself no better than any of its party's predecessors. Why? No vision, no strategy, no intellectual "bottom" nothing but drift and stagnation brought on by smartarse complacency and arrogance. And you know it.
I really shouldn't have to keep repeating myself, but the point is to return to pre-Covid status as a minimum, not fix existing problems.
Post by James Christophers
So, adding Selwood's concerns to the unedifying Key/English mess of potage, why have you - a proud New Zealander no less - permitted such laisser-faire decadence to grow and now hold your own country so haplessly to ransom, and for so long?
Off topic.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
The lesson Hartwich gives us is about the decision making progress. It should be done by businesses not politicians.
The kind of businesses that have been behind New Zealand's 50+ years of economic drift and stagnation? Really?
Yep. It's better than having politicians pick winners. Who wants Winston's version of Muldoonism?
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Free enterprise and capitalism...
No worries, provided their core imperative is real productivity and not today's fast-buck, zero-productivity money-churning. Sadly, previous experiences suggests this would be an ask too far.
Previous previous experience shows it's the best we've got.
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Experts with experience and skills in the game.
That's just fine. But since Hartwich does not identify these people, perhaps you now will?
The same ones we have now,
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not some 'crats.
Like Chinese 'crats' - i.e. technocrats - the men behind China's growth and development? Or German 'crats' for that matter? Why not, indeed?
China is not governed by 'crats. It is governed by totalitarians.
Post by James Christophers
Just a passing thought, though: right now, who and where are their New Zealander equivalents standing ready with all the skills and experience you say will be needed?
Asked and answered
Post by James Christophers
Post by JohnO
Not throwing borrowed money around like confetti.
Every country does it.
That is not a justification
Post by James Christophers
Nothing easier than spending someone else's money, especially when it'll be future governments who'll be staving off their overseas creditors.
Post by JohnO
You lefties never saw a problem that couldn't be solved by a committee and throwing someone else's money at it.
Too keep things fair and balanced you might also have said you right-ards never saw a problem caused by corporate fraud and greed that couldn't be solved either by throwing hard-working taxpayers' money at it and/or taking on overseas debt that your luckless descendants will be lumbered with for generations.
Total cost of such fraud and greed would be miniscule compared to the cost of decisions made by political committees.
Do you honestly believe that politicians with degrees in Communications or Political Studies know where best to deploy our capital?
Likewise, do you honestly believe that a decidedly minor think tank economist with no known, declared or documented corporate or financial competence or expertise, and who heads some piddling little vanity think tank of no international repute in some remote, minor economy, must know where best to deploy our capital?
Really?
Depends on who you are referring to James. Care to name them?
Ona quick read through the thread, the names Oliver Hartwich and
Stephen Selwood are mentioned - areeither of these gentlemen people
that we should rely on for financial advice ahead of Treasury, the
Reserve Bank and other Government Departments? Whose advice do you
favour, Crash?
Irrelevant. I was asking James who he was referring to.
Rich almost nails it with the two options he names.
So it looks like Hobson's choice to me. [Hint: JohnO inelegantly dubs said Teuton as a "Kraut" - but that's JohnO for you. Allowances must as always be made.]
Over to you then, Crash ;-)
Thanks for the clarification.



--
Crash McBash

George
2020-05-05 20:18:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 05 May 2020 21:39:18 +1200
Post by Crash
The corollary of this is that people will no longer go into business.
Why would you start a new business when after spending years to
develop that idea into a profitable enterprise, your entire business
is blown apart with 48-hours notice because of a threat you could
never envisage? That is one of the major issues we face in the next
5-10 years - that our innovators will stick with their no-risk
salaried jobs rather than take a punt.
And then we have the raised suicide rates when the stress of trying to
make the business viable become to much.
The unemployed, those lines outside the dole are going to look like the
depression days of the 30s.
And the government will have its hand out for its share of the reduced
tax take.
Gonna be great watching our world go belly up....
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Rich80105
2020-05-05 22:38:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by George
On Tue, 05 May 2020 21:39:18 +1200
Post by Crash
The corollary of this is that people will no longer go into business.
Why would you start a new business when after spending years to
develop that idea into a profitable enterprise, your entire business
is blown apart with 48-hours notice because of a threat you could
never envisage? That is one of the major issues we face in the next
5-10 years - that our innovators will stick with their no-risk
salaried jobs rather than take a punt.
And then we have the raised suicide rates when the stress of trying to
make the business viable become to much.
Yes I heard Judith Collins telling everyone that. Then some buerocrat
had the nerve to say that it wasn't true, and that talk like that
could even provoke more suicides. How dare anyone contradict Judith!
Post by George
The unemployed, those lines outside the dole are going to look like the
depression days of the 30s.
And the government will have its hand out for its share of the reduced
tax take.
But that is what we all want, George - lower tax! And Simon is
delivering - a fantastic performance. Hes doing well on the Covid
committee too going straight to the heart of the problem and not being
distracted by Maori and other irrelevancies. His business background
is coming though clearly in his priorities.
Post by George
Gonna be great watching our world go belly up....
Trump has that one under way, Crash - keep the faith!
Loading...