the cato institute explains why young people should be pissed off

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Agathon


I was there. I don't think Muldoon would have agreed that he was a socialist. (Dancing Cossacks, anyone?).

No he wouldn't, but he's not exactly known for his firm grip on reality is he?

The Kirk Labour government was not as massive a spender as Muldoon, who started several energy megaprojects. If your point has any merit it is that both governments employed Keynsian policies. These are not necessarily socialist.

Whatever term you wish to use, the NZ govt generally pursued appalling economic policies pre 1984.

A large part of New Zealand's problems was not caused by domestic policy, but by being gradually shut out of the European Common Market, to which we had sold all our agricultural goods and which was the basis of our prosperity.

This is true, but things were going downhill way before that happened. During the 50s, NZ foolishly assumed that the boom in the wool market, and it's unique access to the British agricultural market would continue forever. The politicians were flush with the enormous amounts of money that came rolling in, and did what politicians do best - spend up large.

Of course, by the 60s, when conditions had changed (eg declining prices for agricultural products) all the politicians could think to do was borrow money so they could continue their spending spree.

By 1984 it was clear that some sort of reform was needed to mark the new reality. Unfortunately, the government was hijacked by market fundamentalists who in one form or another embarked on a ten year slash and burn campaign of privatisation and deregulation, against the wishes of the majority of voters.

Unpopular, but necessary, decisions had to be made. New Zealand was an unsustainable fool's paradise. You can't just keep spending when there's nothing there to spend.

Instead of thinking carefully about where and what sort of reform was needed, these people were ideologues.

I can't claim everything went perfectly, of course, but a radical change in the way the government functioned was absolutely necessary.

What they did to the Electricity Department reads like a list of howlers. If you were actually paying a power bill at this time you would have seen it increase radically over the years because the market model simply wasn't working properly. Add to that the shortages and Auckland living in the dark for a month and it turned out really well.

This is not an example of the free market in action. Mercury is owned by a consumer trust. Of the nine directors, four were appointed by the trust, and five by a government-chosen law firm!

Countries like Australia, that enacted less radical policies, came out of it a lot better than we did.

And if it was so great then why did New Zealanders get so annoyed that they changed their electoral system to prevent it happening again? And why oh why will the right never ever form another Government? They're finished in NZ, permanently.

Of course if right wing reforms were so great, this would never happen.

Never again you wish. Plenty of people still remember the bad old days when you had to wait weeks for telephone service and when the Cook Strait Ferries offered hard benches, nauseating food, and lavatories reeking of vomit that a huge staff of ferry workers would refuse to mop up.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Caligastia

No he wouldn't, but he's not exactly known for his firm grip on reality is he?

One of the more skilful politicians ever to come out of New Zealand actually. He didn't take himself too seriously.

How old are you? You strike me as someone who didn't really experience Muldoon.

Whatever term you wish to use, the NZ govt generally pursued appalling economic policies pre 1984.

They did not. For most of the twentieth century New Zealand Governments pursued excellent economic policies. That's why we had the highest standard of living in the world for quite some time. And in NZ that was due largely to the welfare state.

Most other governments in similar countries pursued similar policies. The Trudeau government in Canada and its precursors, a succession of pre-Reagan US administrations are examples. They were good policies, they worked for years and created arguably the greatest economic expansion in human history.

Unfortunately, for several reasons it fell apart. You can blame who you like (the Americans ****ing up Bretton Woods is one popular target), but the notion that these were bad policies is simply crackheaded.

This is true, but things were going downhill way before that happened. During the 50s, NZ foolishly assumed that the boom in the wool market, and it's unique access to the British agricultural market would continue forever. The politicians were flush with the enormous amounts of money that came rolling in, and did what politicians do best - spend up large.

And they did so excellently, that's why we had the highest standard of living in the world. What's your complaint?

The only really wasteful spending was on Muldoon's energy megaprojects, which everyone, both left and right agree were a waste of money.

Of course, by the 60s, when conditions had changed (eg declining prices for agricultural products) all the politicians could think to do was borrow money so they could continue their spending spree.

AFAIK it was later than that and most countries like NZ (Canada is a good example) were in a similar situation. Not all these countries chose to slash and burn, those that tinkered less seem to have ended up better off.

Unpopular, but necessary, decisions had to be made. New Zealand was an unsustainable fool's paradise. You can't just keep spending when there's nothing there to spend.

I see you've swallowed the usual bull****. New Zealand was not ever in any danger of going bankrupt. During the run up to the 1984 election New Zealand had a temporary currency crisis because the leader of the Labour Party had indicated that he was going to devalue when elected. This created a run on the NZ dollar that threatened to exhaust our reserves.

Now the political right has rewritten history and claimed that New Zealand was going bankrupt. Yes, a short term currency crisis meant that we were all doomed!!

New Zealand's credit rating never once dipped below Aa3 (which is low risk). The notion that massive debts were forcing radical cutbacks is simply an invention of right wing hacks. If New Zealand was really in trouble you would have thought Moody's would have noticed.

I can't claim everything went perfectly, of course, but a radical change in the way the government functioned was absolutely necessary.

Why? Because we were running up a debt we couldn't pay? As I've just showed you that is false. There was nothing wrong with New Zealand's international credit rating.

The facts simply do not support any of your assertions. Mild reform would have been sufficient. In fact the reforms only worsened New Zealand's debt to GDP ratio, so on top of all that, they didn't ****ing work.

This is not an example of the free market in action. Mercury is owned by a consumer trust. Of the nine directors, four were appointed by the trust, and five by a government-chosen law firm!

It's an example of what happens when something is privatised that would have been better let be.

I notice that you didn't dispute the fact that since the reforms power prices have increased dramatically and service has gotten much worse. You haven't because that's the truth. Those clowns had no idea what they were doing and spent a fortune rejigging a system that was already working perfectly well.

Never again you wish. Plenty of people still remember the bad old days when you had to wait weeks for telephone service and when the Cook Strait Ferries offered hard benches, nauseating food, and lavatories reeking of vomit that a huge staff of ferry workers would refuse to mop up.

Plenty of people still remember when New Zealand had the highest standard of living in the world. Frankly, that makes a mockery of all your complaints.

As for Telecom. That's about the only success story of the whole business, but even then it masks a massive failure. The idiots in government simply sold it far too cheaply.

Anyway, let's look at what these reforms did. New Zealand's GDP actually declined over the years from 1985-93. Unemployment more than doubled. Manufacturing exports declined. That's the worst record in the industrialized world. And this from OECD research.

And crowning it all, according to our own economists, NZ's debt situation actually got worse over that period.

Now, given that other countries like Australia which enacted milder reforms did better and the facts I've just cited, you have absolutely no case. The reforms were fraudulent, and so are those who defend them.

[Caligastia]

I suppose we could go on, Agathon, but I prefer not to debate in an atmosphere of contempt and patronism. Some of my comments were also snide, sure, but what do you expect when you question my worth as a New Zealander simply because my political opinions are different from yours. For you to accuse Roger Douglas and his contemporaries of being ideologues seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

To be honest I'm disappointed that we couldn't discuss this in a more civil manner. You seem like a much nicer person in other posts of yours that I've read. I guess you're just one of those people in whom politics brings out the worst.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I suppose we could go on, Agathon, but I prefer not to debate in an atmosphere of contempt and patronism. Some of my comments were also snide, sure, but what do you expect when you question my worth as a New Zealander simply because my political opinions are different from yours. For you to accuse Roger Douglas and his contemporaries of being ideologues seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

To be honest I'm disappointed that we couldn't discuss this in a more civil manner. You seem like a much nicer person in other posts of yours that I've read. I guess you're just one of those people in whom politics brings out the worst.

His comments were no more contemptuous or patronizing than what most people make here. All he has done is point out some of the more outrageous claims that you've made.

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Kidicious


His comments were no more contemptuous or patronizing than what most people make here. All he has done is point out some of the more outrageous claims that you've made.

Oh yes? You're an expert on New Zealand's economic policy now are you?

Go back to sleep.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I suppose we could go on, Agathon, but I prefer not to debate in an atmosphere of contempt and patronism. Some of my comments were also snide, sure, but what do you expect when you question my worth as a New Zealander simply because my political opinions are different from yours.

That's not quite what I said. I said that New Zealand was better off without the far right crowd. It seems that most New Zealanders agree with me since National doesn't have a hope in hell of being the government ever again.

For you to accuse Roger Douglas and his contemporaries of being ideologues seems like the pot calling the kettle black to me.

Actually Douglas isn't so much an ideologue as an idiot. He and his friends fell for the Treasury's 1983(?) report on economic governance, which was the work of ideologues.

You can call me an ideologue if you like, but you'll find that I am much less doctrinaire than many. For example, I consider myself to be quite left wing, but that doesn't mean that I believe that the left doesn't owe a better answer to some economic criticisms that have been made, or that the left should steer away from markets at all costs. In fact, as methods of distribution, markets have a lot to recommend them in certain areas.

To be honest I'm disappointed that we couldn't discuss this in a more civil manner. You seem like a much nicer person in other posts of yours that I've read. I guess you're just one of those people in whom politics brings out the worst.

I think you are taking offense where none was intended. I've just pointed out that the facts do not support your position.

[Caligastia]

I don't know how you expect me to to take it when you tell me I'm not a true NZer simply because of my opinion on economic issues. I'm proud to be a kiwi, and I'm proud to be from a country where diverse opinions can be freely expressed.

Perhaps I'll make a New Zealand thread discussion sometime...maybe on the Treaty of Waitangi...

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Caligastia
I don't know how you expect me to to take it when you tell me I'm not a true NZer simply because of my opinion on economic issues. I'm proud to be a kiwi, and I'm proud to be from a country where diverse opinions can be freely expressed.

I don't know how you would take it either. I had a quick look back at the thread and it appears I said nothing of the sort. I said that New Zealand was better off without right wing ideologues, but hell, I think everywhere would be better off without them.

Go back, have a read. See what you can find.

Perhaps I'll make a New Zealand thread discussion sometime...maybe on the Treaty of Waitangi...

That would be fun. I hope you don't take Stuart Scott (God rest his soul) seriously.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Caligastia


Oh yes? You're an expert on New Zealand's economic policy now are you?

Go back to sleep.

I'm just interested in the subject, because I don't know that much about it. I hope you don't stop because you are offended.

[Berzerker]

Agathon -

Berz, it's become painfully evident to me that you don't even understand my argument, which is the sort of thing you can find in an introductory economics textbook. I suggest you read one.

If charity works so well, then why do I still see homeless people, despite the fact that nobody likes seeing them?

You're changing your argument...again... You said people wouldn't pay taxes voluntarily because of a "prisoners dilemma" - people who might give won't because of people who don't give. When I pointed out that if this was true, no one would give to charities, you ignored this problem with your argument and started arguing that not many people donate to charity, which isn't true either. Then you changed your argument again to dispute the efficiency of charity to deal with homelessness. So if I don't understand your argument, it's because you can't stick to one argument. But I do understand your PD argument and I've refuted it...

And I already pointed out the illogic of pointing to charitable giving in a high tax welfare state, people just have less disposable income and they have the POV that they already pay taxes for that. Why are there homeless people, probably an inordinate number, in very liberal welfare state jurisdictions? The answers to that question exposes the problems with the welfare state ideology, but that's another matter...