Crown Operating Balance
This graph shows the operating balance or surplus, since we went back into positives (thanks to Ruth and Bill). Now you can see in the mid 1990s the level of surplus got pretty high – up to 4% of GDP, so taxes were lowered, and for around five years we had
a reasonable sensible level of surplus.
Then in 2003 the level of surplus started to shoot up. And as was almost inevitable, it stayed massively high as Dr Cullen kept insisting that one could not afford to reduce tax. It reached almost 8% of GDP, which would be close to 25% of Crown Expenditure.
And remember when you look at the year just finished, that this is the year when Dr Cullen cancelled the chewing gum tax cuts because they could not be afforded.
Here’s a good game to try. When the surplus got up to $5 billion I would ask friends in Labour if that was high enough to be able to reduce taxes. They would always say no. So I would then ask them to pick a level at which one could agree the surplus is big enough to lower taxes. They wouldn’t. I cheekily suggested a figure of $10 billion (never ever thinking one would ever get a surplus so large) and asked if they would agree taxes could be reduced at that level. They demurred, with such fortunate vision on their part.
The only correct answer, as we have found, is “never”.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:22 am
David, the surplus is not evidence of ‘overtaxation’. According to treasury figures, tax as a percentage of GDP increased from 30.7% in 1998 to just 31.8% in 2007 – hardly a government blowout. If anything, the surplus shows a need for more spending on public services.
More info over at http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=441
[DPF: Oh another link. I'm definitely going to start counting. Maybe we should have a points system. 5 points if Tane manages it as the first comment, three points if in the top five and one point if buried deeper down. Can Tane make 100 points in a month?
And on the substance, I do not accept that just because the economy grows 5%, then the state should automatically grow 5% also. Every other country in the OECD, given our situation, increases social spending and reduces taxes. It's calling having a balanced approach, rather than being ideological fanatics]
October 12th, 2007 at 10:29 am
And during the 1990s National was not doing any of the things that Labour is doing with the operating surplus – putting $2billion a year into the Cullen Fund, $2billion into capital investment, paying down debt
… no, National was running down spending and more seriously of all failing to make the long-term investmnets needed for the country to grow into the future.
Now, we have a mssive infrastrutuce deficit that the Governemnt is spending as fast as the economy can handle to fix, and we have to put $1 billion a year away for the boom in retirements coming in 15 years – if we had started to save for that 15 years ago, as experts suggested, we would have more free moeny now.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:30 am
Really Tane, conveniently fogotten about crown owned power companies, have you? Prices and profits have more than doubled under labour.
Who pays? Well, it’s basically a regressive tax, with the burden falling most on those with large families.
Why do they need this price gouging? To fund new investment. Maybe, but that is no excuse for hanging on to the profit instead of giving it back to the people they gouged it from. THE TAXPAYER
October 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
sorry, $2billion
I see the Hollow Men has got a second season already. Will you be going to see it now? You should its good fun.
[DPF: Absolutely. I can't wait]
October 12th, 2007 at 10:32 am
And during the 1990s National was not doing any of the things that Labour is doing with the operating surplus – putting $2billion a year into the Cullen Fund, $2billion into capital investment, paying down debt
Oh dear…… When you are finished ranting, you may want to re-read this topic:
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/10/net_debt.html
What was national doing? Trying to recover from Lange and Muldoon, thats what!
October 12th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Agree with Tane here. Our Govt tax intake as a percentage of GDP is actually one of the lowest in the developed world.
(See page 31)
http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/3526CCF7-E047-47D5-9B80-27C137E068C6/0/NZintheOECD.pdf
The surplus that we have would be better spent in improving our public transport infrastructure in preparation for increased energy/oil prices in the coming years (the International Energy agency has forecast skyrocketing oil prices as of 2010 due to demand outstripping supply). Presently we can easily afford the capital outlay that this would require – however it might not be so easy once the higher energy prices start to bite into economic growth.
It’s also worth remembering that New Zealand is one of the few OECD countries with a government that’s actually operating with a surplus rather than a deficit – so Labour/Cullen deserves a pat on the back for achieving this.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:35 am
“we have to put $1 billion a year away for the boom in retirements coming in 15 years – if we had started to save for that 15 years ago, as experts suggested, we would have more free moeny now.”
Yes and let us not forget that it was a National government that scraped Labour’s/Norman Kirk’s compulsory retirement saving initiative in the 1970s (National of course spent that money on election bribes instead).
October 12th, 2007 at 10:38 am
but milo – its a market
October 12th, 2007 at 10:39 am
I think the graph from the Standard pretty much kills DPF’s argument stone dead.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:40 am
What we dont need is MORE government spending What we need is BETTER government spending.
The top 2 inches in the civil service is geared to spending the amount allocated in any year. Yet they have had so much they couldnt find a way to spend almost 1 BILLION DOLLARS in the last year.
It never ceases to amaze me the contrast in thinking between civil servants and successful business people.
The mind sets are totally different.
the business person has to find money before it can be spent.
The civil servant is given money and told to go and spend it.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:41 am
milo, he’s talking about taxation.
and, anyway, yesterday’s figures have all SOEs returning a total of $400million a year to the taxpayer – that’s less than 1% of Govt revenue and expenditure.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:43 am
anyway, yesterday’s figures have all SOEs returning a total of $400million a year to the taxpayer
I think its halirious that you confuse the Tax Payer for the Governments coffers!
October 12th, 2007 at 10:50 am
gd – it always comes back to this doesn’t it?
‘there’s all this waste in government, all we need to do is cut the waste, spend better, and it will be hip ops and tax cuts for all!’
First, the premise is stupid. Any government wants to deliver more for less, no governemnt is going to conciously choose to be wasteful when there’s obviously votes in not being wasteful. Its not credible tha Labour is choosing to be wasteful.
Second, nobody who claims there is all this waste can identify a meaningful amount of waste – look at wastewatch.co.nz
… oh wait, you can’t anymore because National’s great plan to expose Govt waste couldn’t identify anything, when I last saw the site before it went on its over one year long ‘hiatus’, it had less than a billion dollars of ‘waste’ for 6 years of Laobur government and that included the entire costs of the new prisions and the Wananga, $400 million each, (wven if there was some waste in them, the entire cost of both programs cannot be sensibly called waste).
Basically, National’s professional research unit could find ‘waste’ equating to less than 0.1% of government spending over the period, and even the bulk of that ‘waste’ was not really waste.
October 12th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Oh shit GD – how do you come back from that one? “ummmm, I don’t care, government bad, Business Round Table good!?”
October 12th, 2007 at 10:54 am
Bevan – the government belongs to us, the citizens and residents of New Zealand, we pay the taxes that pay for the majority of the services it provides to us. The Government is merely society organising and polling its resources at a National level (its not a company though, so don’t start talking about shares).. It is our Government, that’s why we get to vote on who runs it for us, and so it makes sense to view a non-tax revenue to the Governemtn as revenue to us – after all, it means we can have more services for less tax.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:03 am
“It is our Government, ”
It is your government Dixon, not mine. Having a conscience, I would never be part of such a crooked cronyist commie scam on the citizens of New Zealand.
“we pay the taxes”
No you don’t. You receive the taxes.
“the services it provides to us”
It doesn’t provide any services. None that work as they should anyway.
“after all, it means we can have more services for less tax.”
Less services for more tax. Read the Rennie report.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:05 am
The surplus that we have would be better spent in improving our public transport infrastructure in preparation for increased energy/oil prices in the coming years (the International Energy agency has forecast skyrocketing oil prices as of 2010 due to demand outstripping supply).
This would be an argument against tax cuts only if we had a government that actually did any of this, but this government doesn’t spend money on energy efficiency rather prefering to retire debt. In fact by taking money off us it reduces opportunity to make our own more energy efficient choices.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:09 am
The Govt is rich – the people are poor. Sam & roger defend this as if it’s a good thing.
Govt has a massive surplus and personal debt is at it’s highest levels ever !
Wow – the lunatics are in charge of the asylum.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:10 am
“It is your government Dixon, not mine.”
More evidence that Bleater’s a solipsist.
““we pay the taxes”
No you don’t. You receive the taxes.It doesn’t provide any services. None that work as they should anyway.”
Still no gratitude for the mental health services that you’ve received from this government – shame on you!
October 12th, 2007 at 11:12 am
roger
Shall we discuss the state of the mental health service under Labour ?
Are you up for it? It will require some degree of saying Labour hasn’t got all the answers to everything – so will you take it on ?
October 12th, 2007 at 11:15 am
Of course when you compare NZ’s level of taxation to the bloated old governments of Western Europe and the Unites States it looks relatively low.
Just like if you use the classic Ford Falcon as your benchmark for fuel economy: next to that everything looks economical and without need for improvement.
It seems that being smart, innovative, and efficient is a bad idea when applied to government.
Perhaps if NZ re-nationalised Telecom and introduced laws that forbade private companies getting involved in telecommunications then the public might wake up – but probably not: if there was a 12 month waiting lists to get a phone connected and it cost $150 per month then I suppose the brilliant NZ public would just complain that the govt was not spending enough on telecommunications.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:16 am
Jim
Exactly. Well said.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:17 am
Bevan – the government belongs to us, the citizens and residents of New Zealand, we pay the taxes that pay for the majority of the services it provides to us.
Will this idealism run through to a National led Government as well Sam? Quite frankly this government has forgotten it works for us
And we dont pay the taxes Sam, they are taken from us whether we like it or not – when I pay for something I at least have a choice in the purchase!
October 12th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Railways under state management employed 22,000 people and it cost more to send a crushed car to Auckland from Wellington for melting down in a steel mill then it cost to send the same car to Korea on a ship.
The idiots who just believe all they hear about how good it is today have no perspective of what it was like and also the way it’s heading again.
History repeats – and they love it simply because “National Bad”.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:19 am
unaha-closp -
“In fact by taking money off us it reduces opportunity to make our own more energy efficient choices.”
Actually – in the free market economies (AUS, NZ, US, Can) energy is used far less efficiently than the social democracies of Europe. In the case energy, the market doesn’t produce an efficient and rational outcome – it causes waste (fuel prices are too low and public infrastructure in poorly developed)
“This would be an argument against tax cuts only if we had a government that actually did any of this”
I agree with you here – the labor government hasn’t matched its fuel efficiency rhetoric with action – very surprising seeing as most people in New Zealand want a better public transport service (it’s a vote winner). However – this may be about to change – i.e. the govt’s newly released energy strategy promises a large investment in public transport infrastructure – let’s hope it’s not just more hot air.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:19 am
Railways after being privatised dropped it’s head count to 5,000 and the cost of sending a crushed car to Auckland became less than sending it to Korea…. How did that happen – surely it’s just a bit of old history that’s not relevant.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:22 am
“Of course when you compare NZ’s level of taxation to the bloated old governments of Western Europe and the Unites States it looks relatively low.”
So you’re one of those “reality has a left-wing bias” guys. Nice
October 12th, 2007 at 11:22 am
Hey roger.
I knew a train driver under the “old” Railways who when the average wage was about $18K was on $72K. This was the state at it’s finest…..
And we were paying for it!
October 12th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Bevan -
because the government provides universal services without direct charging, paid for out of taxation and other revenue, taxation must also be universal. Otherwise, there would be massive freerider behaviour from cheap buggers such as your good self.
Me, I don’t mind paying taxes. They’re the price of a prosperious, humane, civilised society.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:26 am
“Hey roger. I knew a train driver under the “old” Railways who when the average wage was about $18K was on $72K. This was the state at it’s finest…..”
I know burt – my uncle was a train driver under that system – and it was ridiculous.
The optimal arrangement, in the case of the railways is that the state retains ownership of the assets, while private companies compete to provide the service. It stops the irrationalities that both of the extremes produce.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:34 am
Gee Roger, sure hope you weren’t one of the ones squealing about PPPs a few days ago.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:35 am
“So you’re one of those “reality has a left-wing bias” guys. Nice”
LIke most people I don’t think in terms of left or right wing, and for the record I’d say that a “right-wing” government is not necessarily efficient.
So you’re one of those who like to classify everyone as right or left wing and then apply your prejudices when reading. Nice.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:36 am
i cant help but butt in here.
the state is certainly very good at providing services. In fact, they are so good that they should provide other services – ones that are even more vital than those old warhorses ‘health and education’.
That is – food and shelter! The govt, given the extreme importance of housing and food to the good of the people in the same manner as health and education, must therefore nationalise the whole of the food manufacture and distribution system, and the same with housing.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha – who would like to guess at what a loaf of bread would cost? or perhaps what it would take to get a house built?
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
in my opinion this exposes the sheer foolishness of a huge chunk of the argument for the state providing essential services.
so come on – how much for a loaf of bread?
October 12th, 2007 at 11:36 am
So, why is the NZ surplus the second highest in the OECD, behind only Norway, which is in the throes of a windfall resources boom?
And it’s not just about taxes, it’s about total Crown revenue. Sam Dixon also told a lie in saying that SOE’s return about $400m. The correct figure is $1.8 billion, and that is after dividends (not to mention GST on the inflated prices. The following link proves it.
http://www.treasury.govt.nz/forecasts/befu/2006/14.asp
So about one quarter of the surplus comes from price gouging by the government. And people say government ownerships is better?
October 12th, 2007 at 11:38 am
Me, I don’t mind paying taxes. They’re the price of a prosperious, humane, civilised society.
So when are you going to deliver that society? ..and I say you don’t pay taxes. I say you’re a government employee. Using the taxes I am forced to pay to cement your position as one who scams an undeserved lifestyle- by voting for politicians whose only platform is their promise to loot the productive sector and share the takings with those corrupt individuals who vote for them.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:40 am
“Gee Roger, sure hope you weren’t one of the ones squealing about PPPs a few days ago.”
That’s getting into complex territory Spam. Different arrangements work better in different sectors – i.e. I wouldn’t Nationalise the supermarkets, and I wouldn’t privatise our schooling system.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:40 am
roger
The optimal arrangement, in the case of the railways is that the state retains ownership of the assets, while private companies compete to provide the service. It stops the irrationalities that both of the extremes produce.
A public/private partnership – Aren’t these a bad thing this month ?
October 12th, 2007 at 11:40 am
because the government provides universal services without direct charging, paid for out of taxation and other revenue, taxation must also be universal. Otherwise, there would be massive freerider behaviour from cheap buggers such as your good self.
Sam, who ever said I was argueing against that? And I do take offense at your last line – as you do not know a single thing about me other than whats on this blog, your judgement is not only pathetic – but shows your own small minded bigoted generalisation.
But clearly you want to side step my MAIN question, so I’ll repeat it:
Will this idealism run through to a National led Government as well Sam?
October 12th, 2007 at 11:43 am
“because the government provides universal services “
Universal benefits are a Labour thing so why is WFF means tested ? Isn’t that a tory style policy ?
October 12th, 2007 at 11:44 am
“ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha – who would like to guess at what a loaf of bread would cost? or perhaps what it would take to get a house built? ha ha ha ha ha ha ha”
And adding maniacal laughter to your argument furthers it how?
“In fact, they are so good that they should provide other services – ones that are even more vital than those old warhorses ‘health and education’.”
So kids from poor families shouldn’t be going to school then? Because that’s what would happen if you completely privatised education. Like I said – different arrangements for different sectors – the ideologues on both sides of the political spectrum get it wrong
October 12th, 2007 at 11:44 am
“but shows your own small minded bigoted generalisation.”
Damn right- a socialist daring to call non-socialists “free riders”. Man, those people are so fucked in the head, and there is so many of them, and they’re so dangerous to prosperity and liberty, and they’re doing so much damage to this country.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:48 am
roger nome
The charity hospital in CHCH proves your assertion that the ‘wealthy don’t care’ is completely wrong. People have donated their own money to fix health services in CHCH despite being taxed excessively by the Govt.
Having reduced ‘rich’ peoples ability to donate via higer taxation the Govt policies are preventing more of this sort of thing occuring.
You have it all wrong and you can’t see it.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:49 am
“So you’re one of those who like to classify everyone as right or left wing and then apply your prejudices when reading. Nice.”
Mate – if you, like redbaiter, think that every country in the world is too left-wing then you’re clearly a right wing ideologue.
Go and take the political compass test.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test
October 12th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Robert Owen was bashing on that we should give away more of the surplus in foreign aid – I wonder if it ever occured to him that he can donate as much as he wants of his own money… I doubt he would have considered that option….
State rich – people poor. This is the state of NZ as we know it today.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:51 am
I’m completely lost, does this mean we CAN afford a new stadium, or does it mean we CAN’T afford a new stadium!
October 12th, 2007 at 11:51 am
roger
I took that test a few months back, it’s interesting. How did you score ?
October 12th, 2007 at 11:55 am
Burt:
From memory I scored pretty much bang in the middle of the lefty liberal quadrant. How about you?
“The charity hospital in CHCH proves your assertion that the ‘wealthy don’t care’ is completely wrong. People have donated their own money to fix health services in CHCH despite being taxed excessively by the Govt.”
How you can read this whole thread and still think that we’re “over-taxed” is just astounding. I’m actually starting to think that you’re impervious to reason – slightly hypocritical when you go around accusing all in sundry of having a blinkered ideological bias.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:55 am
roger nome
One more thing about that test is that the blurb explains the ‘right/left’ thing as being outdated – as the political environment is substantially more complex than ‘left or right’. Yet what we see from you is a constand blabber “Right – bad” “left good”.
So the question is: Do you believe that it’s all about left vs right or is there a complex matrix of factors ?
If youn think there is a complex matrix of fators then please stop this “national Bad” “Labour good” shit that you are famous for.
October 12th, 2007 at 11:58 am
roger nome
People on $17K/year are not going to have donating to charity as a priority are they.
People paying 39% tax on their earnings are the people who tend to donate the most to charity. Taxation policies make it harder for them to donate money to charity. Basic maths… and yes there are exceptions where low paid people are still very generous.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
“Mate – if you, like redbaiter, think that every country in the world is too left-wing then you’re clearly a right wing ideologue.”
I never mentioned left or right wing, so I can’t comprehend your pigeonholing. Seems like you are the one with the problem.
I was talking about efficiency. Somehow you made the leap that, because I think something is not efficient – then I must also think it is left-wing. That tells me more about you than you about me, I’m afraid.
“Go and take the political compass test.”
I know where I stand (and it is certainly nowhere near where you obviously assume that is), and I’m not going to entertain your stupid bigoted rants.
I suggest you make a comment on the argument, if you wish, but don’t try to analyse the person behind it.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Basic human nature for most people is to be generous. Private charity is one of our human rights and thats why socialists hate it.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
So there is a group in New Zealand that thinks no amount of tax is too high. So what do you think they will do if they get another term in office.
They will add new taxes of course. As they have done for the last 6 years. Their ambition is to increase the government to be close to 50% of the economy. They have to squeeze out private sector investment to achieve this. And they have to massively increase the tax take.
Why don’t you Labour supporters come clean? You don’t just want no tax cuts. You want more taxes and more tax revenue.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
If youn think there is a complex matrix of fators then please stop this “national Bad” “Labour good” shit that you are famous for.
I think Roger must live in a one-dimensional world. Bets not confuse him that the rest of us possess a mix of values that can’t be plotted on a chart.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
“So the question is: Do you believe that it’s all about left vs right or is there a complex matrix of factors?”
Yep – there’s also the liberalism vs conservatism continuum. Actually i’ve mad many long posts here about the complexity of the left vs right divide. Can’t be bothered repeating myself really.
Here’s one post i’ve done:
Bev – what is considered right and left changes according to where the political center of gravity (economically speaking) is situated. i.e. in the 1970s the political centre of gravity was probably somewhere between where the alliance and labour are now.
The political center of gravity is determined by globa and national material and social forces. i.e. during the 1950s, 60s and early 70s national economies were thriving under the keynsianist economic model, which allowed very powerful national social movements (unions etc) to grow and powerfully influence government (economies were predominantly domestic, which placed national social movements in a powerful position re the economy). But then external oil shocks combined with a dominant labour movement (high wage increases) and high levels of government spending caused skyrocketing inflation levels leading to unstable economic situation (high levels of unemployment, recession and an extremely risky investment environment). This destroyed the keynsian consensus, and forced western countries into and era of trade liberalisation -economies needed to be more flexible in order to cope with external economic shocks (oil shocks).
So my conclusion from this is that there were probably many trade liberalists (Don Brash types) in Muldoon’s government that were constrained by the material and social environment/political center of gravity, and thus had to adopt certain elements of socialism in order to be electable. I would think that the same goes for the right-wing fascist parties of the 1930s and 1940s – they were very pro-business and anti-labour, but in order to be popular and practical (if not necessarily “electable”) were forced to adopt some elements of socialism (i.e. big state run projects, nationalisation of industry etc).
Similarly, people like helen clark – who were much more leftist during the 1970s, have been forced by a changing material and social reality to move rightwards.
What I take from this is that right wing doesn’t necessarily mean small government. In fact the definition of right wing is just what ever is right of the political center of gravity at the time. Sometimes this means very small government. Sometimes it doesn’t.
Here’s another
“Globalisation started for NZ in 1769, for the Americas in 1492, and thousands of years ago for the rest of the world.”
This comes to the crux of it all, most of the people who criticise the critics of globalisation have no clue what is meant by globalisation. Capitalism by definition is the subversion of immediate social and environmental factors by the imperative to accumulate capital (not an inherently bad thing). In the days of Keynesianism the state had a chance to re balance this equation with non-market mechanisms that attenuate the harsh edges of the market. Now however we frown upon these non-market mechanisms (Unionism, full employment aided by the state etc) and market forces are left free to shape the world we live in. What has resulted is a “race to the bottom”. This is the effect that the significantly increased internationalisation of trade is having on environmental and social concerns within nation states. Essentially the opening up of trade controls has elevated market competition far above social and environmental concerns. Cut-throat global competition heightens the imperative to externalise environmental and social costs to the point where each country is in a competition to see who can destroy the fabric of society the fastest. The result of this is unemployment on average 5% higher in the last 20 years than the previous 20 (in western countries) income disparities widening at an alarming rate, vastly increased crime rates and the acceleration of pollution and general environmental depredation.
This as all for a few more gadgets to play with, more international traveling and more life opportunities in general. Was it all worth it? In my opinion no.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:12 pm
Roger,
“Actually – in the free market economies (AUS, NZ, US, Can) energy is used far less efficiently than the social democracies of Europe. In the case energy, the market doesn’t produce an efficient and rational outcome – it causes waste (fuel prices are too low and public infrastructure in poorly developed) “
There is a tried and tested way of getting a free market economy to make a better decision – education. Educate the people on how an oil crunch is imminent and explain the likely cost increases. People then know they are wisest to invest greater capital now in buying a more efficient appliance/house/car/lightbulb and will save over time. Crucially though people need the greater capital available and our high taxes prevent this.
This Labour government by focusing on retiring debt at the expense of investment in efficient infrastructure and at the expense of taxpayers, has acted in the worst possible way on this.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
“There is a tried and tested way of getting a free market economy to make a better decision – education.”
Possibly to some degree – however – I don’t think that this mechanism is stong enough to subvert the cost-demand mechanism. i.e. I recently saw a graph comparing about 20 OECD countries that showed a near perfect correlation between the cost of petrol and the efficiency of its use (units used per GDP $).
October 12th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
roger nome, the reason nearly all developed countries have moved away from “non-market mechanisms [to] attenuate the harsh edges of the market” is because they simply don’t work. Central planning and coordination by someone in a Wellington ministry office is no substitute for the dynamicism of a large number of individuals making their individual decisions based on the detailed opportunities in front of them. “Non-market mechanisms” deliver lowest common denominator outcomes. But most of us want (a lot) better than that.
Sure, the “free-market approach” is a lot more harsh to some people, and its appropriate then that society provide some form of safety net. Granted. But before you glow happily about “full employment aided by the state etc” ask yourself how much does that cost?
Re your unemployment stats …. I’d suggest the reason unemployment has been higher in the last 20 years is because of (i) demographic effects as large population cohorts hit the workforce and (ii) societal changes as more women, in particular, enter the workforce. No globalisation conspiracy at work here. Just everyday people making rational decisions in light of their own individual situations.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
You don’t need to invoke “social democracies” vs. “free-market” econnomies to explain energy efficiency. What a load of crap. You can explain it completely through a combination of industrialisation and population density.
Europe is more densely populated that North American or Australasia. Therefore, people have smaller homes, better travel infrastructure, and do not travel as far. Attributing this to ideology is weird.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
Roger seems to think he alone knows the intricacies of political affiliation – yet time and agian falls back to Labour good, National Bad.
What a knob.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Virtual mark – getting way off topic here – so, although i’d love to have this discussion, i shall refrain from indulging you there I’m afraid. Claim victory if you feel the need.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
I’m all thing to all people it seems…. I hit the matrix bullseye !
October 12th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
“You don’t need to invoke “social democracies” vs. “free-market” econnomies to explain energy efficiency. What a load of crap.”
I recently saw a graph comparing about 20 OECD countries that showed a near perfect correlation between the cost of petrol and the efficiency of its use (units used per GDP $).
Exactly what part of cost-demand curves don’t you understand?
October 12th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
The result of this is unemployment on average 5% higher in the last 20 years than the previous 20 (in western countries) income disparities widening at an alarming rate, vastly increased crime rates and the acceleration of pollution and general environmental depredation.
And 500 million or so Chinese and Indians raised out of poverty in that time.
Do they not matter? I reckon they might think they do.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:29 pm
It is quite OK for Mickey Cullen to keep thieving more money than is required from our wallets because this is the same reason why H2 happily signed of the theft of public money for the pledge card.
The problem is until we accept completely that the State can and will (like it or lump it) look after our own money better than we can, we just won’t recognise the wonderful benefits the state can provide us with thru;
• Better prisons to care for our disadvantaged,
• Better unemployed benefits
• Better healthcare thru increasing the amount of support staff so that our medical records are well cared for and any trends in health our patterns are picked up by after 10 yrs.
• Better and longer waiting lists to ensure that you get treated promptly and everyone else waiting who has mainly only got a imagined illness has to wait while we treat you first.
• Better legal representation and care for the immagrants that have had previous military or terrorist backgrounds.
• Better protection thru the EFB of the good Govt that looks after you at the moment.
• Better staffing levels at Govt dept’s so that you should only have to wait at hospitals now not at other Govt depts.
• Better smacking protection of Children from their parents.
• Better Bail conditions to help reintegration in to general society.
• Better schools thru removing any chance of one exceeding the other.
• Better police force thru giving the police better suspension terms and vehicles.
• Better access to opposition emails to prevent political advantage.
• Better employment levels by ensuring unemployed are placed on the correct disability benefit.
• Better loans to beneficiaries to ensure that they have access to equal cars and home comforts as the rich.
• Better protection of MP’s from scurrilous claims of misdemenours such as speeding to rugby matches.
• Better performances of our sporting teams by sending along the PM to ensure we win.
• Better filtering techniques when hiring Govt dept. staff to prevent neutrality in the public service.
• Better roading thru keeping existing roads open and not doing messy road works thru Transmission Gullies.
• Better use of Govt money thru communicating our pledges to you.
• Better returns on Govt shares from Airlines by ensuring that they don’t try private charter work for foreign untrustworthy ADF militia groups.
• Better travel arrangements for MP’s and their consorts.
• Better protection from our trusted allies like China from repressive dictatorships such as the US.
Its always Better under Labour- we know how to look after you money better – always.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
Nice one Bev – always got something useful to say.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“unaha-closp”
“And 500 million or so Chinese and Indians raised out of poverty in that time.
Do they not matter? I reckon they might think they do.”
For most of boom-time during the 19th and 20th century the US economy operated with significant trade barriers – it was primarily a national economy. Large countries can develop quite nicely all on their own without the need to destroy all trade protections.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
“I recently saw a graph comparing about 20 OECD countries that showed a near perfect correlation between the cost of petrol and the efficiency of its use (units used per GDP $).”
I must have missed that part of the communist manifesto. Or was it on the pledge card? RN your argument is incoherent (again). Are you claiming this higher petrol taxes is an essential part of social democracies? That’s really weird. And are you claiming that New Zealand is not a social democracy, despite 7 years of Labour, because we have lower petrol taxes? Or what are you claiming?
Keep this up and I’ll start scrolling past your posts the way I do with Phil U’s.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
For what it’s worth – I scored just inside the lower right quadrant. A social liberal. Close to the center – not quite the rabit right wing nutta nome think I am. Also not the national supporter I must be because I’m not a Labour supporter…
I also love nomes analysis… I just had to include examples of Helen Clark didn’t it…. and he think he is balanced.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Nice one Bev – always got something useful to say.
Right back at cha buddy.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
fair enough roger nome. But, on-message, the size of our surplus is basically saying that the Government is running a profit margin that’d be the envy of most listed corporates. It’s bizarre to see the rabid lefties arguing on the one hand that unrestrained capitalism is the root of so many evils, and then on the other hand arguing that the Government – a true monopoly rorting the “customer” more effectively than any large company – is noble and true, fighting the good fight for God, queen & country.
Well, maybe not for God, given its Labour
And I’ll leave it to you to pick your favourite (lower case) queen from the Labour caucus.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:43 pm
“Are you claiming this higher petrol taxes is an essential part of social democracies?”
Not essential – but they do tend to have higher petrol taxes – they also tend to be more environmentally focussed than the free-market countries. Possibly this is because the social democratic philosophy isn’t so worried about curtailing individual economic freedoms at the expense of everything else.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
oops that should have been
“Possibly this is because the social democratic philosophy isn’t so worried about retaining maximum individual economic freedoms at the expense of everything else.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
roger nome said “I recently saw a graph comparing about 20 OECD countries that showed a near perfect correlation between the cost of petrol and the efficiency of its use (units used per GDP $). Exactly what part of cost-demand curves don’t you understand?”
roger nome, I’m constantly surprised by most lefties inability to understand cost-demand dynamics. Or, putting it a different way, pricing signals and incentives. I find most left-leaning arguments tend to assume a very static model of people’s behaviour which just doesn’t stand up to experience.
A simple example … look at Abano Healthcare’s share price over the last 12 months (hint: it’s up about 350%). All because some bright spark in ACC decided to start funding audiology clinics & products. “The number of applications for audiology is so small it won’t cost us anything”. Yeah right, another great piece of commercial reasoning from a public sector mandarin. What’s happened? Big increases in referrals to audiologists (hey, it’s covered by ACC now …) and audiologists prescribing the top-of-the-line digital hearing aids (hey, ACC pays for them now …).
And a massive transfer of wealth from the public sector to Abano shareholders.
October 12th, 2007 at 12:52 pm
Roger, sonic et al.
What is the right level of tax?
How big would the surplus be before we gave tax cuts?
How about Labour tell people their sinister plans to increase taxes by 25% over the next 5 years, the ones they are hiding from the electorate and implement by stealth when the average joe isn’t looking?
October 12th, 2007 at 1:01 pm
“For most of boom-time during the 19th and 20th century the US economy operated with significant trade barriers – it was primarily a national economy. Large countries can develop quite nicely all on their own without the need to destroy all trade protections.”
In order to save the world from enviromental destruction China and India must triple their populations through accepting unlimited immigrants, do ‘regime change’ to Philipines, Central America & Cuba, suffer a Great Depression and win one Civil War & 2 World Wars?
Mind you, if globilisation is curtailled and those half billion are sacked from their export sector jobs – having a War is quite likely. Probably better in the interests of world peace if we ignore that suggestion.
October 12th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
So, virtualmark, you would deny my old man a digital hearing aid, despite an ENT specialist reporting that the cause of his massive hearing loss was his occupation and that the only device that was going to assistance him to communicate was a $4k Resound , because you think some public sector mandarin just for the hell of it decided to waste some public money.
Well heres hoping that you meet “Mr head on” on the way home this evening, take an instant 20% pay cut, spend the next several months flat on your back in agony, another year or more hobbling around, never regain what you’ve lost and then after years and years of fighting with the “mandarins” they assess you as being able to grade eggs or the like. Arsehole.
October 12th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
virtualmark Says: “I find most left-leaning arguments tend to assume a very static model of people’s behaviour which just doesn’t stand up to experience”
I think it’s more fundamental than that. Most of these arguments basically deny the existence of human nature (and are at the same time prime examples of human nature: usually self interest or greed or laziness) and fail to recognise that there is such a thing as individual motivation.
Classic examples are the arguments against performance-based pay.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Burt: For what it’s worth – I scored just inside the lower right quadrant. A social liberal. Close to the center – not quite the rabit right wing nutta nome think I am. Also not the national supporter I must be because I’m not a Labour supporter…
Interestingly enough, I scored relatively close to where I was expecting to score – squat bang in the middle of the compass. -0.12 towards Left and 0.31 towards Authoritarian.
The questions on that is rather ambiguous though. For example:
“The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs”
The prime function of schooling should be to develop reasoning, thinking individuals and to maximize their potential in areas they are interested in. This would naturally equip them with the abilities to either find or (indirectly) create jobs, but the question does not read that way. So while, to get my true position on the compass, I would have had to answer “Disagree”, in response to the strict interpretation I would had to answer “Agree”.
The second one that tickled my fancy was this one:
“Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.”
What about Fathers? Can we be homemakers as well and allow the women to work? I’d be perfectly happy with that and thus my answer needs to be “Disagree”. But the principle of the question seems to refer to a sexist, authoritarian viewpoint in which case looking at it from an non-gendered basis the answer is actually “Agree”.
It’s an interesting test, but ultimately I don’t feel any more englightened than if I’d done one of the “Who is your true love?” or “What character from Shortland Street are you?” questionares that bloggers love so much.
The questions are open to too much interpretation and again anyone who thinks can work out what to answer to place them wherever they want to be on it.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
I note castafiore’s post with interest, mainly because it is exactly that tupe of information the government woudl love to be able to hush up come the election year. I wonder how they are going to do that?
October 12th, 2007 at 2:11 pm
RoW siad (a while ago!) “I’m completely lost, does this mean we CAN afford a new stadium, or does it mean we CAN’T afford a new stadium!”
We can afford whatever will win an election, or whatever provides enough of a diversion to take the public focus of something unpopular. Mallard’s Monument was a very effective diversion of public attention away from Labour’s pledge card difficulties, and the retrospective validating legislation.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:14 pm
Roger Nome: Virtual mark – getting way off topic here – so, although i’d love to have this discussion, i shall refrain from indulging you there I’m afraid. Claim victory if you feel the need.
No need, he’s clearly the victor here. You’ve used your standard cop-out and run tactics when confronted by a superior argument that can’t be defeated by a Wikipedia search, Philip John
October 12th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
“The questions are open to too much interpretation and again anyone who thinks can work out what to answer to place them wherever they want to be on it.”
I agree. Its contrived bullshit.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
guys, you’re still posting on this thread? The let got in first, declared victory and went home hours ago.
October 12th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Still a very recent thread to declare victory and leave. Some people (who have day jobs) probably haven’t read it yet. (And yes, I note the implication that I don’t have a day job….)
October 12th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Sam Dixon: The le[f]t got in first, declared victory and went home hours ago.
How like the left to decide and impose its decision on everyone else.
October 12th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Sam: guys, you’re still posting on this thread? The let got in first, declared victory and went home hours ago.
Fuck, it’s shaping out to be too lovely a Friday to disagree with that. How ’bout we all meet up at the pub for a cold one and thrash out the rest there?
October 12th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
“The le[f]t got in first, declared victory and went home hours ago.”
As opposed to Labour who declared it over, sent troops to occupy and then called National callous for declaring it over.
October 12th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
guys, you’re still posting on this thread? The let got in first, declared victory and went home hours ago.
Stop it Sam, thats too funny! Declaring victory on a blog site comments section – are you 12?
BTW, its not a victory if you just ignore all the points that figuratively kick you square in the nuts.
October 12th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
“Stop it Sam, thats too funny! Declaring victory on a blog site comments section – are you 12?”
I reckon he’s a bit older. Maybe 13, or 14 even. But anyway, how immature do you have to be to not understand that you can’t take part in a debate and be the umpire at the same time???
October 12th, 2007 at 7:14 pm
“Stop it Sam, thats too funny! Declaring victory on a blog site comments section – are you 12?”
Funny I find that’s something that’s usually the preserve of right wing commentators. After all they’re usually the most linear and black and white in their thinking.