A blue country
Wikipedia has this great map of the country. Outside some metro seats, the North Island is all blue except for a speck otherwise known as Palmertson North.
Labour now holds only 21/70 electorate seats. In 2002 they held 46.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: Election 2008
November 10th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Wow – that would have a thrashing under FPP!
November 10th, 2008 at 9:26 am
“North Island is all blue except for a speck otherwise known as Palmerston North”
Must… not… make… cheap… joke….
November 10th, 2008 at 9:26 am
I think we all owe a great debt of gratitude to people like Sue Bradford for making this result possible.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:27 am
David,
Perhaps off topic but a massive thank you for your efforts @ kiwiblog. Visiting regularly made the past 3 years of the political landscape very enlightening for me.
You have a huge work ethic and it shows
November 10th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Like Saturday’s weather – the sky was blue – its was an omen!
November 10th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Really shows people have had a guts full of leftist ideology.
This result is just fantastic.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:32 am
I’m with PinkGina, except swap “work ethic” with “obsession”. Thanks for adding value instead of just opining like 99.9% of the blogs.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Looks Great dunnit?
November 10th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Should like to add my thanks to DPF also. It has been good to read imformed and balanced comment, rather than the much the media has been trying to feed us. Unfortunately missed most the speeches on saturday night as the party we were at went off like a rocket and we couldn’t hear much at all. Our particular Mp won at all but one of the polling booths, so was terrific. And that’s in a fairly mixed electorate. Was good to wake up on Sunday to a blue day.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:36 am
Anybody seen Phool in the last couple of days?
November 10th, 2008 at 9:36 am
A picture speaks a thousand words. Those last pockets of resistance will be cleaned up before 2011
November 10th, 2008 at 9:37 am
I think Philu is seeking a recount in Tauranga.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:37 am
If not for the sick, lame and lazy of the cities and their latee slurping self appointed interlectual elite of the uban areas socialism wouldn’t exist.
In the areas the difference between a nice idea and good one are all too obvious for all to see.
And I will be discussing his illegal use of tax payer funds for campaigning with the member for Palmerston North shortly.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Now that’s a lasting legacy from Helen Clark.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:41 am
BIG THANKS DPF.
I appreciate having somewhere worthwhile to vent by splean these past few years
Like most I am absolutely stoked with the result. I was just looking at the Herald map (much brighter blue) and it looks fantastic. It really was quite the hiding wasn’t it.
I would like to be gratious in victory, but WTH….the toxicity that was our government has started its cleansing process and I couldn’t be happier.
I AM looking forward to the bonfire, big time
November 10th, 2008 at 9:42 am
I apologise on behalf of the unenlightened citizens of Palmerston North. However when you look at how much of the economy of PN is dependent on the state it is not that big a surprise
November 10th, 2008 at 9:45 am
One question remains unanswered. “Did the door hit Helen Clark’s ass on the way out?”
November 10th, 2008 at 9:46 am
YES…Sunday morning felt like a load had been lifted from my shoulders.
I just felt happier about everything. 9 years of oppression had taken it’s toll, and now I don’t have to move to Australia!! Thank goodness!!
November 10th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Is that the sound of shredders I hear in the Capital?????
November 10th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Here’s poor old Phil from Friday:
espiner..and the other pundits predicting a national/act government are wrong..wrong..wrong..
and here is why…
http://whoar.co.nz/2008/reasons-why-the-polls-should-be-viewed-with-a-wary-eyeandwho-will-win-on-saturday/
read it..and weep..!
..remember how all you righties felt ‘we wuzz robbed..!’..in 2005..?
..roll up for a reprise..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
Doh!
[DPF: Classic]
November 10th, 2008 at 9:54 am
Now just look at that. Vast swathes of New Zealand’s heartland coloured blue… tiny specks of red clinging to outdated ideas.
When you look at the glorious blue extent of electorates like Waitaki and Southland, and then ridiculously tiny smidgeons of red like Dunedin, you can see clearly how New Zealanders feel.
Let the city people keep their outmoded socialism. Let the latte sipping intellectuals and UN-worshipping internationalists rabbit incoherently about how best to destroy the country. The true New Zealand, the real New Zealand is found among ordinary working people in the heartland of the country.
November 10th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Phil really opened his mouth and put both feet in, didn’t he?
November 10th, 2008 at 9:59 am
To steal a line from Martin Luther King
Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!³ …
I really do feel free of the PC nastieness of the left. Trotter is a classic example but I know ordinary lefties who feel the same. They accuse us of a sense of entitlement to power but I do not remember the wailing and gnashing of teeth when Jenny Shipley lost the election. We just shook our heads got on with it…I wish they could.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:00 am
There are some who would like Labour to be as evil and incompetent as possible in order to prolong their time in Opposition and ensure any period in power is as brief as possible. I am not one of those people. I would like Labour to be as good and competent as possible so that when they do regain power (it WILL happen eventually) they do less damage.
From that perspective, I say that MMP does produce this advantage: despite being nearly wiped out in provincial New Zealand, the party lists mean that Labour still has around a dozen MPs from the provinces. This will help them keep in touch with (perhaps that should be regain understanding of) the real New Zealand.
By the same token, I think it is great that (again because of party lists) National has MPs from places such as Mana, Te Atatu, Manukau East, Christchurch East and Dunedin South. That helps National keep in touch with the needs and aspirations of communities from which it might otherwise be disconnected.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:09 am
Thanks for all your efforts DPF We owe you big time. BTW Havent read any posts below but did you see the Trotter rant in the SST Poor ole Chris has lost it big time It was an incoherent ramble blaming the citizens We are all wrong wrong worng and none of us should have a vote according to Chris cause we dont know how to exercise it.
Contrast Matthew Hooton magnanimise in victory Like all of us on the RIGHT Matthew is a good winner as well as a good loser.
Trotter clearly doesnt understand the Kiwi physche You DONT rubbish the winning team Especially when they have won by a landslide.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Perhaps, we might re-draw the map, based on (a) population, not spatial area; (b) party vote, not electorate vote; and (c) proportion of vote, not winner takes all in each electorate?
[DPF: You produce it, I'll run it. I am going to do a party vote one]
November 10th, 2008 at 10:15 am
“Let the latte sipping intellectuals and UN-worshipping internationalists rabbit incoherently about how best to destroy the country. The true New Zealand, the real New Zealand is found among ordinary working people in the heartland of the country.”
Yeah, but those true NZers are held to ransom by a party of academics and intellectuals who foster dependency and create ghettos in order to attract support for policies and politicians no informed and sane person wants a bar of. Replace MMP with STV before the next election. It should be National’s most urgent priority, and it needs to be done now while the iron is hot.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:17 am
It’s a great pity that we can’t take all the parts coloured red and lump them into their own small bit of dirt. Would be very interesting to watch the socialist parasites fend from themselves, be so good to see how these noddys would survive without funding from outside sources. Let us see their failed ideology’s working for the arseholes that pushed them.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Wow, What a Map!
Sad to see that My electorate(Mana) remains red in the face of all that blue, although not at all suprised by that. What a fundamentally Assertive result!
November 10th, 2008 at 10:20 am
“Perhaps, we might re-draw the map, based on (a) population, not spatial area; (b) party vote, not electorate vote; and (c) proportion of vote, not winner takes all in each electorate?”
Perhaps we should just draw it darker blue and keep pinko pink for labour, maybe then the left could better see what just happened to them.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:25 am
As another Palmerstonian, only 1000 votes seperated the winner Lees-Galloway (L) (14,682) and Plimmer (N) (13,632).
National just managed to win the Party vote, 12,814 to Labour’s 12,767.
Stats from http://2008.electionresults.govt.nz/electorate-38.html
Would love to know where/why National just managed to dip out.
As for Lees-Galloway (apart from being a nice enough guy), he’s a former Massey student president & is involved in the unions, so he was a well known “brand” for voters (although tended to parrot Labour policy on the campaign, it would be nice to have some free thinkers in Labour for a change etc).
Plimmer seemed a hell of a nice guy too, maybe it was also a generational thing. Look at the success of Bridges and Kaye etc, maybe Palmy needs someone a bit younger to take on Lees-Galloway next time.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:25 am
I had a real belly laugh at Trotters column. There is an old saying “none as blind…” These old saying are ussually born in wisdom. Every lefty in NZ are happy to forget that Clark and her government brought in a new era of corruption, graft and lies. They were not about people, the workers or those who are underprivileged, they were simply about ideology, self interest and power. The thing is that other old sayings such as: “an honest hardworking …” and “making and honest living” was also born in wisdom. The working man is an honest man (woman or child if you want to be PC) yet those who purported to represent them, pissed all over some of the proudest values that these people have.
History will show…. And for Clark it will be a horror show.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:34 am
Yikes, I dunno – that stuff was poison.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:34 am
It’s a great pity that we can’t take all the parts coloured red and lump them into their own small bit of dirt. Would be very interesting to watch the socialist parasites fend from themselves, be so good to see how these noddys would survive without funding from outside sources. Let us see their failed ideology’s working for the arseholes that pushed them.
Quite right Bob.
This country would do just fine without Christchurch, Dunedin and Wellington. Giant filthy nests of parasites. Auckland is the only city containing any people with any ability to contribute to the economy – just look at the electoral map for proof!
November 10th, 2008 at 10:37 am
I sincerely apologise on behalf of Dunedin & its very uninformed voters.
Though I think from looking at the numbers, National might of picked up its party vote share slightly, so just a case of very slow learners. Though with some of the intelligence levels of some people down here, I guess slow learning is the least of our worries
November 10th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Perhaps the government should start its benefit cutting with those who have voted Labour? Seen as they thought there was nothing wrong with the country, why would they need any extra support?
November 10th, 2008 at 10:44 am
“Perhaps, we might re-draw the map, based on (a) population, not spatial area; (b) party vote, not electorate vote; and (c) proportion of vote, not winner takes all in each electorate?”
I might do that… for now, note that there were seven electorates won by a Labour candidate where National won the party vote: Mt Roskill, New Lynn, Te Atatu, Palmerston North, Wellington Central, Waimakariri and Port Hills. Labour also won the party vote in the seven Maori seats and in Wigram (held by Jim Anderton) – though only by about 1000 votes.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Being free and having our freedoms are two very different things.
Helen may be gone, but her smell remains.
Now we need to deodorizer the bureaucracy and the crap PC legislation her smell has left behind!
Okay boys and girls, roll up sleeves, get those pink slips out for the pinkos who need to find a real job, get those typewriters out for some common sense, economically, socially and environmentally balanced new laws and repeal 9 years of PC psychopathic babble.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:49 am
Lockwood Smith INCREASED his majority from 11,536 to 14,376 a 25% increase.
Maurice Williamson INCREASED his majority from 9,582 to 12,759, a 33% increase.
These are substantial gains which suggests the electorate was not at all upset by either of their comments which the media pounced on with such glee. Indeed these figures suggest they approved of them highly.
So what have they done wrong?
Maurice knows more about transport than anyone else in caucus and Lockwood Smith is one of the few scientists in there too.
So why should they be demoted?
If they are demoted these are victories to the Left and the left media in particular.
So why deliver both their heads on a plate?
November 10th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Yes quite right pushmepullu, perhaps it would of been more correct if I said that all of those that voted Liarbore be given their own little country then we could compare systems. I would bet anything you like that it wouldn’t take long for the red to turn blue.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
Owen,
Demoting them might save National from having to repeatedly write press releases starting with the phrase “Cabinet Minister [insert name] is entitled to his opinions but they do not necessarily reflect the policy of the National party – he will be discussing this issue with John Key shortly”.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:56 am
A couple of points. This will be the first right leaning Govt. since MMP started. And I say “right leaning” advisedly for presently much of the policy is Clark look alike. Choke on your latte’s but if you bother to look hard it really is. Remember working for families.
So before you all feel liberated lets see some results of good policy.
I will readily admit to feeling much happier now that we are all not going to be subject to bile on a daily basis but a smile just ain’t gonna fix policy and get our businesses up to speed again.
The Nats. track record in not one of innovation and change so you will all have plenty to think about soon enough.
If you do get disapointed with progress, as you will, you can always join us on the right.
P.S. Be careful that you don’t get sucked in by the Maori Party just because you can’t stomach the hard stuff.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:58 am
A friend of mine in the New York offices of Google sent me this:
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/129999.html
Kiwi Conservatism
Jesse Walker | November 8, 2008, 2:39pm
At least one country is responding to the financial crisis by moving to the right, not the left. New Zealand voters have just ousted the longstanding Labor regime and elected a government led by the conservative National Party; the free-market ACT party will be part of the governing coalition. Which is not to say the new administration will always pursue pro-market policies. The London Times reports that Prime Minister-elect John Key, a wealthy former currency trader, is “expected to implement tax cuts and extra spending.” A Bushian/Keynesian combination.
I was tickled at how the Times explained the concept of “New Zealand” to its readers:
John Key’s conservative National Party easily won power in New Zelaland, known internationally for its pristine environment and as the backdrop to the “Lord of the Rings” movies.
ENDS
And now I have been asked to write a column for Joel Kotkin’s wen page in the US – newgeography, explaining all this to his US readership. (“Non-ideological” of course. This is quite difficult when writing for an audience with little background except that we live in Hobbittown.
Any ideas and observations would be welcome.
November 10th, 2008 at 11:09 am
Owen, you are right about Smith and Williamson but the Nats. are more than capable of being as stupid as Labour when it comes to climbing the ladder. Power is the prize which is why they are always so mediocre with their results.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
That map makes for a very pretty picture. Barely a pinko in sight.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
My first visit to Kiwiblog. Wow! I hope all here are billionaires or at least multi millionaires with no children. If not I am really curious how you see this coalition helping NZ. How can selling NZ to foreigners whose aim is to make a profit off NZers benefit NZ?
Take Telecom, sold for $4 Bill early 90’s, returned on avg $1 bill for the next decade, paying out over 90% dividends to it’s over 70% foreign shareholders. For this fee NZers received a decade of Internet stagnation, automated outsourced customer service and general bad deal due to abuse of market position. A few upper middle class get to expand their share portfolio at the expense of all their citizens. It is not until their(sic) profits, are affected by increseses in ceo’s salaries(contact) that they cry blue murder. Ultimately we see a net funnelling of NZers salaries and wages out of the country for the use of resources and infrastructure that were already ours.
I am curious what the “right” feels the should government should invest in other than land and public infrastructure? Or do you believe there should be no government except a police force and military to protect their privilege? If so given that the world is finite and already owned is this system not tending by design to the principles of feudalism?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
When I was a boy I spoke like a boy – when I was a man I spoke like an adult!
aka
When I was a student, I voted as a student (Left), but when I was a man, I voted as a tax payer who was sick of subsidising all those who got a free ride and often better hourly rates for doing anything socially contributing then those who subsidised them.
FillYou – you seem to be hiding – or have you gone to look for work?
November 10th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
I was hoping for something a bit more costructive Dave.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
On the electorates where the National candidate did not win, but National “won the party vote” – I think you need to look at the left v’s right split. So, for example, in Wellington Central we have:
– Labour 11,339
– Green 6,657
– National 11,339
– ACT 1,403
– Others ~2,000
Franks got 12,603 votes, on paper if he got all the National and ACT people he should have seen 13,200. 700 ACT people voted for Heather Roy, and if they’d put their brains into gear Franks would have been a fair bit closer.
Robertson got 14,120 votes, on paper he should have got all the Labour and Green people and most of the Others, so 20,000 votes. Of course, 4,500 Green people voted for Sue Kedgley, so he should have got the remaining 15,500.
In short, the right didn’t win the seat on the party vote by a long way, and didn’t win the electorate vote by a little way. Franks did well to get this close. But he certainly didn’t draw in any supporters from Labour or Green, so he might want to look at how well he reaches across the divide. And the Green voters might want to look at switching their brains on before they vote – Sue Kedgley clearly never had a chance, so they should have voted Robertson and this electorate should never have been close.
November 10th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Beautiful!
And I’m proud to have helped change the colour of Auckland Central!
November 10th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
what a lame site!
November 10th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
This must be why, a lifetime ago whenever we loaded up our big old Triumph and went away on a family holiday, upon arriving in Wellington or Auckland my old man always used to announce: “Ahh, civilisation!”
November 10th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
scott. You should take another look at actually who sold Telecom.
Owen. The answer to give people who claim that NZ voted in a Right Leaning govt as a response to the global credit crisis, is that we did not.
We instead voted in a Right-leaning govt as a response to the attacks on family and basic democracy of the left. The global economic problems are simply a coincidence.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
On a hunch yesterday I got anal and totaled up the numbers voting in the Maori electorates and those for the Maori Party.
I get a total of 184,000 voted MP or Maori electorate in 2005 and 168,000 in 2008.. no wonder Tariana was tearful on Sat night. And if you look at the majorities in the provinces where Maori are in high proportions it’s even more graphic.. (roughly) BoP 16,000, East Coast 6000, Northland 9400, Rotorua 4800, Waikato 11700, Taupo 5800 and Tauranga 10700.
Add in that about twice as many Maori as Pakeha are emigrating and I think there’s a movement of a Labour base away from it’s party. Like the US, Labour/Democrat support is concentrating coastal in the immigrant cities and in cities that are slow growing like Dunners and PN.
The feeling I get from this is that Maori may remain attracted to their culture but are increasingly seeking their future in emigration and on the General roll.
I also looked at the minor parties since 2002.. they have been decimated over three elections and the Greens may have only held around the 5-6% because they have shifted to an unembarrassed socialist model.. making them the most dishonest party in the Parliament.
JC
November 10th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Scott: are you ten years old? It is incredibly rude to come on here, post a straw man, and then challenge people to provide information to you. There’s this relatively new invention called Google, it gives you access to all sorts of viewpoints by people on the right of politics, (and those on the left too, of course). If you use it, you’ll quickly learn that there are a diversity of views, ranging from those who think that govt should be restricted to police and courts, through to those who are “large govt conservatives” who believe in pump priming and the govt conferring privileges on the few through manipulating the rules of the market. Coming here and expecting people to take time out of their days and respond to your trolling is really pointless.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
JC – they have socialist political aspects to them. But THIS green voter is 100% behind their environmental objectives. The fact that they were the 3rd highest polling of all parties, and clearly ahead of Winston First, Act and all other minor parties should tell you that ***A lot of people LIKE the Greens*** and it may, just may, be democracy, not a socialist conspiracy
November 10th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
Ratbiter – the question is what would happen to that vote if the constituent parts of the Greens were split. At present they poll 5-6% on a Red-Green message.
What would the likely vote be for the Red bit if it were standalone? I’m guessing something similar to Jim Anderton’s party – 1-2%.
What would the likely vote be for the Green bit if it were standalone? I’m guessing closer to the poll results – 10% or so.
I think the Red baggage is holding the Greens back. Not really a huge concern for me – I kind of like them being held back. But it is a gap in NZ’s political maturity.
November 10th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
ADC, Yes i do realise that, regardless of who sold it, I believe it was a decision that has hurt NZ. More to my point it illustrates the mechanics of money flows when we privatise, a philosophy of which national subscribes. I’m not trying to cheerleed I’m just pointing out it seems a logical fallacy to say that paying foreigners to use something we already owned is a good thing. What am I missing?
Paul, Thanks for taking the time to respond. The economic model which nationl subscribes assumes some objective untruths in that resources are infinite, that there is perfect information and that we live forever. There are a few economists who are highlighting this on google save Stiglitz et al. I was curious to know how people can have such confidence and faith in a model with such observable errors? Mostly however I am searching for insight, in real terms relevant to this election, not stock answer theory rhetoric, about what happens when we implement these polices to NZers and how national voters see these policies playing out in their lives. Information I can’t get off google. I used an example which has affected us all, Telecom and I want kiwis to ask themselves how did they benefit from that transaction? Touche, I should not expect people to respond.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Scott
were you old enough to own a telephone before we sold the corporatised P and T to sell to Telecom?
Have you any idea of the state of economy and why we had to sell assets in the eighties (which were in fact all liabilities. At least they are assets now.
November 10th, 2008 at 3:59 pm
I see you have found our infrastructural development map.
You have mistake the red areas to support labour, they are in fact designated to be carparks and industrial centers, such is the way of change.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Have you any idea of the state of economy and why we had to sell assets in the eighties (which were in fact all liabilities. At least they are assets now.”
Well said Owen…and it needs saying more often…..there were NO assets….there were liabilitys.An asset brings you value….a liabhility takes value away…the State turkeys lost the taxpayer hundreds of millions till they were sold…..they became assets when they operated by the laws of athe market and either turned a profit or went under and the parts were taken up by new fresh industry.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
scott – can’t say I really disagree with you about Telecom. Although the new owners certainly improved levels of service hugely – unfettered by socially-driven motives.
On the other hand the broader issue of whether government should be using taxpayer funds to compete with tax-paying private enterprise is another sticky issue.
Deregulation of the telecoms market means it would be wrong to go back to state ownership of Telecom.
I think if the state is going to own a business, which competes with private enterprise (who pay taxes), they need to do so one a purely commercial basis – no state subsidies (including capital subsidies). The rest of us have to borrow money to set up businesses, and a real cost of operation is cost of capital. It’s anti-competitive that the state would use our tax money to set up in competition against us without the same operating conditions we face.
November 10th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Owen, thanks, you have just framed the current economic problem. Firstly when the infrastructure to have the public in communication with each other is defined as a liability then you really have to question the validity of your definition. What was different in the eighties and what is different now around the globe with regard the meltdown? There is still the same amount of resourses in the economy, the same amount of infrastructure, the willingness to work and the same land to generate food and resources. What has changed? No capital? No bits of paper or electronic logs in a computer?
Is is absurd that we are held to ransom by “the market” which is really just a word for a minority of people represented by financial institutes, pension, hedge funds etc. It is absurd that businesses have to lay off workers because contractors aren’t buying supplies because people(the markets) have contracted the money supply. The trees are there to mill, the mill to produce timber, the workers, lorry drivers, retailers… In short we stand still because someone speculates somewhere else.
Further what is the point of economists and economics if it/they can’t predict anything? It takes advantage of few obvious logical commonsense truths; supply, demand, equilibrium etc to give it validity and carries it off in to a ludicrously abstract inaccurate measurement of materialistic/societal growth. It uses Poker machine accounting, the guy who always wins $400 and $800 but you never hear about $4000 lost in between. So as with economics where disasters, wars and crime can be good for economic growth with no accounting of the negative aspects and this is the measurement we gauge our elected officials performance on. This abstract number goes up all the while we are working longer and paying more to live despite all the technological advances supposed to make life easier and give us more time. It sort of feels like we’re locked in this dark(as in dim) age of commerse and we really can’t see the logic for the economic jargon.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Scott, you have a number of fallacies in your comments. Again, I have the feel you are trolling, but I’ll respond to some of your points anyway.
1. You state that “the economic model to which National subscribes”. What exactly is this model? How does it assume infinite resources and infinite lifespans? So far as I can tell the economic model to which National subscribes (as mentioned by John Key in his victory speech) is that pretty much all wealth is generated by individuals in one sense or another, and therefore that any approach to national wealth that fails to reward individuals will inevitably fail. I’m not sure exactly how this assumes infinite resources.
2. The infrastructure to communicate was never a liability. The organisation structure that ran it, and therefore caused it to return a net loss to the country year after year, despite high prices by global standards, was definitely a liability. Once the organisation was sold (with attached liabilities such as redundancy and restructuring costs), the organisation was restructured. Under new management, it became profitable. I agree with you completely that the assets didn’t change all that much, so clearly the change from loss-making to profit-making was related to the ownership structure and management. In fact, exactly the reason it should have been sold. A substantial error in that process was not creating a structural separation between wholesale and retail, but then again, that apparently was a failed reform in electricity, so people can hardly have it both ways.
3. Being “held to ransom” by the market, and your definition of the market as a small minority of people, is absurd. The market is open to all, and is simply the sum total of all buying and selling decisions made by people. The market for bread is not a small minority of people. It is not at all absurd that we need to lay off staff when people stop buying our products, in fact it is entirely rational. To do otherwise would be absurd. As to why people stopped buying our products – well, when people stop buying houses, we stop selling wood. And people stop buying houses because they were protected from their own stupidity for too long by silly regulations, such that when the crash came it was far bigger than it ever needed to be. Of course, the response is more silly regulations. None so blind I guess.
4. What is the point of economists if they can’t predict anything? Like, for example, their complete failure to predict the current crash. Um, except for all the economists who did predict it, including the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Alan Greenspan (currently being blamed for lots) who told us all some time ago that we had an asset bubble fuelled by “irrational exuberance” that would inevitably crash. The problem is that governments took no action, and in fact actively sought to prolong the bubble. They in turn did it because you never got elected by devaluing the largest asset of most of your voting population. Yes, in fact democracy itself was at fault here – all the people around here who didn’t want their house prices to drop, who were riding high.
I’m sorry, you continue to provide caricatures, and enlighten us not at all. You are asking school kid questions as if they were relevant, and presenting straw men that bear no resemblance to what any actual people think. If I were your university lecturer your statements would get a D- “please try harder.”
I suggest you start by trying to explain what it is you think you are arguing against, and then present your argument. At the moment you are arguing against yourself.
Start perhaps with this one. Most people seem to accept that the rich have better health care. They have this better health care because they can afford private health insurance. It seems unfair that some people have better health care than others. Instead of trying to force everyone to use public health care, why should the government not just buy private health insurance for everyone in the country? What exactly would be wrong with that? If you like, I can be more specific about exclusions for emergency cover, mandatory minimum standards, and a bunch of other things. Deal with the philosophy – why would it be wrong? At least we’d then be having an argument about something I actually believe.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:28 pm
Wow! Someone mixed their communist kool-aid a little stong this evening. Hint: One scoop, not 10 next time.
The last time you shopped at The Warehouse in preference to Smith and Caughies or Kirkaldie and Stains you helped create the very market to which you claim to be held hostage. Likewase when you eyeballed two cans of beans in New World and chose one based on price, country of origin, colour of label etc.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
PaulL, you have the patience of a saint!
November 10th, 2008 at 10:43 pm
Another thing – Markets are all about choice. Which is why the left claim to hate markets. Citizens should be choice poor and grateful to the State for making the all the important decisions in our lives. Lightbulbs anyone? Further, choice based on financial resource allows some citizens to have things that others may not be able to have, thereby demonstrating that socialist wealth re-distribution has failed miserably.
November 10th, 2008 at 10:53 pm
getstaffed: more importantly, markets allow me to choose between things of equal value. Although you and I have equal wealth, I may take home a two pairs of (cheap) jeans, whilst you take home three of the latest CDs. They may have equal value, but we now don’t have the same assets. In a government driven world (rather than market driven) it is almost impossible to assign comparative values to different assets, so we default to just giving everyone the same assets. You get one pair of jeans and one CD each. Doesn’t matter if you don’t like jeans and really like CDs, what the government gives you is what you get.
Although superficially both people are still equally wealthy, in terms of their personal utility maximisation we have one person with a pair of jeans when they’d have rather had some more CDs, another person with a CD they don’t want when they wanted more jeans. I guess they could trade to get to where they wanted – but what is trading other than the market satisfying a need the government failed to meet?
Sorry, but this pathological hatred of the market is, to me, really people who can’t manage to think big. Markets are fine when they are small – your local farmer’s market is a great idea. Barter markets are even better. But as soon as the market becomes more abstract, involves too much money instead of barter, involves trading in instruments rather than the assets themselves, it automatically becomes evil. When in fact it is exactly the same construct. Willing buyer, willing seller. Not that markets are the answer for everything – clearly they aren’t. And not that markets should be unconstrained – they should be. But damning all markets based on some sort of schoolboy logic is not particularly smart.
November 11th, 2008 at 11:16 am
Ok, i took a loose definition of markets. I agree with you both(paul and getstaffed), market force does have logical mechanics which work(logical truths, i did acknowledge that). If something is consumed then there was clearly a demand(we’ll leave the ethics of synthetic demand aka marketing to another time). What I am pointing out is there are a minority of people who have disproportionate control over our economy. A minority who can withdrawal capital which affects our ability to produce.
This was evidenced during the 90’s when John Major tryed to stabilise the sterling against the deutsche mark to stop this very kind of speculation. The markets or rather(get the semantics right), a small part of the markets, people controlling hedge funds, insiders and the like, started pulling money out of the English economy. To counter the Bank of England raised interest rates to 15%, Investors saw it as what it was, desperation, and continued to pull money. The short of it, the “markets(or rather a few people…) won, Major had to acquiesce to their whims or else crash the economy. If it can happen to the Bank of England then I guess the little ol’ NZ reserve bank is venerable. I think this falls within the realm of being held to ransom.
With regard this private/public asset/liability issue. So if the organisation is the problem get rid of that not the actual assets. I totally agree fire them. Whatever reforms were made when it was privatised could have been achieved by Govt hiring the same staff. Given that $675 million was leaving NZ annually there is even a buffer for public management incompetence. Lets not forget it was returning $1 billion it’s first year out of sale which continues to this day(qualitatively not necessarily quantitatively.”
Alan Greenspan prediction helped us how? Half of the climate scientist in 20 years will be right as well, doesn’t validate all of their science. I am not sure what “trolling” is. I was just interested how National voters see liberalisation helping them as historically this has led to the dissolving of the middle classes, ‘US, Chile Asia. Hence my original comment regarding Billionaires etc. The government is ours, multi national are not, our toy investments only serve to take petty money from the poor of which they would have spent into the economy anyway. Not to mention the net loss as dividends to foreign owners. With regard the economic model, neo classical, was not a relevant comment, touche.
getstaffed -Ha ha. You don’t need to drink the cool aid if you’re not a socially engineered sheeple incapable of independent thought but really good at regurgitating the tyranny of stock answers thrown up by indoctrinated lectures and text books. Bravo business school! Thanks for feedback, I’ve learnt a bit.
November 12th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Followed a link from general discussion 11 november,
“the idea that markets are the only way is a simple minded false hood of a baby economic textbook or of the bush admisistratiom. It is just not how real economics works at all.”
Jeffrey Sachs from the Chicago School.
He has advised many global economies on implementing Douglas-style reforms. Follow the link and Enlighten yourself Ppaul he is a bit more articulate than I am.
November 12th, 2008 at 11:03 am
I think you’ve got that a little backward. In a clean float, the only speculators make money is off other speculators.
Now, the problem with the UK and the Euro peg, was that monetary policy in the UK was diverging from (largely) Germany. An exchange rate is nothing more than a price. The UK government was trying to say the price of the pound was different to what would be established in a float. UK government couldn’t be right given that monetary policy was diverging.
People who saw the absurdity of this got out of it (it was sufficiently obvious that I recommended shifting from pounds to US dollars before the speculative attack). The attack on the pound was predictable and the peg basically meant the UK Govt had set up a money pump from taxpayers to Soros and other speculators. They couldn’t lose.
The NZ dollar has been ignored as a target of speculative attack because we have had a pretty clean float. There is no money-pump from taxpayers to speculators. You can only make money speculating on the NZD (now) by taking that money off other speculators. It’s a zero-sum game.