New Zealand needs to move on from the sychophantic beauracracy she has left behind.

I believe you. But to be precise you mean NZ economic growth, not the NZ economy, and you mean negative trend, not immediate decline implied by “negative”. I had 2 main points: one, that NZ economy is not not, overall, in negative territory compared to where it was in 1999. My second main point to OECD rank 22 kiwi was perhaps more one of agreement, a criticism of Clark for her empty aspirational political slogan about OECD ranking.

“productivity growth in NZ went from a record high in 1999 to a record low in 2008. THAT is what really, really counts.”

I don’t disbelieve you, but a source would be good. I also believe that productivity growth is what really really counts for an economy.

“Grow up – socialism is a failure, it was a failure before Clark & Muppet Cullen decided to give it one more go to help Clark get her UN post.”

Burt, you are the one who needs to grow up if you think that anyone who enters into a debate without the preformed opinion that Helen Clark is a self-serving, irresponsible, economically illiterate ibecile must be some sort of crazed left-wing lunatic. Pretty much the purpose of weighing into the debate was to counter all the ludicrous, baseless exaggeration, portraying Helen Clark as some sort of Salvador Allende-style socialist. I’m very open to debate HC’s economic policy however.

In 16 years from now people will still be talking about the Clark years as the failed policies of the past. Totally stupid people will talk about the damage done by the following National govt adminsitering hard medicine. It’s all been seen before, some of us remember who caused it – dim-bulbs only remember who fixed it and shoot the messenger in a desperate bid to claim no responsibility.

Grow up – socialism is a failure, it was a failure before Clark & Muppet Cullen decided to give it one more go to help Clark get her UN post.

It’s now left to a National/ACT government to pick up the pieces left by the failed Clark government.

Again. Once again the National govt with some help from some people too clever and capable to stay in the Labour party will fix up the failed policies of the past. And once again they start that recovery with undisclosed debts and a shrinking economy.

Why do NZ voters forget how destructive high tax and spend govt’s are for a small economy ?

On another note DPF, I am starting to thinks WOBH has something about you not belonging in the VRWC. You give Glutus 30 demerits and Van Hartog none for suggesting Brash having sleepovers away from home and denigrating the other person he names to boot. You really surprise me. If you try to be more politically correct or suck up to the left more, maybe you can get a job with helen in the UN.

I was merely highlighting the simplicity of the statements in the NBR article you quoted as though it was some authoritative and impartial statement in positive economics. And you must be wilfully misunderstanding what I mean by positive economics. I think it is valid to criticise the labour government’s economic policy, it’s just lazy and meaningless the way you are critiquing it.

You still haven’t explained how consistent economic growth and overall significantly higher GDP equates to “leaving the country completely stuffed” or “leaving it in worse condition than she started with”. I’ve acknowledged the possibility that Clark’s government could have achieved higher economic growth (though its not some sort of no-brainer like you suggest). Why is your only response to me highlighting that what you are saying is baseless rhetoric (ie New Zealand’s economy has actually expanded and key economic indicators have actually advanced) that I’m “making excuses for failure”?

“But but but all the countries that have overtaken New Zealand in the OECD rankings are different.” No kidding Sherlock. That’s the point isn’t it? If you do what you’ve always done you get what you’ve always got, failure.

The list of “positive economic” policies that Labour chose to ignore are huge. Decent Tax cuts and a reduction in government expenditure would be a good start. Instead Helen Clark chose to expand the Welfare State with Bludging for Families.

Without a decent economy with good economic growth going forward all New Zealand is left with scenery and that doesn’t pay the bills

Lloyd Morrison highlights New Zealanders lack of focus on what’s important:
Lloyd Morrison: Time to reclaim status as God’s Own

It’s now left to a National/ACT government to pick up the pieces left by the failed Clark government.

Perhaps it can be argued that Helen Clark squandered some opportunity for better rates of economic growth, but you can’t just assert that as the truth without evidence: the NBR article definitely doesn’t provide all the evidence. (The fact that two authoritarian east asian city states which were once poorer than us are now richer than us means not much because the dynamics of such economies are so vastly different (eg zero primary industry). The fact that Spain and Greece benefit from membership of the EU is another important factor.)

It may be that certain policies of Helen Clark’s were implemented for their political appeal rather than their pure economic nous, but I dare you to define truly “positive economic” policy. Economic growth is important, but not the only factor in building a better country: your personal like or dislike of certain Labour policies is yours to own.

It pisses me off when politicians make absurd statements and promises, but this is what they do all the time so their no use holding to the expectation. When OECD rankings are a moving target, we don’t need to always judge our economic success relative to other countries: sometimes this can be constructive and sometimes this can be deconstructive. I think in your case it is the latter: because you are obsessed with OECD ranking, it colours and even obscures your ability to assess potentially more important aspects of the true situation.

The article shows how Clark stuffed New Zealand up and stuffed it good

Top half of the OECD indeed. On that score Helen Clark is an EPIC FAIL!

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/keygraphs/Fig9.html

It comes as no great surprise that key economic indicators have veered alarmingly in the negative direction: this is a situation developed countries are getting walloped over the head with.

Do you have any pithy details when you say Clark wrecked the country, or are you just spouting mindless slogans?

OECD rank 22 kiwi, what does this graph show then?

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/keygraphs/Fig2.html

either it’s a conspiracy and left-wing bureaucrats are doctoring the statistics, or you are just talking bullshit.

“Suffer the children”.

Under clark we have fallen in the OECD rankings.

calendar girl

Are we to assume from that list that NZ, Australia and China all had people in the running for the job and India & Russia did not?

http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20090320-0742-

You’ve swapped competence for a bunch of arrogant morons!!!

Well done.

The thot plickens. There’s always pay offs isn’t there….

OK I’ll be generous here for a moment. The PM has a real belief in the cause and therefore NZ has been a big contributor. OK, so who made that decision? Were we consulted or even informed? Where was the information available? How is this amount compared to aid we give to pacific nations? and yes how long has this been going on?

Hey here’s a tui billboard – The media will thoroughly investigate the disproportionate large donations in 2008 from NZ to the UNDP.

You just watch the New Zealand GDP figures that come out this Friday and see how wonderful Helen Clark was then is “maintaining” New Zealand’s standard of living. The way New Zealand is going Helen Clark will be giving development grants to New Zealand.