A u-turn or not?

June 20th, 2013 at 6:44 am by David Farrar

“Hey Clint” was calling me a liar on Twitter yesterday because on Newstalk ZB last night I scoffed at (presumably his) the spin that the had not done a u-turn on the printing money policy, ad I cited what Russel Norman said on Q+A. Clint is arguing their policy was a “proposal” which is different to a policy under the Green Party constitution.

This is a degree of subtltly that I am sure was lost on 99% of the public, and it seems even his own leader. Listen to this audio of him on with Susan Wood. She says to him “Why the backdown and change of heart” and he accepts the premise of the question – it is a backdown or u-turn.

And let’s look at the transcript of Q+A to see whether the average person listening would have taken this as a discussion document or a firm policy:

Well, today the Green Party’s releasing a proposal around the exchange rate.

So in Greenspeak, now when they propose something – that doesn’t mean they support it or it is a policy. It just means they want to talk about it.

SHANE                         So just so we’ve got it clear – you want the Reserve Bank to go out and print some new money to buy some earthquake bonds off the government. The government then would use that money to help with the Christchurch rebuild – help build the sewers and the streets and that type of thing – and also to go towards saving for our next disaster.

DR NORMAN              That’s right.

When your party’s finance spokesperson and co-leader says they want the reserve Bank to go out and print some new money, it is clearly a policy. It has been advocated by your most senior politician. Not a single person listening to Q+A would have taken this as something the Greens were not committed to. Arguing the dropping of it is not a u-turn is ridiculous and desperate spin.

Also Dr Norman himself has spent months on Twitter highlighting other countries doing QE, and lamenting NZ is not doing the same.

SHANE                         Can I ask you will Labour support this policy?

DR NORMAN              We have spoken to Labour and given them a heads-up about what we’re talking about today.

So Dr Norman doesn’t in any way say “No, no this is not a policy. It is only a discussion document”.

Yet for me pointing this out, a Green spin doctor calls me a liar. More Muldoonist smears.

Tags: , ,

64 Responses to “A u-turn or not?”

  1. Manolo (12,641 comments) says:

    Some doctors cure you, some others (communist Norman and socialist Cullen) make you even sicker.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Dennis Horne (2,059 comments) says:

    Trading banks “print” money every day.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    I don’t care if it’s called a u-turn or not, that’s just polispeak.

    I think politicians and parties should be able to float policy ideas and encourage discussion and feedback.
    I think politicians should listen.
    And I think politicians should ditch “policy proposals” that are clearly not good.

    The Greens shouldn’t be dissed for listening to common sense on their proposals and policies. They should be encouraged to listen, and to react to common sense by ditching proposals and policies that are clearly out of whack..

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. George Patton (330 comments) says:

    Isn’t it wonderful how the sanctimonious Greens are discrediting themselves at a brisk rate of knots over the last few months?

    The most delicious part of it is that the discrediting is throughout the organisation – starting with Greens leader Russel Norman and his crazy Xerox-the-Cash policy, all the way through the organisation to spin doctors like Clint Smith who have succeeded in becoming the news through negative and nasty attacks.

    It is going to be a lot of fun watching the Greens up to the next election as they get held to account.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Keeping Stock (9,791 comments) says:

    Clinton “Hey Clint” Smith and Russel Norman are dancing on the head of a pin, and playing semantics. This was clearly a policy idea from the Greens, and they have only shut it down (for now) so that the Right will stop beating them around the backside with it. If they ever got within sniffing distance of the Treasury Benches, it would be quickly resurrected.

    This is a flip-flop by the Greens, with the sole intent of reducing the heat that they are feeling. Now it’s time for the media to start to put some of their other extreme policies under scrutiny, given that the Greens have shown they will cave in when the heat gets too much.

    Vote: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Positan (378 comments) says:

    You don’t expect clear thinking or realistic economic policy from the sort of feeble mind that’s drawn towards the Greens.

    Further, the same feeble minds have such a tenuous grip on their utterances, they haven’t the faintest idea of what they’ve said – let alone what they actually meant.

    The Left is like that – through and through.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. big bruv (12,380 comments) says:

    Why the hell are people acting surprised?

    The Greens are pathological liars. As I have said before, when dealing with the Greens one should always remember to trust nothing they say and nothing they do.

    Vote: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Mobile Michael (367 comments) says:

    I’m reminded of the old adage in politics – if you are explaining, you are losing.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. thedavincimode (6,131 comments) says:

    U turn?

    More like the full on 180 degree handbrake slide. This bullshit assertion that it was only a proposal only makes them look even worse. The bullshitting ginga weasel has no clothes. He has cleverly painted himself as living the criticisms he makes of others.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. alex (298 comments) says:

    Shouldn’t you be praising this decision to shelve the proposal as you weren’t in favour of QE in the first place?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    This announcement by the Greens is simply trading one great disaster for a marginally less bad one.

    What they can’t print, they’ll borrow.

    It’s their spending plans they need to address.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @alex,

    Norman wasn’t proposing QE. He was proposing simple govt print and spend. They are not the same thing.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. AJC (14 comments) says:

    Russell is using the Greens as a trojian horse for his commie beliefs.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. alex Masterley (1,439 comments) says:

    If it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck and waddles like a duck it is a duck.
    Hey Clint, a flip flop is a flip flop.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Yoza (1,353 comments) says:

    Japan and China both use forms of quantitative easing to maintain their currencies at a rate which allows a competitive advantage for their manufacturing sectors. QE isn’t something only countries like the US and UK are resorting to to save their economies from financial meltdown.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. wreck1080 (3,529 comments) says:

    So, when will the RB rightly raise interest rates to help the overheated property market?

    The RB missed the boat between 2003 and 2007 until it was too late. And, now the history is repeating. What gives?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. jaba (2,069 comments) says:

    sunlight has struck the financial wizard from Oz and the reality has been a painful lesson .. what is the next “policy” to fail?

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Yoza (1,353 comments) says:

    bhudson (3,677) Says: “Norman wasn’t proposing QE. He was proposing simple govt print and spend. They are not the same thing.”

    This would be one of those things you say, bhudson, which you could not confidently defend in a coherent argument.

    Could you please enlighten me – What is the difference between what Russell Norman was originally proposing and quantitative easing?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    when will the RB rightly raise interest rates to help the overheated property market?

    @wreck1080, when they want the NZD to go up in value

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Judith (5,660 comments) says:

    Oh, and of course the current government has NEVER changed their minds on ANYTHING, EVER.

    (And I do mean EVER, because it appears we have the right to go back to previous govts to form our critique and transfer the faults of previous politicians on to the current mob/flock/plod/gaggle)

    Why just the other day Dunne changed his mind, and decided he wasn’t going to continue the campaign to get laid – but then I suppose that doesn’t really count – eh Pete even though it had consequences for government and therefore became our business. Christ, one could spend the rest of their life dragging up examples of political parties that had changed their minds -

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 1 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. YesWeDid (1,003 comments) says:

    Governments issue bonds and the Reserve Bank prints money, but when the Greens say it out loud its ‘a printing money policy’.

    Honestly Farrar where do you think money actually comes from??

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @Yoza,

    Always happy to assist with your edification.

    QE is a clearly defined course of action: In circumstances where interest rates are near 0% and banks are still unwilling to lend then govt will use freshly printed money to buy assets from the banks, providing them both the means and the confidence to lend.

    Not are interest rates not approaching zero in NZ, the banks are prepared to lend. Russel was not proposing injecting cash into the banks, but simply printing cash to fill his govt spending wallet.

    But then we all know he is completely disingenuous and not to be trusted.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    YesWeDid,

    In our mixed-market economy the govt sells bonds to the market to raise money. Printing cash to buy bonds from yourself under the illusion that it somehow meets market conditions is somewhat more like the activities of Worldcom and Enron.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. RRM (8,996 comments) says:

    Pete George -

    Correct, but it’s a worry when the leading lights of political parties that could be the next government, even FLOAT ideas as bad as printing money or nationalising the power industry. It makes me question their competence and their maturity.

    I want COMPETENT people with sensible ideas for running the Govt , in our house of representatives, thanks!

    There are four million of us, it’s depressing to think “Dr” Norman could be one of the elite 120 the rest of us put forward to make our laws…)

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Meanwhile 40,000 manufacturing jobs have gone down the gurgler in the last 4 years and the Tories’ response? More of the same, please.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 20 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,684 comments) says:

    Russel Norman did NOT have sexual relations with that policy He just proposed to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    I want COMPETENT people with sensible ideas for running the Govt

    Goodness, you must be terribly disappointed with this current lot.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. RRM (8,996 comments) says:

    Judith –

    I think the point of this thread is greens are calling DPF a liar because he’s noted they changed their minds.

    That’s really not flash at all.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. anonymouse (652 comments) says:

    @DPF

    Apparently the “NZ Power” idea from the Greens is also a “discussion document”-
    http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/greens-reduce-power-bills

    Russel calls it a “plan” in this release
    http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/electricity-authority-has-failed-control-electricity-prices

    But then on the same day with Gareth he calls it a “proposal”
    http://www.greens.org.nz/events/empowering-new-zealand-online-public-meeting

    Everyone knows this is a green party policy , no matter how much pin dancing goes on

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RRM (8,996 comments) says:

    “40,000 manufacturing jobs…”

    Ross: bullshit.

    Bullshit, and lies.

    You’re a couple of days late flogging that dead horse…

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    Oh, and of course the current government has NEVER changed their minds on ANYTHING, EVER.

    Good point. National promised not to raise GST, only to break that promise. Did Mr Farrar scream out in indignation? Nah, it got barely a mention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Pete George (21,828 comments) says:

    The Greens have set a precedent and shown they are prepared to ditch ill-advised proposals/policy.

    Labour seem to have been a “me too” party behind the Greens, perhaps they will follow suit again and ditch some of their dumb policies too.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RRM (8,996 comments) says:

    Goodness, you must be terribly disappointed with this current lot.

    Open your eyes Ross.

    The Key govt has dismantled next to NOTHING of the welfare state. They’ve also kept us out of the staggering levels of debt most other civilised countries are now in. Oh, and they’ve cut taxes on top of all that. That’s competence.

    I have been a Green /Labour voter for a long time. But I don’t have a problem with anything the present govt is doing… Meanwhile the opposition make themselves look more & more like idiots with their half-baked, nonsense ideas, and right now I can’t support them, I wouldn’t want them running the govt.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. kiwi in america (2,336 comments) says:

    Judith
    The issue is the Greens chief spinmeister claiming their policy climb down is not a U turn AND publicly abusing DPF when he called him on the spin. All political parties perform U turns – most own the U turn, the Greens aren’t. They are dancing on the head of a pin trying to paint Norman’s appearance on Q+A (and his various public defenses of QE) that would lead any casual (or even fully engaged and politically knowledgeable) observer to conclude this was Green policy, that is wasn’t Green policy at all. I feel a Tui’s billboard coming on!

    The Greens reaction to the U turn accusation shows how thinned skinned they are and also that they still want the policy, they have merely ‘shelved’ it for purely political expediency.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. ross69 (3,645 comments) says:

    I have been a Green /Labour voter for a long time. But I don’t have a problem with anything the present govt is doing…

    Your second statement puts the lie to your first.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 16 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Paulus (2,299 comments) says:

    Would you buy a second hand car from Norman ?
    He is an inveterate liar to suit his day.
    Of course he would not print money today, but what about tomorrow.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    Your second statement puts the lie to your first.

    Your statement shows how it is that Labour lost the last election. And will lose the next.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. wreck1080 (3,529 comments) says:

    @bhudson –

    My argument is that the exchange rate should be ignored when setting interest rates.

    The exchange rate is simply a reflection of the economic strength. The economy is overheating because of the strength and so interest rates should go up to control the evil of inflation.

    Artificially suppressing interest rates will simply cause further damage later on.

    And, it is generally accepted by the experts that manufacturing is doing better than ever so this is proof the high dollar is not hurting ( I would differ, but this is what the experts are saying).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. David Garrett (5,150 comments) says:

    Could some kind person please explain to this economic semi-literate just what “quantitative easy” and “printing money” actually MEANS in 2013?

    With regard to the latter, I am aware that in times past a country’s central bank – or I guess some favoured printer – would simply “print money”, and deliver a truckload of it to banks, which then devalues the currency because there is more of it about. Presumably today it is done somewhat differently….does the Reserve Bank just decree that everyone’s bank account is increased by $100 (or $10,000)? How does this work? Genuine question.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. RRM (8,996 comments) says:

    Your second statement puts the lie to your first.

    And that attitude is EXACTLY the problem with the political left in NZ, and the reason why I can’t vote for them.

    I am not a liar, you putrescent little shit-eating maggot. Fuck you.

    As I’ve said Darien Fenton, and “Claire” and many other Labour people on Red Alert… I’m not LYING to you, I’m not making this shit up. You’ve lost my vote. What you’re doing is not winning me back.

    But you fuckwits don’t want to hear that, do you?

    A lurch to the ideological far left is not the answer to Labour’s woes. Blocking your ears when you hear stuff you don’t want to hear from your own supporters isn’t the answer either.

    Sensible policies are.

    An upfront, respectful, businesslike attitude is.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    The exchange rate is simply a reflection of the economic strength. The economy is overheating because of the strength and so interest rates should go up to control the evil of inflation.

    @wreck1080,

    No, while the soundness of our economic fundamentals are part of it, the two principle reasons our dollar remains so (relatively) high are:

    - others have been discounting theirs by printing money (a la Amercia)
    - our interest rates already being high relative to others, which makes our dollar attractive

    Up the interest rate and our dollar becomes even more attractive and will rise in value.

    This is one example of the interrelationships that Labour and the Greens appear not to grasp and therefore claim they have magic answers that can fix a problem without exacerbating another – e.g. they talk like they can reduce the value of the dollar without raising the cost of living. They cannot.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @David Garrett,

    It’s all done with electrickery these days.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. hubbers (204 comments) says:

    Nasty greens

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. wreck1080 (3,529 comments) says:

    @bhudson:

    – Others are printing money ‘because’ their economies are train-wrecks. You are saying the same thing as me.

    - Our interest rates are higher because our economy is better relative to money printing nations.

    House prices in Auckland are getting so ridiculous it is laughable that nothing is being done. A big talk-fest goes on, but show me the money.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. kiwi in america (2,336 comments) says:

    David Garrett
    Quantitative Easing is the name given to the policy of the US Federal Reserve to inject liquidity into their debt and bond markets where interest rates are effectively close to zero (as they are in US wholesale debt markets) by buying the US Federal Government’s Treasury notes. The premise is that with such high levels of debt needed by the Federal Government to fund things like the stimulus and other programmes (like food stamps), the US Treasury would struggle to sell the debt bonds necessary to fund the deficit spending because the rates have been held low to also boost economic activity. The Fed must ‘print’ money in order to buy the T – Bills under the programme. QE was used by Japan (where interest rates for a long time were actually 0%) and also by the Bank of England for a brief period of time at the height of the UK debt crisis and by the European Central Bank to fund the bailouts of the PIIGS to save the Euro from collapse.

    Norman used these examples to cloak QE with some sense of economic orthodoxy failing to mention that more fiscally sound and less debt laden countries (such as Switzerland, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) never had to resort to such tactics to meet their government debt needs. National has rightly argued that for less debt laden countries like NZ to allow their Reserve Banks to buy government debt instruments would have been overly stimulatory leading to an interest rate blowout (damaging to the recovery) and a big spike in inflation with all of the inherent problems of erosion of wealth that was apparent during NZ’s years of high inflation. Destruction of wealth and stymying economic growth is a feature not a bug for the Greens – hence Norman’s philosophical enthusiasm for it.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    DG: Think a massive injection of M1, sloshing around in the economy.

    Yoza, take a look at the countries you have quoted. US, UK, China, Japan. Then think NZ. Can you pick the difference?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Keeping Stock (9,791 comments) says:

    ross69 said

    Your second statement puts the lie to your first.

    It’s EXACTLY that head-in-the-sand attitude that still has Labour’s polling numbers starting with a 2 Ross; and that’s their INTERNAL polling numbers, not the media-driven ones.

    There’s a reason why Labour got a mere 27% of the popular vote in 2011, but no-one in Labour is yet prepared to confront it. How many election defeats will it take until the message gets through?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    @wreck1080,

    I don’t disagree that we have risks around house prices, particularly in Auckland. I am not promoting that we ignore it. What I am saying is that raising interest rates, which would help to cool the property market, will have adverse consequential impacts.

    One being a higher dollar.

    Another being a reduction in investment such as R&D (through borrowing – as interest rates will be higher, making it more expense, and through direct investment as the required rate of return will increase due to alternatives performing better.)

    This helps to show why the RBNZ has been reluctant to raise rates. They are looking at other measures such as Loan-Value ratio (which JK has concerns about for first home buyers.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kimble (4,095 comments) says:

    This seems appropriate:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. David Garrett (5,150 comments) says:

    KIA: Thank you…I was not joking when I said I am an economic semi-literate..I know what a bond is, but you are talking – are you not – about the government buying its own bonds? How does that create any money to – say – build a new hospital somewhere?

    Hmmo: what does a ” a massive injection of M1″ actually mean today? As I said, I understand it once meant literally to print money and give it to banks so they had money to give to jittery depositors. But surely they dont literally print money today? And if so, who gets it? On whose account is the extra money held?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. dime (8,778 comments) says:

    lol @ ross.

    first off you should be given demerits for your blatant attempt to hijack the thread with your “meanwhile, 40,000 jobs” shit.

    second, its been a long transition for RRM. 18 months ago he was quite left. but as common sense caught up with him he has joined us on the glorious right.. well, hes centre but he will vote national. its right enough :)

    the sad thing is he will move back to the left as soon as a centre/left moderate govt can be formed.

    luckily for us, you bitter fucks want to go far left and it will keep you on the side lines.

    finally, why do the arrogant left think they own voters? for life! dare criticize and you are abused. just weird

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Yoza (1,353 comments) says:

    “Yoza, take a look at the countries you have quoted. US, UK, China, Japan. Then think NZ. Can you pick the difference?”

    Well, yes. New Zealand governments since 1987 have effectively snuffed out manufacturing in this country, whereas Japan, the US, the UK and China spend multiple billions each propping up their manufacturing sectors.

    The point I was making, and which many here wilfully ignore, is inflating the money supply is not something countries do just to ward off financial atrophy. There are countries that use QE to lower the value of their currencies (Switzerland, Japan, China) to allow their exporters a competitive advantage.

    All this squealing about the Greens is utter nonsense, QE has been used, and is still in use, in other countries to achieve precisely what Russell Norman suggested we use it for here – to maintain a competitive advantage for our export sector.

    That the Greens have pulled back from using this as a policy foundation really makes no difference to me. What is of note is the pitch and intensity of the squealing that exudes from this blog whenever the Greens are mentioned.

    Honestly, you people appear utterly terrified of a fairly mild group. Heh, I imagine many of you literally wet your beds if you go to sleep after seeing someone like Tame Iti on the news beforehand.

    It is fucking hilarious to witness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Ultima (29 comments) says:

    @kiwi in america
    Thanks for the explanation.

    The countries that uses QE it is used to stimulate their dire economies, not to reduce the exchange rate like Norman wants to do. If China had given his flag back, Norman may want to use their method of fixing their Yuan against the $US. He may also want to have a look at how successful Malaysia did with fixing their currency during the Asian crisis in the 90s. From memory there was nothing wrong with Malaysia’s economy when their currency went into a tailspin.

    To my knowledge, there has been no countries that uses QE to influence the exchange rate to benefit a sector of the economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. kiwi in america (2,336 comments) says:

    David Garrett
    It is precisely that – the government buying its own bonds, But in order to do so it must print new money to buy them. Under orthodox monetary policy, the way to stimulate growth is to cut interest rates and augment that with fiscal discipline (cutting spending where possible and taxes as well). One cannot stimulate growth in this way if interest rates are extremely low already and credit markets are severely distressed – all conditions that led to the US Fed adopting QE. The rationale is that QE injects liquidity into the markets by keeping secondary bond prices up and sufficient liquidity in the system for large corporates at least to borrow and maintain demand. Housing and small business credit markets remained very constrained, economic activity on Main St has been very muted as evidenced by persistent high unemployment worsened by taxation uncertainty because of the as yet fully enumerated regulatory and taxing powers of new agencies spawned by Dodds Franks and Obamacare – these are acting as a major dampener on new hiring and new business start ups. QE has really only benefited Wall St as evidenced by a looming new bubble in equities markets.

    Norman tried to humanize the printing of money seeming to tag it to new schools or the Chch rebuild. He envisaged QE as enabling the NZ government to run even wider budget deficits without having to borrow as is the current method of deficit funding. In other words pay for all the Greens costly promises with seemingly no impact on the economy and certainly no increase in offshore or domestic borrowing. Of course he skirted over the obvious negatives: the increase in interest rates (a tax on all home mortgage holders) and the ramp up in inflation (a tax on savings and the elderly on fixed incomes) and the distortions to the economy by having the public sector expand and crowd out capital and growth from the private sector (the main reason why the 5th Labour government tipped NZ’s tradable and export sector into recession in 2005)

    Yoza and Norman always go on about the QE adopted by the US, Japan and the Euro zone as somehow making it quite appropriate for New Zealand. Thank goodness NZ is nowhere near these jurisdictions’ problems where it has had to resort to printing money. NZ enjoys higher growth, lower levels of debt to GDP, lower unemployment and rapidly falling budget deficits all against the backdrop of the GFC, the huge hit to the GDP of Christchurch earthquakes and a 1 in 70 year drought.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. RRM (8,996 comments) says:

    Yoza and Norman always go on about the QE adopted by the US, Japan and the Euro zone as somehow making it quite appropriate for New Zealand. Thank goodness NZ is nowhere near these jurisdictions’ problems where it has had to resort to printing money. NZ enjoys higher growth, lower levels of debt to GDP, lower unemployment and rapidly falling budget deficits all against the backdrop of the GFC, the huge hit to the GDP of Christchurch earthquakes and a 1 in 70 year drought.

    Amputating your own injured arm with a leatherman is sometimes the best course of action that’s available to you.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    Yoza, I deal with your appalling stupidity later, QE for dummies first :)

    DG: “A central bank implements quantitative easing by buying financial assets from commercial banks and other private institutions, thus creating money and injecting a pre-determined quantity of money into the economy.” (wiki)

    The issues are numerous. Banks could just pocket the extra money to prop up their capital. It might not be enough money and have no impact, or it might be too much and cause inflationary pressures. And the irony is the long term impact will be on those at the bottom of the ladder, not the top. Hence why monied and smart investors are getting out of financial instruments at a great rate of knots if they hold those in the US or Japan. The Japanese economy for me is the one to watch – their sovreign debt ratio is scary.

    The problem with the QE thats going on at the moment is the bubbles you artifically create as you do it – and what happens to those bubbles when you stop, as you one day have to do.

    Yoza: You ignore the huge disparities and differences between the economies you quote. Our size and distance from markets, together with our top ten position in currency trade terms you seem to ignore. But then Im sure you can explain those away, right?

    We are a tiny little country at the bottom of the world. End of.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Yoza (1,353 comments) says:

    You do know that writing ‘end of’ at the end of a comment makes you look like an utter prat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Yoza (1,353 comments) says:

    “Yoza: You ignore the huge disparities and differences between the economies you quote. Our size and distance from markets, together with our top ten position in currency trade terms you seem to ignore. But then Im sure you can explain those away, right?”

    Our distance from markets combined with, what the IMF describes as, an overvalued currency work to compound the difficulties facing exporters. The size of our country or our economy is kind of irrelevant if all we are doing is moving to devalue our currency relative to their currencies. If China is now our largest trading partner, as reported recently, it is in our interests to sell our exports at a rate at which the Chinese consumer can afford – winning the ‘top ten terms of trade’ prize will be meaningless if Chinese consumers decide to go for products from countries that have a more competitive exchange rate.

    We could always nationalise one of those Australian banking operations, that would bring the value of our currency down pretty smartly – after all, it is they who seem to be reaping the greatest benefit from the overvalued New Zealland dollar.

    Heh, … END OF.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Yoza (1,353 comments) says:

    Oh, RRM. If you are going to chop your arm off with a Leatherman could you please video it, upload it to youtube and provide a link … there’s a good chap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    Yoza, you do realise that writing “You do know that writing ‘end of’ at the end of a comment makes you look like an utter prat.” means we all realise that you cant be arsed engaging intellectually and your argument is fucked? Right? :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Yoza (1,353 comments) says:

    Prat.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. hmmokrightitis (1,458 comments) says:

    The case for the plantiff rests m’lud :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. RRM (8,996 comments) says:

    Oh, RRM. If you are going to chop your arm off with a Leatherman could you please video it, upload it to youtube and provide a link … there’s a good chap.

    You dumb fuck.

    The point of that went straight over your head didn’t it?

    QE is like DIY amputation… something you would only do in a truly desperate situation, if you had no better alternative.

    You’re alone near the top of a mountain, with a massive fallen boulder pinning you down by your (crushed) arm. No-one’s coming to look for you. You’ll die if you don’t get out of there. You have no other choice. You might consider desperate remedies in such a situation.

    You probably wouldn’t do it if you fell while dusting your bookshelf and sprained your wrist. There are less drastic, less painful and less dangerous alternatives you can do first… ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. UpandComer (496 comments) says:

    Farrar was right the other day when he said the Greens really only have two choices. They are promising lots of new goodies, banning a lot of money making baddies, and say they are going to reduce the debt – at least I think that’s what they’re saying given how much the attack Bill English for ‘debt’. So the Greens either have to print money, or cut spending. Gee I wonder which one they will do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.