Their platinum mastercard is good for NZ points. Better than ASB at the time I was reviewing.
Kiwibank Mastercard is my only non-asb account
Printable View
If you want to line up behind postage stamp purchasers, parcel senders, prescription fillers....
Private accounts where 99.9% of transactions done online is probably Ok - their promtion of a "personalised banker" onlin -e not sure how good that really is.
As CJ says if you are doing something that does not involve going to a branch and/or talking to someone probably Ok
Thanks for your comments PTC, CJ, and Jay. I don't generally need to go into the bank except for deposit envelopes, we courier them in to save time and fuel. Years ago I was with Trustbank Waikato (later bought out by Westpac). You could go into the branch and have a chat with your account manager in an office, and he/she would be the same person who sorted out personal loans and overdrafts etc. I'd like that again, it's just a forlorn hope I guess.
Back to the thread..I was having a chat with a client who works in the public service today. Turns out he's a Labour voter like myself, and when I said how bad things were looking generally he - straight out of the blue - mentioned the govt decision to not build the new railway wagons in Dunedin, as a very poor indicator of policy. Where he's working is screwed down, he can see the money tightening up, he knows that people on the dole don't spend like employed people.
There seems to be an accelerating trend for govt-owned businesses to shed staff at the moment. Maybe they're hoping no-one will notice, because everyone else is taking the opportunity.
elZorro even KiwiBank is shedding staff
Of course you're all correct, I'm not ready to do my banking at a NZ Post counter.
This message from the Labour Leader today, and I feel it's pretty much on the money.
Quote:
Show us the jobs, John
Quote:
Dear (Labour supporter)
This week, miners from the state-owned company Solid Energy came to Parliament asking the Government to help save their jobs.
I was there with other Labour MPs to welcome and support them. Unfortunately their plea was rejected in a decision that is devastating for the hundreds of workers affected, their families and communities.
It’s all related to National’s plan to privatise Solid Energy. It’s effectively winding down operations by mothballing the mine and cutting jobs until coal prices go up and the company is more attractive to private investors. This is wrong.
Labour’s approach would be very different. We don’t believe in selling the country off. We’d treat Solid Energy as a viable business that is suffering a downturn but has good long-term prospects.
Labour has always stood for decent jobs with decent pay, and for the communities those jobs support.
That’s why we’ll take steps to encourage job creation, including supporting Kiwi exporters to help them grow and changing the tax system to encourage more investment in productive businesses rather than the Auckland property market.
We’ll also help Kiwis into jobs in the trades by paying employers the equivalent of the dole to take on apprentices. We won’t sit back and watch 1000 people a week leave for Australia.
We want to create a country that we can be proud of again - built on jobs, opportunity and fairness. That’s our plan and we appreciate your support in getting there.
Warm regards,
David Shearer
Leader of the Labour Party
NEWS IN BRIEF
The Government is so consumed by the Kim Dotcom saga that it’s taken its eye off what matters most to Kiwis – jobs.
The buck stops with John Key. He has sole democratic oversight of our intelligence agencies but his handling of this issue has been incredibly lax. His claim that he knows nothing about what went on beggars belief. This incident undermines New Zealanders’ confidence in our intelligence agencies, it’s also embarrassing for us internationally and damages our reputation as one of the world’s most honest and transparent countries.
There's been plenty more news about layoffs recently, and Fonterra would rather open a new coalmine in green paddocks near a main road, than buy similar coal from Solid Energy.
Yesterday I read this opinion piece in the Waikato Times, from Federated Farmers Waikato President James Houghton.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times...s-many-drivers
This is a thinly-veiled rant that the entire country is just really lucky that Fonterra and the farmers are doing it, paying for all the roads, hospitals and schools, and townies shouldn't be so tough on farm emissions, and regional and local body councils need to pull their heads in, local rates are too high of course ($10,000 per big land area/farm, absolutely shocking price that). According to James, if farmers weren't there, weeds and pests would run rampant through the countryside.
Newsflash, these would be mostly imported weeds and pests that farmers' forebears brought over from the home country or from Australia, for hunting and for fur, and for hedgerows. Even the grass is imported.
Not a direct mention about tax being paid to central government, this would be because it's a sensitive area for most, and farmers don't, as a rule, pay very much of it. They must be expecting their suppliers and workers to pay it for them.
Another newsflash for James - when farmers screw suppliers down so tight by ringing around the stores, the whole supply chain feels it, and this is not going to generate many jobs or much central government tax. Farming is a lossy, low profit business sometimes. So why do many big farmers end up bigger? They buy more farms, often lower productivity ones, commercial buildings, and take on bigger interest bills, because they don't like paying taxes. The big prize is selling the farm and commercial property at the end of the process.
They could just stick to their main farm and get it running so well that they make serious profits almost every year, and pay off their bank loans. Most ag researchers think farms could easily produce 20% more grass, for example.
Just one problem with that - "S**t no, we'd have to pay a lot of tax".
James, you can't have it both ways. Are you paying the taxes the country needs to keep going under this brilliant National Government, or are you helping ensure the profits of the Aussie banks with any spare income instead? I think I know the answer.
Maybe I had my own rant too, and I know this is far from the full picture. Still, best to keep one's eyes open.
The US elections are looming, and while reading about the differences between Obama and (business as usual) Romney, I found this writeup on Detroit. Formerly the powerhouse of the US automotive industry, and as many have said over the years, it was on an unsustainable path.
Now they think small businesses will be what will keep the city alive.
http://grist.org/cities/detropia-tak...ong-the-ruins/
Colin James today:
Quote:
Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 9 October 2012
A matter of our general self-interest
The United States says Kim Dotcom purloins intellectual property (IP). Well, he does seem to filch the memories of some who come into his orbit. Perhaps they are stashed in a dungeon at his mansion.
John Banks had a massive memory loss. John Key has owned up to a memory fade about a briefing from the Government Communications Security Bureau, which had a collective memory fade. Detective Inspector Grant Wormald's memory seemed to skip a beat in court.
On an outer orbit Bill English appeared last week to have a memory blip: his expressed openness to feeding poor kids in schools did not chime with the Prime Minister's dismissal of the notion when it resurfaced in the Children's Commissioner's poverty report and then got a run from David Shearer.
It appears English and the Prime Minister share less these days than efficient government requires, judging by his not telling John Key about the GCSB's bid to suppress its nefarious goings-on in service of the FBI's mission to uplift Dotcom for infuriating Key's film mogul mates.
Professional cabinet management demands tight congruence between the top two. When light appears between a Prime Minister and deputy their government loses coherence and then voter trust.
That applies even when the top two are in different parties. Jenny Shipley fired Winston Peters as her deputy when they fell out over selling Wellington airport in 1998, since when Peters has slagged National, his original party up to 1992. Jim Anderton stayed deputy to Helen Clark when most of his Alliance party walked and eventually in all but name rejoined Labour, his original party up to 1989.
English is not Peters. He is onside the Key-backed, Steven Joyce-driven dominant economic development agenda.
For example, he often says only private businesses create productive jobs, which is an argument for smaller government and deregulation to create more space for private enterprise to grow and produce. (English appears to mean a nurse hired by a private hospital is productive and one hired by a public hospital is not but leave that aside for now.)
The development-is-paramount positioning rests ultimately on self-interest: the materialist self-interest most humans in most places have in more food, drink and goods and services. Anthropologists trace this deep urge back to the hazards of life on the savannah at the dawn of humanity.
But on the savannah there was a second self-interest: in children's wellbeing as the future of the band.
It was towards that second self-interest that English, ever the small-c conservative (of a Catholic sort), edged is his reported comment to the New Zealand Herald on Saturday that he was "quite open" to school meals for hungry kids.
In the case of "kids in homes where there is not a strong sense of responsibility ... the obligation on the rest of us is to do something about it," English was reported as saying. When children missed breakfast, he said, "they are not in great shape to learn". "We are willing to grapple with that," he said, presumably meaning by "we" the government.
It is a small step from there to recognising that if children are not in shape to learn they won't learn, won't be work-ready at the end of their school years and won't be productive workers (in either private or public jobs).
And that is not in the self-interest of the rest of us who then pay taxes for remedial education or to pay their benefits and health costs or put them up in prison -- and for their kids after them. The general self-interest is in all children growing up to be productive workers, pay taxes and contribute to general wellbeing.
This is a long way from seeing government spending as mostly undermining economic development by siphoning off resources that could be going into profit-making enterprises. It fits better with the notion that a society of well-functioning individuals is a good investment for the economy. That in turn argues for a "living wage", as advocated by the Service and Food Workers Union, now with 110 organisations in tow and a couple of cities getting interested. A living wage affords kids breakfast.
Looks like John Key is more hard-nosed than he appears, at least with Stephen Joyce we know what we're getting.Quote:
English's repositioning also reflects rising discomfort in the cabinet with the growing media interest in poverty and inequality and suggests the cabinet is starting to reposition to head this off before it arouses too much voter interest. That discomfort was evident in some Beehive heavying of a one-day conference on the Children's Commissioner's poverty report last month.
On Thursday Paula Bennett will issue her "white paper" on vulnerable children, which she narrowed to the "most vulnerable" in her preface to the precursor green paper, on which there were nearly 10,000 submissions.
The general self-interest is not limited to rescuing the "most vulnerable". It is in ensuring a fair go for all children so they all eventually contribute fully to the economy and society. English seems now to be sort-of saying that. Is he right or are Key and Joyce?
-- Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, P O Box 9494, Wellington 6141
Ph (64)-4-384 7030, Mobile (64)-21-438 434, Fax (64)-4-384 9175
Webpage http://www.ColinJames.co.nz
On TV this morning, the upcoming manufacturing employment forum - the topics they'll cover are in line with discussions on this thread. John Key won't be going. It'll be interesting to see who Labour sends.
David Parker with some researched thoughts on the exchange rate, not a "wacky" sound bite.
http://www.voxy.co.nz/politics/joyce...arker/5/137055
What does everyone think of the new entrant minimum wage of $10.80?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10839349
Apart from the extension to those in training or who have been on the dole (under20), this only applies to 16 and 17 year olds, and only for the first six months with an employer. The staff so paid cannot be used for training or supervising others.
This plan seems destined to mop up secondary and first year uni students into the retail and hospitality sector over the holidays. While I believe that any job skills look good on a CV, nothing replaces enthusiasm. Occasionally I'm an employer of new staff. I don't like to observe nothing but retail sector jobs on a CV if they're applying for manufacturing jobs, for example, that should lead on to design and engineering. But the sad reality is that getting a foot in the door is hard.
Some of the smart ones offer their time for free, just to get experience. If they're that keen, and have demonstrated they also spend some of their own spare time and cash in the same field, I'll try and fit them in at least part-time. And of course I'll pay them, nothing less than above the adult minimum wage.
If I paid less, what would I be telling them? The message would be - don't even think about setting your sights higher, there is no future here in NZ.
Is that what National is trying to say? That they agree with some unimaginative employer lobbies, we're doomed to spiral down into a low-wage economy? This attitude is fine if you're at the top of the pile already. What about middle NZ?
Labour's policies should offer a way through this mess. Although Shearer muddled through his TV spot this morning as per usual, he did make the point that there are other options. Putting it bluntly, we all have to work smarter, not harder. Business owners need to get their operations facing the world if possible, more frequently.
I grew up in an environment where you took what you could get and that experience has been one of my greatest assets. In more recent years, in a well paid job, I often worked late into the night producing goods for sale in shops and on a weekend stall. My hourly "rate" was often down around the dollar or so an hour but the end result was a pile of dollars in my pocket while others were in the pub bemoaning their state of perceived poverty and spending their money. Now I go in the same pub and they are still there, moaning about capitalism, the money they haven't got and so forth. I go home and cut another cord of wood for sale next winter.
I don't know the answer to that, but I know what I think. That is, why has it taken so long to introduce? It's just cruel to see young people who are prepared to work (there are some) and employers who would employ them (there are some) but don't because they tend to need so much supervision and there's lots of down-time at the start of their vworking lives, so they opt for the experienced worker; they are simply better value generally speaking. Our school leavers are not prepared for work. I've yet to find a school leaver who is any use as an office junior for a start. Ask a 16 year old to write a letter for a start and you'll see what I mean. Put a young fella' on a building site and it takes a couple of months of labouring, cleaning up - gopher work, before they adapt to the environment. I'm all for it.
I think it could be a good idea. It is good it has been introduced. It does need to be monitored though to ensure it is creating new permanent jobs, not just recycling low wage employees.
The goal is to reduce youth unemployment. Interesting read here:
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/labours...ment-ck-115419
Risk is it just takes jobs of other workers or it is used for short term positions just to lower wage bill.
Yes, interesting chart CJ. What this is saying is that government can pull levers in the economy very noticeably. Probably not the effect Labour wanted to see, but removing the youth minimum wage saw employers react within a year or so, and youth unemployment hit historical proportions. All for a few dollars an hour. We employers must be a miserable lot on average. It's also saying that many of these jobs were short term. This is a general comment on the state of businesses in NZ. Not good enough.
FP, you're saying earlier on that any tax credits should be across the board. But if the right levers are pulled, tax incentives, like wage rates, can be a positive force. In manufacturing jobs, a new person can be quickly trained up if good systems are in place, and doing chargeable work within a few hours. All we need is more profitable manufacturing jobs.
I agree with you about written output from younger staff - you cannot even be sure that a tertiary graduate can spell or write well enough to knock out a report that you could present to a client. Those that can do this, shine out like beacons of hope.
So who's to decide? Leave such things to the market. If you really want your Labour mates to do something constructive with the tax system, get them to find a way of applying GST to small imports. It's becoming a huge problem (for sevveral countries) and quite unfair on retailers. More constructive than capital gainstax nonsense.
Leave such things to the market, nonsense, Labour mates..if I didn't know better I'd think you were trying to get a bite from that post, FP.
You refer to unimaginative copycat retailers stocking goods that are also available elsewhere in the world, priced under $350 or so and lightweight, portable items. There's the problem. If the retailer also added value to some products, or provided great service, who would bother to seek the products out overseas? If margins are held low in some areas by this sort of competition, the onus is on the business to change its lineup, to move sideways into other areas. Maybe (shock horror) to export itself. They should also have a web presence and a shopping basket system.
What I notice is that there are many niche manufacturers in NZ who struggle for a long time to connect with customers. They don't usually have their products in retail stores because the stock turnover is too low for most chains, and advertising costs a lot. Why don't struggling retailers who are short of stock to fill the shelves or shop floor, team up with NZ manufacturers and hold stock on consignment at least. Then the stores can be centres of excellence, and be selling goods no-one else has. I've found this works with overseas contacts too, anyone can set up from even a home base overseas and there's no risk on their part. You need to establish good contacts and rapport first.
There are lies, and there are statistics..
http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/tax-tak...ease-rh-130451
The National govt heralds an improvement in tax take, as business conditions improve. But wait a minute, the tax take under Labour improved to over $60 billion a year, it's now at just $55 billion. Most of the modest increase from a lower point will be provisional tax. This tax is designed to lead known or actual income by a factor of several months. The implication is that last financial year was fairly good for most businesses, the ones that are left. Fonterra's payout has already been put on notice to drop from last year's, not a good sign if the improvement is to continue.
Beware of comparisons between countries. We have less than half the rate of unemployment of many if not most developed countries. But many countries apply a radically different test to get their figure - they do not door-knock to find out who would like a job as the do here from time to time. Similarly with suicide rates. Here we measure suicide on a balance of probabilities rule whereas other countries require evidence that the individual actually intended to take his own life, particularly youth suicides, are defined as accident or misadventure.
EZ...stock on consignment is a wonderfull thing....not....Firstly, as a manufacturer you end up with an unusually high stock list in relation to your actual sales...which means poor use of cash and credit. In order to make up for that you need to charge more for your goods...which of course makes them unsaleable...which in turn leads eventually to the business getting further and further in the crapper. Also the retailer doesnt have any real incentive to sell the consignment goods because they have no money in it..they will sell the other goods they already have paid for first. Consignment isnt even good for the retailer because it makes them lazy buyers. No need to look around for the best deal/products/hot item because they have something similar on consignment. If a manufacturer has "goods that no-one else has" you dont realistically think they will let someone who is "struggling" have it on consignment ...come-on!!!!
Might not work out for everyone, and I've sent goods on consignment to a chain in NZ, took me months to get them all paid for or returned at the end of the agreed holding period. But I've also sent consignment goods off overseas to a trusted colleague trading from home, and that has worked out fine for both parties. The way I see it, making quite a few items in a production run makes each unit cheaper to build, and might mop up spare time with staff. It makes no difference if the stock is on my own shelves or on someone else's. It also means that after the first lot is sold, there's not the same reluctance by the reseller to part with more cash to try the cycle again. Having a retail presence would be an added bonus. If it doesn't work out within a time frame, the goods can easily be shipped back.
BB, one of the biggest costs for a manufacturer/distributor is marketing. Retail points are often less interested, or want the supplier to pay for this. Getting the goods sold and in use, so that word-of-mouth advertising takes over, is the goal. Look at Trademe, i-phones etc. Any low-cost method of getting the goods in front of buyers will do.
I am also serious about stores having a web presence. On the news today, a google guy said 2/3 of NZ businesses don't have a website. That is so crazy when there are firms offering brilliant deals (under $1,000) with shopping baskets, CMS sites, easy to configure and they'll even put your data in for you if you pay a bit more (maybe still under $2000). There are also thousands of wanna-be website programmers, which keeps the costs low. But I recommend you go to a firm that already has hundreds of websites using their system. No bugs, and you're up and running in a week or so, not years later.
NZ manufacturing in a slowdown.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...-for-factories
If you need a good website try estaronline. A Nz company doing great work in that field.
Disc,I hold estar!
There must be heaps of good suppliers of websites Slimwin, I like to use those outfits who write the code here in NZ too. One firm I tried simply bought an overseas CMS package and rebranded the front of it. But anytime you wanted a small change they were lost, big delays. My current hosting firm pulled the $5000 website from the imposter firm, across to their system, and showed it starting to run within 30 minutes, charged only a $540 setup fee all up. And much lower hosting fees than I was paying.
In the news over the last couple of days, MSD's firewalls prove to be all too simple for anyone with a bit of Windows knowledge. This is a shocker. Those on the Right might have to admit that cutting down on backroom staff can have massive effects like this. They even called experts in to advise on it (contractors) when someone told them about it earlier. The big holes were not spotted.
Here's how the info was put onto the web, finally forcing a fix by MSD. Paula Bennett should be roasted over this one.
http://publicaddress.net/onpoint/msds-leaky-servers/
I would have thought her manager in charge would be roasted.if she asks if the system is good and her manager says yes do you expect her to be technically proficient in i.t and check all the work out? That sounds a we bit too much like political sniping. This needs solving and whoever is directly responsible to be held responsible.
Every system that ever existed is vulnerable. I grew up with the wanganui computer when it existed and spent years in the criminal justice system which I had to use all day every day. With the Wanganui beast, you had to get in on your third attempt or the police arrived at the site within minutes and you had to explain yourself. With the more widely used systemthat has been in place for years we had many "work arounds" usually to overcome some glitch. There were some restrictions about which areas police, probation, prison or court staff could enter that were considered confidential to one or the user groups.I accidently clicked on a empty space on a screen I was using one day and found myself on a part of the site that I did not have access to. It was of no significance to me so I just went back out. As to shortage of qualified staff, my son is a Data Systems Architect for a major international banking and investment system overseas but who is going to pay well in excess of $200,000 pa. to someone in WINZ to protect their fragile system?
Slimwin, as part of a wider bid to save $237mill by reducing the need for administration staff, 700 self-service kioks have been installed by the IT dept of the Social Devt Ministry, all in the last 18 months.
Chief Executive Brendan Boyle said "It appears a relatively basic mistake has been made in this instance - and the right safeguards were not put in place around the Work and Income kiosks".
The National govt policy started this ball rolling. Some WINZ staff have been laid off or not replaced under the old faithful sinking lid policy, and the confidential files virtually left open to view, out in the public area of the Ministry.
Craic, I agree we wouldn't be paying $200,000, but there will be heaps of tertiary graduates who would like a job in the govt sector as a training ground and stepping stone to other work. Current Govt policy is that they should instead jump the ditch, or go on the dole over here.
EZ. You are perfectly free to employ as many people as you like even if you don't have real jobs for them. The govt. is not. They are the guardians of the public purse; the collected taxes. It is our money they are spending - not theirs. Although over employing in govt. depts. is often done in an attempt to mask unemployment figures, not just in NZ but throughout the western world, it is simply irresponsible; shonky politics. The paying public should be treated better.
I don't think I'll be changing my employment figures, we're still doing OK in the provinces - and could do better. Besides, my brain could go into atrophy and I'd start voting National, or worse. You do realise of course, that if everyone felt like you do about employing people or taking risks, there would be a lot of empty buildings, and very little tax paid.
I don't think public departments should get too big either, but they are good training grounds, they reduce the loading of the unemployed on the govt purse, and every person educated, trained and retained in NZ can eventually add to our GDP. Who knows in what area. All employees pay a lot more tax than unemployed people do. Public sector funding is not all wasted, it's part used on staff, part on supplies from the private sector, part recycled as taxes.
At what point is the public sector reduced by too much, leading to unexpected consequences? I think we're finding that out right now.
Wrong, the infra structure of NZ was built by employees of Govt. Depts. And still is, the Govt. is paying for the fibre rollout even if Chorus provides the labour.The results were sold off by politicians ( Douglas, Richardson, etc and now Key ) following the now failed policies of Regan and Thatcher
The results of this Govt. investment were sold off allowing fortunes to be made by a few. Who then headed overseas where most of the profits go.
NZ is now far more of a class society, a wealthy elite growing their wealth and continually pushing for lower taxes, a middle class struggling to advance and probably pushing for lower taxes, and an increasing under class getting less and less of the social services a Govt . should provide.
It is a Govts job to provide for all its citizens the opportunity to progress not just the favoured few. Unemployment is a world wide problem which if unresolved will cause massive problems.
Westerly
State sector reduced EZ? Your believing the bloggers.
Here's the reply from the State services commision on total numbers. Not a whole lot of difference in the last 5 years. The nine years before that are a different matter..
"Hi Mark,
We monitor the State Services staffing numbers through the StatisticsNZ survey - the Quarterly Employment Survey. I've pasted the State Services headcount numbers from 2007 to present.
Year State Services Headcount
2007 223,912
2008 223,412
2009 226,554
2010 220,877
2011 226,048
2012 224,084
Kind Regards,
--
Martin Peak
Senior Advisor, Strategic Information
State Services Commission
DDI: +64 4 495 6627
Fax: +64 4 495 6686
Martin.Peak@ssc.govt.nz
www.ssc.govt.nz | newzealand.govt.nz "
Hi Slimwin, those numbers look big, and unchanging. State Services include teachers, hospital staff, local govt, etc. And headcount is just that, it's not FTEs.
The state service has only about 15% of the total employed in NZ, and the public service is a small part of that, reaching a maximum of about 46,000 FTEs in 2008. http://www.ssc.govt.nz/node/3650
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/politics/2...ty-breach-winz
John Key's handling of the GCSB - ODT comment.
Hmm, interesting ,I should probably email that guy back and see where he picked his figure from.perhaps foolish for me to believe a state employee was doing his job correctly! Was an email to clear up a debate I was having with another guy and worked in my favour!
Craig Heatley, entrepreneur of the year.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ur-of-the-year
In that case, Labour had a very strong record of job creation in their last term, and National's record has been poor. They've even added to the problem by picking on a small public sector, and wanted to have a go at teachers next. They ruled out using NZRail's own staff to build wagons etc.Quote:
Awards director and E&Y partner Jon Hooper told the gathering that entrepreneurs had a significant opportunity to add to the country's economic prosperity, yet they did not have a seat at the table with policymakers.
"While it is entrepreneurs, not governments, that create jobs, I believe it is the government's record on job creation which will prove to be the critical issue of the 2014 election."
What have been their efforts in the area of encouraging supporting NZ businesses to start up and grow? As Craig Heatley has shown, success in even a very modest business grows some huge companies, all big employers.
National is doomed in the next election, and John Key knows it already.
Now we are the "Lucky Country " (or should that be the Clever Country) which I am sure you will agree with elZorro :) The below is hot of the press !
"Former Budget Chief to Obama: New Zealand alone has managed the crisis right
A top former financial advisor to President Obama has given New Zealand a ringing endorsement for the way the National Government is handling the global financial crisis.
Peter Orszag, Obama’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget until 2010, singled out New Zealand as the model for a balanced response to the international debt crisis.
Mr Orszag observed the importance of combining long-term deficit reduction measures with additional support for the economy, and identified New Zealand as the only country which has got the balance right.
“If you look across all the developed countries, there is only one country… which has actually done that, which is New Zealand – who have coupled additional stimulus with medium-term fiscal consolidation. That’s the right combination.”
From today's Press "Labour in Bid to Reverse Blue Tide" from front page today's Press referring to the fact that over the past two elections Christchurch has changed from a Labout town to a National town (party votes a solid edge to National and more in favour of Nat than electorate votes).
"A Labour Party campaign asking every household in Christchurch what is wrong with their city may be the start of a push to win back voters, leading political experts say".
Ha! Ha! When they ask me I'll tell 'em what is wrong with Christchurch is that we still have a couple of electorate Labour MPs left! :-)
Hi Iceman, I saw the headline of that article but didn't read it, I must be getting one-eyed, and I didn't want to confuse my argument.. However this person hasn't worked for President Obama for two years, and is observing NZ from afar, perhaps only reading press releases. We might be on a safe path, but could NZ do better? If we are doing so well, why are our graduates leaving in droves, and why are they not being replaced by qualified but disgruntled Americans?
MVT, I'd guess both of us are not swinging voters. They'll nod politely and spend more time with the many undecided voters.
Mark Solomon, Chairman of Ngai Tahu, was on TV1's Q&A program this morning. In a one-on-one interview he showed why he has been Chairman so long, and why we have heard nothing but good news from Ngai Tahu for many years. A very clever man, softly spoken, but he has been around the traps and he made some excellent points.
For example over the idea that Maori have some longstanding and treaty rights over water (not that Maori own it, that's a Pakeha expression). He then went on to mention that it is perfectly legal for a farmer to pay (very little) for long-term water rights for extra (irrigation) water, make use of that while farming, and then on-sell the rights with their farm.
Ngai Tahu own a Kaikoura-based whale-watching venture that has won accolades. Mark Solomon is from the same town. Faced with investment decisions from their Iwi settlement, Tainui were sucked into some poor investments early on, at the hands of the wider business community. They have since recovered of course, partly by forging their own way. I found this recent article fascinating.
http://www.pureadvantage.org/blog/20...time-has-come/
Background on treaty claims.
Thanks for finding that Slimwin..certainly looks like a practical approach by Ngai Tahu: if the Maori Council don't get too far, Ngai Tahu are still able to negotiate with the Crown, starting on the front foot. I would guess that their rule-book has an expected return on assets being over a certain percentage. If it's say 8% or more, that would be hard to do with new property purchases. Hence their interest in ventures and income-producing assets.
I think we're all impressed when a company or group builds on its assets, becomes a large employer, or enables other businesses to strike out in a new way. Just a word of caution about something else linking corporates like Ngai Tahu, Tainui, Apple, EBay, Google, Microsoft, Starbucks and Facebook. None of these groups pay very much corporate tax in the places they do business. Ngai Tahu and Tainui are charities, the others make use of accepted government rules to register their main business in tax havens, and then use this vehicle to charge enough royalties to their overseas interests to swamp out any profits. Once the income is in the tax haven, a low tax rate applies - for Microsoft, it has been around 7%.
Of course each of these firms needs to employ local people, they all pay PAYE or equivalent, we all pay local taxes on consumption, and these add up to a big portion of an average pay packet. The way these consumption taxes are increasing - and the fact is there are tax havens all over the place - the governments of many countries have realised there's no way they can rein this corporate attitude in. If they want to see large corporates setting up over here, the NZ Govt will understand there won't be a lot of tax paid on profits. I hasten to add that smaller NZ businesses (by comparison anyway) are probably paying their fair share towards the common-good infrastructure that we all need, to live a comfortable life.
All of us living here in NZ will need to pay something towards these common assets. While the National Govt sees fit to sell off a portion of those assets, built up with the hard work and dues of many taxpayers - many now deceased - I would like to support a party that has a longer-term view. Everyone must pay their share, according to their abilities. This includes those who have cleverly arranged their affairs to make the most of the tax system. I think that in arranging their affairs in this way, many will hamstring the ability of their enterprise to be as productive as it could be, and this in turn reduces employment uptake and training opportunities.
Some of the figures we've seen in the press lately, and on this thread, imply that's exactly what's happening.
Colin James's column for the Otago Daily Times for 23 October 2012
Quote:
Labour Day not yet a day for Labour
Yesterday was Labour Day -- a day symbolic of a deep divide in our politics.
Folklore traces it back to Samuel Parnell's demand in 1840 for an eight-hour working day. The first Labour Day was in 1890, actually a year of defeat for the union movement. It was Mondayised in 1899.
The Labour party owes its name to the wage labourers, skilled and unskilled, it was formed to represent. Unions channelled that support into the party organisation and Parliament.
Now unions' principal weight in the party is as recruiters of footsoldiers for election campaigns, though they are set to get, at next month's conference, a formal minority say in electing the leader. The party still takes notice of, and often aligns with, union policy positions. Note, for example, its deference to teacher unions.
History still infuses Labour's policy on jobs, wages and the organisation of and safety in the workplace. Despite four decades of erosion of the old industrial working class on which Labour was founded, the line which divides Labour from National, left from right, runs through the workplace.
Labour sees wages as households' sustenance. National sees wages as business cost. It is actually not as black and white as that and once, when National leader, English took angry umbrage at this description. But it is a valid marker of the direction in which the two parties instinctively lean.
For example, National last week, Labour Day looming, set down a bill to cut young people's wages. It presented this as furnishing job opportunities for the young. The actual rationale (which has some logic) is that businesses should not have to pay a straight-out-of-school know-little the same minimum as an adult who has been about a bit in the world.
Quote:
Ministers, especially English and Steven Joyce, have also argued the value of our lower, more flexible wage structure vis-a-vis Australia. That is not the only reason some Australian and global companies have moved some operations here. There are other efficiencies, specialties and locational merits. But a more flexible labour market is a significant motivation.
By more flexible is meant less regulatory constraint in setting wages and conditions, including for sackings. Legislation still in train will make negotiating multi-employer contracts harder. This follows several flexibility enhancements in the first term.
The rationale is that companies will make higher profits and then invest more, which will create jobs and over time raise real wages. That is, flexibility promotes socioeconomic "mobility".
The mobility argument has been losing persuasive weight because the modern global labour market has eaten away at well-paying male factory jobs in rich economies, most recently in the United States, once but no longer the exemplar of mobility. (For a serious right-wing discussion of the economically corrosive effects of the resultant increase in inequality and need for political adjustment, see last week's Economist magazine.)
Labour brings to this argument a suite of mixed-economy state interventions in the market designed to protect and manufacture jobs in manufacturing: the sort of jobs that pay men well.
Labour can point to Germany, which maintains a high-wage manufacturing-heavy economy (though helped by a relatively weak euro exchange rate that keeps its real wage costs below where they would be on an open market). Germany has a more cooperative union-management arrangement, despite considerable loosening of its labour market over the past decade.
David Shearer banged on in this vein in a speech last week, echoing earlier speeches by David Parker and David Cunliffe. Expect a lot more as Labour seeks to differentiate itself from National (and its own 1980s past) by highlighting the sagging supply of good-wage jobs.
But raising real wages is not a one-trick wonder. Building an economy that delivers higher-paying jobs of the German -- or, Cunliffe's favourite, Danish -- sort is a two-decade journey if policymakers start now and (a bigger "if") find an effective formula.
That is part of the reason that there is also a long journey ahead for Labour to corral dubious voters into its camp.
National has been losing ground. In TV3's poll, for example, it was polling between 49 and 55 per cent in the second half of 2011 but this year has been in the 40-46 range. John Key, its star attraction in 2011, has dropped as preferred Prime Minister from 49-55 per cent to 40-46 per cent. Percentages positively assessing him have fallen from 68-76 to 54-61. Those saying he is more honest than other politicians have slipped from 49-64 to 48-49 per cent.
But these are still strong numbers. And Labour has still not risen to a party-vote poll rating of 35 per cent, which was what its electorate vote was in 2011. That is not, or not yet, a track back to office.
So Labour could commemorate Labour Day yesterday but not celebrate it. The workplace is National's still. Labour has its work cut out, so to speak.
ColinJames@synapsis.co.nz
-- Colin James, Synapsis Ltd, P O Box 9494, Wellington 6141
Ph (64)-4-384 7030, Mobile (64)-21-438 434, Fax (64)-4-384 9175
Webpage http://www.ColinJames.co.nz
Peering into the polls to try to determine the future of political parties is like trying to see your own face reflected in a brick. We know, with absolute certainty, that parties in power in NZ - and most democracies - decline in popularity from election to election and eventually lose power. Here, three terms seems to be a good run. This leads to a situation where flagging popularity leads desperate politicians to desperate measures and anything short of flogging your Grannies' body to the highest bidder is allowed. Imagine a leader who steps forward and announces that WHEN his party is elected the Waitangi Tribunal will be closed down immediatly, All drug dealers, pedophiles, etc. will be summarily executed, all prison sentences will be served in full and all immigration will be restricted to British, Dutch, and afew other english speaking nations. I am probably too old to care but we know that, regardless of who wins the next election, nothing of significance will change. The same numbers will emigrate to australia and elsewhwere, the party in power will say that they have created jobs while the others will point to the number of unemployed and so on. I admire John Key as an intelligent self-made man but the more I see of him, the more I am convinced that he lost his balls some time ago and his Labour opponent does not seem to ever have had anyway. I think I will break the habits of a lifetime and stay home on that fateful Saturday in November next year.
Voting for me nowdays is not about voting for the party I want to lead, but voting to keep the biggest idiots out. If I had to vote for one I liked completely, then I wouldn't turn up. That attitude might have a bit to do with low turn-outs.
A lower dollar would kill my industry as one of our biggest costs is fuel and the other is purchasing equipment in USD so I wont be voting for anybody thats going to have a coalition with "give me my flag back" Normans lot.
I think you're right Craic, it would be good to see a really dynamic person leading the country, none are in sight at the moment. Banning the Waitangi Tribunal, that's a bit extreme isn't it?
Slimwin- the greens have plenty of good points to make, and at least they are longer-term thinkers. If they can see their way clear to forming a more public link with Labour, the combo would be unbeatable, and pragmatic.
FP is also correct on this occasion, the next elections should be in 2014. (And here I go again), Labour's policies included a long-term incentive for businesses to invest in their core expertise. With minimal paperwork and hassle. The National party are the ones who canned the start of that process, and replaced it with...nothing much that is any real use. National policies are a big part of our problem.
According to the polls the voters have only turned off the John Key led National slightly and he's already said that next election he's willing to make an accommodation with Winston Peters.
The public are now bored with Kim Dotcom, who cares when John Key first heard of him? Surely that's not even a marginally interesting question now, more and more its flogging a dead horse. Schools close, schools amalgamate - its the natural order of things. Labour did that in spades in Dunedin several years ago. Its up in the air which schools will do what and is likely to be a drawn out affair.
The Maori tribes are going to sock themselves in the eye to the tune of millions of dollars on shifty QCs and will lose their case(s) anyway. John Key wouldn't have gone ahead without very good legal advice that the litigious Maoris would lose.
Shearer is flailing away but he just can't get a hold on anything. And then he was replaced, or he will be after the next election....
MVT, I'd have thought it was fairly important that the PM is truthful when the camera is pushed in his general direction. Maybe it's the thin end of the wedge. If he's overlooked or forgotten details about someone as noticeable as Kim Dotcom, what the hell is he paying attention to?
KDC is a petty German criminal with a heap of money that he made from other peoples property who bought his way into NZ by flashing his wallet at lower level political aspirants. Most people are thoroughly sick of the media attention he gets and running political lines about JK and what he may or may not have known is totally counter-productive for Labour or any other party. Let nature take its course - he may be smart but he can't stop eating.
I didn't survey anyone - just listen to some of the talk-back. And if that's not enough, ask among your friends and associates - the odd Labour supporter may naievely try to get some yardage from it but three out of four will turn off - If they don't, you need to change the company you keep.
Agree totally craic. Those of my friends that are Labour supporters are sick of it. I think most Kiwis have far more pressing issues to worry about than that rubbish and want politicians to focus on what is important to the country. Unfortunately this seems to be the only issue Shearer and particularly Peters want to harp on about. Shows how utterly they are out of touch
OK Slimwin, an interesting article, did Bill English spell out how he was going to achieve those lofty aims? Including encouraging businesses to take on an extra staff member, and ramp up manufacturing. Oh yeah, I forgot, they did that by telling us to hunker down for a bit due to the international issues, and by removing the R&D tax credit, a small incentive in very much the right direction..and the reason they gave for removing the small credit was that they didn't trust small businesses. They can't have it both ways. Either they're on our side, or they're not.
I'm neither side. I'm a centrist :-)
I,ve been running my life for seventy-five years without the need for a single survey. I have a marriage of 50 years duration, several vehicles, a quad bike and a tractor and a boat and a few acres of land and a few bob for emergencies - all from simply observing the world around me and deciding which way to jump. And as a side issue, I read the psychology papers on statistics and surveys - and reached my own conclusions.
Also experience fp.
Here's the gen on the state of manufacturing FP, from a coalition of the out-of power parties. They'll force an enquiry of some sort. National has stonewalled one through the normal channels. Why would they do that, if they're on the side of the manufacturing sector. They'll go along for the photo opportunities and to be associated with the stronger companies, but that's it. Maybe we should send in a submission..
http://manufacturinginquiry.org.nz/facts-figures/
The money National has just spent on the education service pay computer & wasted because it does not work. Would have paid for the repairs to the Gisborne Railway Line. At $36 000 000.00 Plus how many years would that have paid for to be done manually. What was wrong with the previous computer? was it to good. Are national MPs cable of doing anything correctly? Let us advance the next election to the 3rd of November. And so get rid of this bunch of incompetent politicians. No sitting members may stand.
Oh yay, another enquiry or submission! That'll produce a net bonus to the economy.
From Bryce Edwards.
The Greens - and MP Holly Walker in particular - are discovering that what they thought would be a popular measure of increasing transparency on the 'fat cats' is turning into a major embarrassment for them. This comes at a time when the party is more popular than ever. Of course one of the unwelcome side-effects of political success and profile is greater scrutiny, and so it is beginning to bite for the Greens. Similarly, their advocacy of quantitative easing certainly generated a lot of comment but most of it wouldn't have helped their drive to be taken seriously as economic managers. Other recent important or interesting political items include:
* The Green Party is currently fundraising to 'reduce child poverty' in New Zealand. But will the financial donations they're seeking actually go to children in poverty? Of course not - it's a political fundraiser for the party itself
Slimwin, wouldn't a Centrist such as yourself be keen to see all points of view before sitting squarely in the middle? Since our Labour and National parties are often only just left and right of centre, and even poach each other's areas at times, it's hard to stay with one party.
The Greens do have other policies I'd expect, which would stand up anywhere. I think insulating all of NZ's draughty houses while employing many, was their good idea, they probably plugged away at that for years until Labour helped make it happen. As a comparison with the Green party fundraising, the Salvation Army has some very good buildings, and they are employers too. It's a thriving business.
I've never thought of it as poaching ideas, I would call it taking up a good idea and I wish there was a hell of a lot more of it in NZ governance.
I do like to look at all views and make up my mind on voting. I think people who stick to the same party line blindly because they always have or their parents did, are idiots. Sought of like people who stick with the same bank cause they " always been with them" and are getting a bad deal.
I like the greens around as part of an opposition to hold check with the ruling party but my industry,aviation, would be killed by them. They still have way too much of an activist streak running through them to be credible managers for all of NZ.
I could be wrong but I though the Nats took up the insulation program with the greens,or did they just continue it?
As for the sallies,they were closing my local school without parents knowledge and teahcing the kids about the bible for half hour a week.Called it values education. That's got stopped now thankfully. I know they do a lot in the community but i'm dead against charity with conditions. 4 years of working in the poo holes of africa taught me that.First charity flights in were bibles not food.
I was wrong about Labour helping with this scheme. It was indeed National that helped set it up in 2009. Must have been an economy boost idea. Labour should have been onto this earlier, but for some strange reason were frosty towards the Greens. Anyone know the story here?
Only a few of the available rental properties have insulated under the scheme (stingy landlords?). Talk in August about sorting that out.
Yeah a bit sad that. We had a student rental in Dunedin and I asked the property manager to insulate it and he managed to talk me out of it. Not my finest moment I guess. His main argument was that as soon as the subsidy came out, the insulators hiked the price. I looked into it and it seemed true. For our house, it was cheaper to pay an un-acredtited(sp?) builder to do it than the companies that are in the scheme.
That needs to be a target or fair go episode if it hasn't been already.
A local company here in HB make a point, in their advertising, of the fact that they were specialists in this field before the subsidies and will still be after the subsidies. Their point is clearly that the subsidy has attracted unscrupulous traders into the market.
I do know that many rental properties in lower socio-economic areas here in Nelson have been insulated as a result of this project. That is a good result and many families are living in healthier homes as a result.
EZ, this scheme was a result of a formal working relationship between National and the Greens in the first term, which did not last with the Greens having moved squarely to the loony side of politics since then
.
We had our house insulated under the scheme, I didn't bother checking the quote, although one other firm came and had a look but never quoted. It wasn't very expensive, and a thorough job was done. Putting in a heat pump was even easier, done afterwards.
Russell Norman was on TV this morning, he looked very normal to me, was described as unemotional. He showed the whole range of Green policies, that are a lot wider than the news will report on. Certainly looked like the Greens and Winston Peters could far more likely work with Labour than National, in 2014. Say what you like, the Greens achieved 11% of the vote last time. Winston will also do OK.
Another big topic of conversation was the high price of housing in Auckland. Bill English says thay have some tools to sort that out, although it is very complex. When asked for a description of the tools by Corin Dann, all I heard was politico-waffle. This goes back to a conversation I had with a builder as leaky homes were first appearing. He was involved in building granny flats. They'd make a clear profit of $15,000 on a small cheap home.
Now why would anyone in the private sector risk a lot more investment than that, to make just $15k, if there is any chance of a comeback under the building warranty? To remove those issues, you'll have to use better materials, and then to make a decent margin you'd have to build a bigger and more expensive house.
This is where the private sector fails. They have no interest in building or supplying cheap homes for those with limited incomes. The state will need to do this, and will profit by it, as only they can. Using centralised design and procurement (playing fair of course), and the building teams could be drawn from the ranks of recently unemployed manufacturing workers. National would never do this, as the private sector is all-knowing, and best to let things take their course, right FP? But Labour and the Greens could certainly do something about the issue.
However there is another option - people could move to cities like Hamilton, where the traffic lights are few, and semi-insulated weatherboard houses can be purchased close to the city centre for well under $300,000. But just as in Auckland, jobs are hard to find, especially if you're new to the workplace.
El Zorro get rid of Fletchers & prices would drop by close to 20% IMHO as you can tie most house building companies to being part of the Fletcher Group to the best of my knowledge.
Hi Possum, I'm not sure how wide a reach Fletchers has, but all the signs are there that this is a cut-throat business, with net profit being 1.5% of turnover, unsure what the gross profit was. http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/indu...ws-NZ-business
In a similar scenario with the Railway workshops, the State has a clear interest in seeing less people on the dole, and more paying greater tax on goods instead. A builder will pay staff and their PAYE for them, these are costs to the business, but a good portion ends up as income to the State. Business owners soon tire of doing long hours to end up with small gross profits, and in their view the govt taxes become the last straw.
However the State could build these lower cost houses, reap the extra taxes paid and reduce unemployed costs, and still move the houses on in the current low interest environment, thus recycling the cash for the next house. This would not be like the old state housing schemes, as the house will move off the books and will be owner-occupied. Even if the house is sold on at cost, the State wins, by whatever the difference is between a team of building labourers and suppliers being on the dole, and being gainfully employed (it's a lot more than $15,000 per house). Refurbishing older state houses could be a similar sensible process, as long as the asset is sold at the end of it. Moderate refurbishing of rented state houses would be dictated by the return.
Policies like this shouldn't hurt the private sector, since they are not interested in such low-profit building jobs. The effect of some lower cost housing being available shouldn't clobber upmarket house prices either.
Here's an article I found, when trying to quantify the govt benefits of a scheme like this.
http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/tax-...s-for-a-change
This all happened before the last election. In reality, those with 50-60% of the wealth in NZ pay 43% of the income and GST tax. That's not unfair, it's common sense.
The benefits of the State building low-cost houses:
Assume the workers on the houses are over 25, so they might have families too. If they were on the dole, each one of them previously cost the state at least $10,000 a year, minus the 20% tax and excise they'll be paying on their purchases. If they are employed at gross pay of $50,000 for a 40 hr week, their income tax returns $8000 annually to the govt, and then on their take-home spend of $40,000 they'll pay another $6000 in GST, $1000 in fuel tax, and $500 on alcohol tax possibly. Other incidentals mean each new employee will be giving about $16k a year back to the govt. So on the average wage, each new employee means the govt is about $24,000 a year better off than when they were on the dole.
Making the assumption that the team is made up entirely of unemployed skilled people, and that between them they have all the skills/training needed, the team will need to consist of at least 5 people, working for the entire year to complete the house. 10,000 hours approx. Auckland needs another 10,000 houses right now, to keep up with growth. Enough work for 50,000 unemployed, if the correct training and systems were put in place.
Building each house would benefit the state by about $125,000 improvement in net taxes received, and of course the profits on other expenditure by the new workers would also be taxed to various degrees. If the govt sold the houses for anything above the actual costs, that would be another bonus. But it's unlikely the private sector would obtain even $25,000 profit on building a lower cost house to meet the low-waged buying needs, so it would rarely be attempted.
I admit this could be well out, but interesting, no?
el Zorrol Fletchers average building cost $2000.00 per square metre Golden homes average building cost $1050.00 per square with Steel frame. Some on this chat site query the quality & quote about eight other building companies at $2000.00 per square metre but when you look into it they are all part of the Fletcher group. Also when you look into the building supply companies how many of these are controlled by Fletchers. So no competition just a big Monopoly. Why do Fletchers have a controlling interest in the Christchurch rebuild.
Someone on talkback this morning came up with what I would call a great idea. New houses to contain, where possible, a granny flat or unit. They suggested that this would eventually relieve the stress on rentals and other housing. The houseowner would have a means to pay rates or even more or a place for a grown offspring to start out with relative independance ,etc. Years ago, when I built a double garage next to my house, I was limited in the stud height to prevent the garage qualifying later as accommodation. I made the nibwall foundation much higher and didn't fill in before I put the floor down. Everything else was in place but I sold the property and I think the new owner was a motorhead so nothing was gained. A friend had converted a single freestanding garage into a flat without any problem. I agree that the monopoly situation is serious but you can still b uild a standard bungalow from treated radiata pine with a corrugated roof in the same way that has been around for years.
Appreciate the comments PTC and Craic. My maths will be badly out, because you can buy a 150-200 m2 house off the plans for about $250k-$310k that would suit a small section worth another $100k (how much are sections in Auckland?). If the price of $1000-$2000/m2 is correct (depends on the materials used), assuming half the cost is labour, then it seems it takes only 3000 hours to build a house, if done at cost of labour. There's no great markup here. Maybe National's idea of supplying cheaper serviced sections at a quicker rate is the main issue, rather than builders not wanting to provide lower cost houses.
Regarding cost-benefit to govt, I forgot that there is GST levied on a house sale and its components, so all the way up the chain the govt will end up with a total of at least 13% of the labour proportion in the house, as GST tax. This assumes the markup on the materials is small, and that the sale recoups all costs involved. No-one claims back the GST on labour.
That's my experience when we insulated our house this year. Had several quotes but was surprised to find the prices very similar. An experienced insulation firm not on the list could offer a similar price close to the other two receiving the 33% subsidy from the government.
Yes Fudosan, that would be correct, because if they didn't match the price, they'd get no work at all. Firms will do jobs at cost to save the hassle of losing trained staff, and hope for an upturn. You can call it competition, I'd call it a race to the bottom.
Here's a much smarter business: Fitzroy Yachts at Port Taranaki. After the Americas Cup at San Diego in 1995, they took a huge punt and built a superyacht - without having a buyer. It sold at the first show they took it to. They've done 12, including Ohana, just put in the water this weekend for its full fitout, 50mtrs long.
Relating this manufacturing back to building houses: I don't think building a house is very profitable. This superyacht took 400,000 hours, 30 months, and therefore it's employed 80 trained staff for 2.5 years, at good wages. Commissioned by an Italian family, so they're not all doing badly. The yacht labour could be worth NZ$20mill alone. Apparently a superyacht can fetch up to a million euro on a one week staffed charter, once it's in the Mediterranean (these might be larger 70 mtr unmasted boats).
Zefira, a recent yacht from Fitzroy, is for sale.
Fletchers might get checked out under new govt initiative. A range of comments, some saying the market is tough, and pricing reflects the small population compared to Australia for example.
NZ Govt to build houses.
El Zorro are you dreaming of course it will be Fletchers that build them who else would the govt. award the tender to. Or else they will supervise and ok everything like in Cristchurch.
Maybe, Possum. I don't know much about that.
However Brian Fallow writes like a Labour supporter. He doesn't like the look of National's housing plans, they'll need a better direction.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=10844195
Interesting. I always thought of Brian as centrist. AS all credible journalists should be.
I found this reply on an ino.com thread: reminds me a bit of the National-Labour policy differences.
Quote:
"Alan Greenspan has proclaimed himself 'shocked' that 'the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders equity' proved to be an illusion... The Reagan-Thatcher model, which favored finance over domestic manufacturing, has collapsed. ... The mutually reinforcing rise of financialization and globalization broke the bond between American capitalism and America's interests. ...we should take a cue from Scandinavia's social capitalism, which is less manufacturing-centered than the German model. The Scandinavians have upgraded the skills and wages of their workers in the retail and service sectors -- the sectors that employ the majority of our own workforce. In consequence, fully employed impoverished workers, of which there are millions in the United States, do not exist in Scandinavia." - Harold Meyerson, "Building a Better Capitalism", The Washington Post, March 12, 2009.
The battle is an old one. William Jennings Bryan's 1896 speech contains a template for conflict between democracy and the rich. Inserting any policy the rich seek mainly in their own interest (here bank deregulation) will show it.
"There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests upon them."
"When you come before us and tell us that we are about to disturb your business interests, we reply that you have disturbed our business interests."
"We say to you that you have made the definition of a business man too limited in its application. The man who is employed for wages is as much a business man as his employer; the attorney in a country town is as much a business man as the corporation counsel in a great metropolis; the merchant at the crossroads store is as much a business man as the merchant of New York ... the miners who go down a thousand feet into the earth, or climb 2,000 feet upon the cliffs, and bring forth from their hiding-places the precious metals to be poured in the channels of trade, are as much business men as the few financial magnates who, in a back room, corner the money of the world."
"If they dare to come out in the open field and defend bank deregulation as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost. Having behind us the producing masses of this nation and the world, supported by the commercial interests, the laboring interests, and the toilers everywhere, we will answer their demand for bank deregulation by saying to them: You shall not press down upon the brow of labor this crown of thorns; you shall not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold."
Tumultuous acclaim wasn't enough; Democrats could not overcome being outspent over 23 to 1 by the GOP. In a close vote McKinley won, which is perhaps good: When he got shot, Teddy Roosevelt became President, but Paul Ryan is no Teddy Roosevelt.
T.R. was only the first of several distinguished war heroes who rose to high position and found an octopus in the head of government and tried to warn us about it(see link under my name). Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler (Commandant of the Marine Corps, two Congressional Medals of Honor), Dwight Eisenhower, and John Kerry are others.
"There is...an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents.... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provisions should be made to prevent its ascendancy." - Thomas Jefferson
Colin James has written a speech on Norman Kirk. I remember him on B&W TV, no-one ever seemed to have a bad word to say about him. A true NZ statesman.
http://www.colinjames.co.nz/speeches...ce_12Nov03.pdf
I'm not sure if you were old enough in his day to remember much, but probably not from your comments. He was reasonably popular when he was around, and consideably moreso after his death - which tends to be the way if you die in office, but there has been endless stories since about his scone-doing bad temper; he had a lot of enemies among those who knew him. You would probably remember John Kirk, his son better, who gained Norm's seat in the by-election following Norman's death. John was a shocker who would have had Norm spinning in his grave. Last heard of, bankrupt and in an American jail.
"The Third National Government of New Zealand (often also known as the Muldoon government) was the government of New Zealand from 1975 to 1984. It was an economically and socially conservative government, which aimed to preserve the Keynesian economic system established by the First Labour government while also being socially conservative. Throughout its three terms it was led by Robert Muldoon, a populist but antagonistic politician who was sometimes described as his party's best asset and worst liability."
And a piss take song to boot.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HVog...feature=relmfu
Not allowed out tonight.
And another "where are they now moment"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8frP...eature=related
FP, there was a story on Q&A, or was it "The Nation" about Norman Kirk this morning, one of the panelists worked as his secretary. I think they all still had very fond memories of him. Maybe I was too young to know much about his time in office, but I'll take your comments with a grain of salt.
Slimwin, thanks for posting the videos. Don McGlashan, he's a brilliant songwriter. Reminded me of evenings spent being entertained by touring bands in the Hillcrest pub, one of only about 4 live venues in Hamilton at the time.
MPs and Prime Ministers are expected to be even more well-rounded and refined these days, so why did John Key publicly describe an international celebrity and soccer star as being "thick as bat ****"?
In the SST today: Simon Cunliffe (page A16) explained the importance of the American presidential elections.
Quote:
Battle for America's 'soul' will affect us all..
At this year's Democratic Party convention, Obama said
"We honour the entrepreneurs who have always been the driving force behind our free enterprise system but we also believe in something called citizenship - the idea that this country only workswhen we accept certain obligations towards one another and to future generations."
Republicans and conservatives in liberal democracies everywhere used to believe this, too.
Yes, I did see that. I presume you mean The Nation on yesterday morning. It reminded me that only the good, the talented and the extremely popular die. You've probably read enough obituaries and heard plenty of eulogies to know that. Still, he seemed like a reasonable rooster in spite of the supposed temper episodes that were well documented after his death. Most of our PMs have been with the exception of Wallace Rowling. Muldoon had some redeeming features along with his wacky socialist ideas. Even Lange was alright untill he lost his marbles and destroyed his own party before resigning.
Yes, yes, FP, I've heard the guts of that post before. I think Slimwin would understand why Muldoon didn't want to move too far from welfare concepts that he'd grown up with, and Lange in the end listened to the pain being expressed by voters.
I was talking to a secondary school principal yesterday, he's interested in Maori Party ideas, and thinks charter schools would be a good fit for some areas. Trade training, less of the formal examinations, although I thought NCEA offered those options. Principals more directly able to hire/fire teachers. It is a sad commentary that some schools are still subject to white flight, with parents going to great lengths to transport children to other areas. These are issues that are at the heart of a supposedly bicultural state.
Thought he could control everything. Just another meglomaniac in govt. Why else do the job,better pay to be had elsewhere and I doubt it's to serve the country.
I was also talking to a headmaster yesterday who thought charter schools are a good idea. And national standards. Young superstar headmaster thats not resistant to change.
It really depends who gets a charter if it'll be a success in my book. If destiny church or other creationists get one I think there'll be a bit of a backlash. Trade tech schools is a great idea and already being proposed.
Years before that happened, my (pretty smart) primary school teacher said that they could stop runaway inflation by clamping wages and prices at the same time. He then said it'd never happen as it would get that party put out of power. Muldoon tried it, it did make people think twice about putting prices up, for a while afterwards. But I wasn't talking about that, more along the lines of there being no great urgency in dismantling the public sector. Because he realised that working people pay more taxes, are more productive, and that whatever way it's achieved is normally OK.
Muldoon left the Labour Party the opportunity of making large changes, and so we saw a reduced public service and SOE wages bill, but at the same time a few greedy private sector people looted the nation's equity and left some of it in tatters. Most of our copper telephone cables are rotting in the ground, they are slowly being replaced with fibre, the rail system is also in disrepair, and our power reticulation is also in need of urgent investment if we are to attract any more major power users.
So there's a price to pay for letting the market control everything. A few will do very well.
Muldoon was by far our most socialist Minister of Finance - ever, under any government. Government intervention was always the first recourse. Regulations went mad, if it moved regulate it. Like Harold Wilson in the UK he made a desperate attempt to defend a fixed exchange rate, and like Harold Wilson, he lost. He disagreed with nearly every Treasury proposal put up to him. He instigated a payroll tax. He didn't privatise anything, the railways emplyed 22,000 people and there were tens of thousands in the Ministry of Works desperately making perpetual cups of tea. There was no schools rationalisation a la Labour in Dunedin and National in Chch.
He was a bully boy wearing bovver boots. If anyone disagreed with him he would dig up some dirt to dish out to the media on him. The media loved him.
In the 1984 election he lost he instructed NZ diplomats to use their personal credit cards to keep their Embassies going as the Government didn't have the requisite foreign exchange.
And he was our most unsuccessful ever Minister of Finance.
[QUOTE=elZorro;384596] Because he realised that working people pay more taxes, are more productive, and that whatever way it's achieved is normally OK.
Easy as then. Just create more jobs in the public sector and we are all fine ! They are doing it in Argentina at the moment, with a highly corrupt Government that through their many actions are killing all private sector investment and to stay in power, they continue creating jobs all over the public sector. In your words EZ, to keep the population more "productive". Yeah right.
[QUOTE=iceman;384602]Well, everything in moderation of course. I don't have the exact answers, but when the local councils or Transit put down a new layer of temporary bitumen on a road surface, or seal an unsealed road, it's incredibly expensive. And it doesn't last, it requires constant repair quite often. It's a big reason for local body rates increases, as the price of oil goes up. Now compare that with the rail system, one area that has been allowed to decay over the years, in a bid to save taxpayers money. What money was saved? It actually cost us all a lot more, I'm sure.
Couple this loss of jobs and efficiency with less work in the manufacturing sector, because it hasn't been helped along in the last few years in particular, and we have a problem. An overview from government that was more focussed on keeping people employed and the tax base higher, than on helping a few towards millionaire status, would be helpful.
We're only a small country, it's difficult enough to ensure fair play in some business areas without handing over historically expensive state assets in a comparative firesale, whenever the govt coffers are short of cash.
Maybe Muldoon was right, we need another set of state-owned Think Big projects to get things going. History shows that most of those projects were very successful over the medium term.