Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 60840	2005-08-14 23:44:00	Who are you gonna vote for?? (Govt Election)	rmcb (164)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
381321	2005-08-27 08:28:00	Blind faith, Bob. Those New Zealander's who need/want more money will always go to Aussie and the States. Same as people from smaller economies or unsafe countries will need/want to come to NZ. Depends whether we want to be unique in some ways or just clones !! Misty :groan: It's the business men who are creating the wealth and making it possible for us to live here in NZ,not those seeking adventure overseas.	Cicero (40)
381322	2005-08-27 08:30:00	Labour have had very little to do with the strong economy. Just in the same way that they would proclaim to have very little to do a failing economy. This "look at the strong economy we must be doing a good job" argument doesn't wash with me. It's a convenient smokescreen for implementing their socialist policies that are undermining our society. The economy could just as well be doing better under alternative governments. And it could be worse. And what socialist policies exactly are these. It was a Labour government (Rogernomics) that lead us out of a socialist economic model.	Ash M (46)
381323	2005-08-27 08:40:00	Blind faith, Bob. Those New Zealander's who need/want more money will always go to Aussie and the States. Same as people from smaller economies or unsafe countries will need/want to come to NZ. Depends whether we want to be unique in some ways or just clones !! I don't think National's policies are perfect, but definitely a step in the right direction. You are correct about people wanting to move to other countries. It is a natural thing. However, one of the main reasons people go and live in places like Australia is because of wages. If NZ's GDP per capita increases, wages will also increase. There will still be people who leave, but hopefully less of them. Personally, I think it would be great to work in another country one day, but we have a major problem if heaps of well educated New Zealanders decide to do that and don't come back. :p And it could be worse. And what socialist policies exactly are these. It was a Labour government (Rogernomics) that lead us out of a socialist economic model. They are probably referring in part to Labour's choices benefit funding etc.	bob05 (8721)
381324	2005-08-27 08:58:00	I have been scanning this thread - all 14 pages - so I have not picked up everything, or most things I would have done if had followed on a continuing basis. Seems though that there has been little or no comment on our level of debt. Most of the Western world in in big debt, particularly the USA and NZ. And throughout Europe, USA , Aussie & NZ there has been massive investment in housing. So much so, that it is the biggest financial bubble there has been in history. It may stagger on for years or collapse tomorrow. The most thrifty will weather best. Overexposure is the worst........... ............ We have heaps going for us (.................apart from mounds of debt !!!!!!). Misty :D Misty has raised an interesting topic that has been, as he says, ignored in this thread; level of debt. It has been ignored by the political parties too in this election campaign It is however extremely complex, and I find it difficult to fully or even partly comprehend. We have Public Debt, Foreign Debt, Balance of Payments Deficit, Current Account surplus or deficit, Trade Deficit, National Debt, Budget Surplus, and goodness knows how many more terms. With so many different terms with different meanings, it is no wonder that not only can politicians pull the wool over our eyes, but they can easily get their own knickers in a twist. Then we have economists from the left and economists from the right putting different slants on these. Going back years to before the 1970s crisis of the post-war Breton Woods Accord, currencies around the world generally had managed or fixed exchange rates. This meant that "Balance of Payments" deficits were bad. It meant that reserve banks had to hold foreign currency reserves to be able to prop up the currency when necessary. During the late forties to mid 50s in the UK, my politically formative years, the message from the government was export or die, that was why there were shortages of goods in the shops, why it was difficult to buy a new car, it was also why inflation was a fear, "too much money chasing too few goods". Exporting was the only way to earn foreign exchange to pay off war time debts and to buy imports, so it was important in the extreme to aim for trade surplus. When the US dollar was floated in 1973, and other countries followed, then economic theory said deficits were of far less importance, because floating rates kept things in balance, one aspect being say, if foreign currency was spent on purchasing goods, those imported goods represented an increase in assets, so thus the total account remained in balance. New Zealand didn't have a floating rate until 1984 and since then economists tending to a right wing persuasion even argue that a Balance of Payments deficit is a good thing. the reasoning being that such a deficit can represent an increase in foreign investment which is rated as good for the country. This is what Don Brash had to say about it: "It is probably fair to say that today's deficit is in part the result of the enthusiasm which foreigners have had for investing in New Zealand. Not, I should stress, because foreign investment creates a current account deficit over the full life of the investment. On the contrary, I believe it can be shown that, after taking all the direct and indirect effects into account, most foreign investment in New Zealand actually tends to have a beneficial effect on the balance of payments. Rather what I am saying is that, as foreign capital flows into New Zealand, it is matched by a current account deficit. In other words, if there is a net inflow of capital, there must of necessity be a current account deficit. Because that is what a current account deficit actually means - it means there is a net inflow of capital. If the current account were in balance, there would be no net capital inflow. If the current account was in surplus, it would mean that there would be a net capital outflow. (Those who say, and many do, that New Zealand needs an inflow of capital to finance its future development are in effect saying that New Zealand must continue to have a current account deficit.) So in that sense, part of the reason for our current account deficit is simply a reflection of the enthusiasm which foreign institutions, companies, and indeed individuals have had for investing in New Zealand in recent years." www.rbnz.govt.nz Other people take a different view when it comes to foreign debt, Bill Rosenberg on 'The Politics of Debt': "New Zealand’s foreign debt is a political as much as an economic issue, and one which is steadfastly ignored by most political parties. New Zealand’s level of foreign debt and other liabilities remain at Third World levels. Even the US, with much lower levels of debt compared to the size of its economy, shows greater concern." www.converge.org.nz I find it disturbing that this country has a Foreign Debt which is uncomfortably large, and which is many times bigger than in 1984, that economists seem unconcerned about the level of foreign investment in (ie. ownership of) New Zealand, massive imports and trade deficts. Guru economist Gareth Morgen in 1994 predicted that our export of "elaborately transformed manufactured goods" or ETMs, ie value added manufactured goods would exceed the rural agricultural exported goods within 5 years. nbr.infometrics.co.nz This did not come about. In fact the figures for 1999 show ETMs less than half primary exports. www.stats.govt.nz Some of the reasons manufactured exports did not do so well are mentioned here, including manufacturers (those that survived Rogernomics) moving production off-shore: www.med.govt.nz	Terry Porritt (14)
381325	2005-08-28 22:48:00	Why why why do people insist on voting labour? The excuse "the opposition just isn't good enough" doesn't really wash. Have you bothered to look at other party's policies?Yes I have. In the area I am particularly interested in, telecommunications, national's policy "will be announced after the election". Minor parties are promising the earth happy in the knowledge that they cannot provide it. To me that is not good enough to vote for. At the start of this thread I listed my vote as undecided. Currently I am leaning towards labour as there are no creditable alternatives that I can see. However, I havn't closed the door on any party yet (well except for destiny). -Qyiet	qyiet (6730)
381326	2005-08-29 02:15:00	I havn't closed the door on any party yet (well except for destiny). -Qyiet Heh, I slammed the door on them, hoping to hurt their face in the process.	Ash M (46)
381327	2005-08-29 05:07:00	If it ain't broke don't fix it. I will have a gentlemans wager here. If National gets in, God help us, they will say they can't give us the tax cuts because Labour left the books in a total mess and we can't afford it. They will, however be able to cut the company rate and the top tax rate, why? Just look at who is paying National to keep Don Brash.	Barnzy (6015)
381328	2005-08-30 02:30:00	I suppose it is about time to have another stir, just to keep the pot on the boil :) I will not be voting for United Future. For some reason they linked themselves with the so-called 'Outdoor Recreation' party. As far as I can see this organisation is just a front for the hunting and fishing lobby. They do not IMHO represent or help the keen tramper. The Federation of Mountain Clubs do that. They are opposed to 1080 poison, not because of any concern for animals suffering a painful death, but because they want to preserve deer for the pleasure of killing by shooting them. They are quite opposed to the eradication of deer as part of the restoration of the bush, quite the opposite, they want to preserve and increase deer populations so that they can continue to enjoy the thrill of shooting deer and watching them die. They are also opposed to the establishment of marine reserves, they want the freedom to take the last fish. People may recall they were represented by that lunatic lawyer John Burrett who was jailed for conspiring to kidnap Sir Ron Trotter and stash him away in an underground "bunker" that he had dug for the purpose in Tunnel Gully Reserve. Says something about that organisation to have dealings with someone like that. www.unitedfuture.org.nz www.unitedfuture.org.nz	Terry Porritt (14)
381329	2005-08-30 03:06:00	National can "afford" tax cuts . They say they will borrow . They would certainly slash public services . Our assets were sold (allegedly) to "pay off debt" . The assets were mostly given away . The debt is climbing and National want to make it worse . This will make their greedy mates in the Business Roundtable happy . About the only honest political organisation anywhere is Al Qaeda .	Graham L (2)
381330	2005-08-30 05:44:00	VOTE NATIONAL I found it quite amusing and mildly sickening how the media and Maori party candidates are portraying Dr Brash as a racist and even so far as comparing him to Hanson and Hitler LOL! This seems to be a large indication of the Labour party's influence over these entities. I have read his speeches and find them a realistic and accurate overview of the current situation of this country. I noticed some comments that would offend the hardcore spiritual and cutural Maori population but let's be realistic - those people are only a very small minority of the Maori population of New Zealand. Let's make a difference - lets make things fair and equal for all New Zealand citizens regardless of race, eliminate pointless govt departments purely based on catering for minorites, bury our past mistakes and look forward to the future as one national of people instead of continually looking at the past! National seems to be the only party with enough guts to say what the majority of New Zealanders are thinking...	HadO (796)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25