Cancel my subscription to the resurrection

rankin_dancing brash_burns

Roger Douglas back in Parliament!

Christine Rankin appointed to the Families Commission!

Don Brash to head the Productivity Commission!

How many more of the 1990s failed has-beens can they dredge up and resurrect? Maybe Jenny Shipley, to head a taskforce on welfare reform. Or Max Bradford, to shape our energy policy?

These are the people who stuffed it up in the first place because they were driven by an unsustainable ideology that is reliant on the flawed concept of unlimited economic growth and/or because they were in the pockets of the wealthy and didn’t care about the poor. Anyone for the “trickle down” effect?

Don, et al, can’t you understand that we live in a finite world determined by finite natural resources, and if we pretend to do otherwise, we are just loading debt onto the generations that follow us.

Marty G at The Standard gave us this wonderful graph this morning:

wealth-gap-aus-vs-nz

It was under the neo-liberal policies of the Labour and National led Governments in the late 80’s and early 90’s that we fell so far behind Australia economically. 17% behind in 1985, but up to 32% behind in 1993.

From which we have never recovered. And now they have the cheek to try to persuade us to go for Rogernomics/Ruthenasia Round 2.

Cancel my subscription to the neoliberal resurrection. I had a gutsful (as Norman Kirk famously said) last time round.

Advertisements

12 thoughts on “Cancel my subscription to the resurrection

  1. Where did you get the title from Toad? I’ve heard that somewhere before.

  2. Jim Morrison:

    What have they done to the Earth?
    What have they done to our fair sister?
    Ravaged and plundered and ripped her and bit her
    Stuck her with knives in the side of the dawn
    And tied her with fences
    And dragged her down

    I hear a very gentle sound
    With your ear down to the ground
    We want the world and we want it…
    Now

    One of the first environmental songs: When the Music’s Over

  3. Keith Locke and Sue Bradford still commies back again for another go, they somehow persuaaded the public they should get seats in Parliament.

    The Values Party is where the Greens started, same old retreads from the 70s, and communism is a failed ideology.

  4. You are right toad, it would not be a good idea to revisit the 1980 reforms, painful as they were.

    However you still are attacking the people not the problem. Care to commenton my post from yesterday

    Perhaps this article in the Herald explains it better then most why we are in strife.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10586041

    Non-tradeable sector up 15%

    Tradeable sector down 10%

    When will we face up to the fact we are living beyond our means?

    Round 2 of rogernomics now absolutely will happen.

    And no doubt there will be teeth gnashing galore over what would have been a totally preventable occurance. No thanks to Labour and Cullen and their fiscal irresponsibilty.

    Making as many people depended upon the state (WFF) in the hope that they would continue to vote for and expand the socialist system was just plain dumb.

    I presume that you are totally convinced that the only possible answer is the Green New Deal?

    And do you think that the Brash led team may have learned something about the last round of rogernomics and look at alternatives?

    You seemed to have in your head that they will have learned nothing.

    When you address the issue of getting more tax payers and less tax recipients, let me know.

    Attacking the people is so toadish.

    Face the fact toad, the well is dry, where will the Greens get the water to fill it up?

  5. Swampy, I was a member of the Values Party back in the 70s (although not a particularly active one). If you knew anything about the Values Party you would know that it was not about communism at all – it was about achieving environmental sustainability and social justice.

    There was a debate within the Values about the extent to which those objectives can be achieved by market measures and to what extent regulation is required to achieve them. A similar debate still continues within the Green Party. I tend to favour the regulatory approach – while the market does eventually correct, the issue for me is the damage that is done while it is in the process of doing so. The invisible hand has no brain.

    Gerrit, I highlight the Rankin & Brash appointments because those two people in particular are very strongly symbolic of the 80s and 90s. Much as I like to think Brash may have learned something from the impact of the last round Rogernomics, his performance as Leader of the Opposition would indicate that he did not.

    I don’t pretend that the Green New Deal is all the solutions we need, nor that the Green Party has all the answers. But at least the Green New Deal would start to address rising unemployment and would get people into work. National, with appointments such as that of Brash to be preparing for Rogernomics MkII, appear to be headed in the opposite direction and Labour, who are not putting up any solutions at all, seem to hope the recession will just go away all on its own.

    Some of the Green New Deal is self-funding – eg the insulation package which actually saves money over time in reduced energy and health costs. And I don’t have difficulty with borrowing fund the acquisition of assets such as state houses that will appreciate in value.

    I do, however, think borrowing to fund tax cuts, which is effectively what the National-led Government is doing, is economically irresponsible.

  6. What do you call social justice. Is this the principle that there should be equality regardless of input. I often think social justice is just spin for socialism/communism

  7. I agreed at the time with David Farrar’s view that Brash would not be the right man for this job as the left would simply see it as a plan to drive a privatisation agenda. I would have liked to see a more bipartisan appointment simply so that the left would either embrace the concept and come to the table with ideas, or at the least not be able to take a negative swipe. I guess option a is still there for them if they are big enough to front up. But I guess that is too hard.

  8. Chiefsfan73 said: What do you call social justice. Is this the principle that there should be equality regardless of input.

    No, it is that in a world of finite resources unlimited material growth is impossible. Social justice is the just distribution of social and natural resources, both locally and globally, so that no-one has too little. That necessarily involves those who have more than they need giving up some of what they have. Not to the point of equality regardless of input though, but certainly to the point of elimination of poverty.

  9. toad,

    I do, however, think borrowing to fund tax cuts, which is effectively what the National-led Government is doing, is economically irresponsible.

    Totally agree but as Brian Fallow points out in his article,

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10586041

    We need to cut non tradeable expenditure.

    How?

    Well the benificiaries wont vote for it. So where?

    Useless agencies for a start (go Rankin – get rid of those pesky commisions).

    Once we have a lean government and a surplus tax income, it will be time for a tax cut.

    And yes borrowing for infastructure is good but with a proviso. It must turn tax recipients into lomg term tax payers.

    So no more state servants who only pay GST, no income tax. No infastructure spending that employees state servants.

  10. And this is why I say ‘beat up’ for ‘f’s’ sake, why do people slam Roger Douglas for Rogernomics without making any reference to the context it happened in – ie the collapse of the post-war long boom, England entered the EEC, Muldoon bankrupted us with think big & farmer subsidies, and we had a top tax bracket not much above the average wage of 66 cents in the dollar.

    If Roger Douglas had got the flat tax in, NZ would have been bumper, people who have a freakout about the idea of perpetual economic growth need to read some economics, its not about raping the world you idiots, its about raising incomes by doing things smarter – its called productivity! Work smarter not harder and less efficiency = economic growth.

    Get with the programme.

  11. must not write while grumpy, that’d be ‘more efficiency’. less efficiency = wasting resources.

    you get my drift.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s