Posts by sagenz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Graeme - thanks for that, as far as it goes. so if the budget specifically funds donations it is legal. if it does not then there is a problem....
-
Graeme - you nzherald comments suggest that this leaflet is effectively a political donation from Parliamentary Services to the Labour party. Surely there is a law against govt depts spending money on political donations?
-
You lose your job and somehow that justifies armed insurgency & terrorism against your own people???
Actually Rich your suggested response highlights the exact Clinton reaction to Rwanda, sit at home, wringing your hands and saying "Oh the poor children" when he could have done something about it.
Going out and trying to do something is the only reasonable option.
-
rich lock - take your set of circumstances and add some scared and hungry children in the forest together with a psycho child killer on the loose.
do you still want to stay in your warm safe house and do jack shit?
-
Interesting thread. Why does Infratil not seem interested in AIA? They have been investing in similar size airports all over the world. Perhaps the returns on capital are not there.
I can get through Heathrow just as quick as AIA, not sure what everyone is complaining about. It takes a fe minutes to get through security but that is cos nobody wants to pay more not to wait. If you want shit try LAX.
There is n good reason for the govt to go anti foriegn investment, but there is also no good reason for taxpayer funds to be invested outside the country. Domestic investment has a higher total return to New Zealanders because of the GDP multiplier effect.
Based on the shit state and almost complete lack of New Zealand motorways compared to say Hungary there is an awful lot of infrastructure investment required. Auckland to Rotorua/Hamilton motorways followed by Auckland Wellington for starters
-
Go Graeme has explained that the EFA and the overspending validation combine to allow sitting MP's & the government to use taxpayer money to spend more than non incumbent candidates.
Labour can spend $20m advertising their policies and Tim Shadbolt will go to jail if he spends $121,000 without forming a political party.
And none of you can see the corruption inherent in that?
-
forgot to mention the % are compound annual growth. and to relitigate. it is the trend that is important. national had to make some hard choices in the early nineties that laid a good platform. Labour have broken that trend and it is getting worse in 2006.
Cullen has no idea how to grow personal wealth, company wealth or the wealth of a country. It is growth that is the issue. And individuals can only earn more in aggregate through improvements in productivity.
Keith - how about you follow up with a post on getting decent growth. we the bloggers coming up with a program to save teh country :) once you recognise that I am right and cullen has wasted the last 7 years
-
oooh keith I feel bitchslapped. thanks to others for supporting the statements with links. Keith you will recall my previous blogging on productivity stats. I was lazy and in a hurry and did not support it. My bad and I humbly apologise if you admit my knowledge of obscure economic stats is clearly superior to yours :-)
check out the definition and then look in the . GDP alltables Excel at tab 6.1The table shows Real gross national disposable income per capita
2004 28,279 3.4%
2005 28,842 2.0%
2006 28,774 -0.2%I based my RNIPC statement on some research I did after a Brian Gaynor column that drew my attention to it but I can find neither now. -1% was memory. It reflects the fact that more of our country is owned by foriegners and investment income is being transferred overseas. It does not matter if the economy is growing if that growth is not benefiting NZers.
On productivity the link has bene given. i repeat it here
March year Labour(3) Capital(4) Multifactor(5)
1993 917 895 908
2000 1139 1031 1093
2004 1189 1045 1127
2005 1214 1042 1138
2006 1222 1012 1127
2006 v 2005 0.7% -2.9% -1.0%
2006 v 2000 1.2% -0.3% 0.5%
2000 v 1993 3.5% 2.2% 2.9%Funnily enough, after the comments Labour productivity is positive while capital and multifactor are negative. But the trend of the labour government is towards worsening productivity statistics after a positive trend established 1993 through 2000.
I repeat my comment about Cullen's ignorant economics.
over to you -
don christie. Cullen has benefited from a global boom. His policies have caused the decline in productivity growth from a positive growth in growth trend 93 to 2000 to almost no productivity growth in last recorded numbers.
He has also been responsible for the decline in the average real income of New zealanders in the most recent recorded year. Total NZ economy has grown but foriegners have taken an increasing share of it through interest and dividends.
Real National Income per capita has declined. by more than 1% with nothing to suggest things will change for the better
That is by my definition ignorant economics. An overly cautious policy that has stunted growth.
FWIW I support the establishment of this de facto compulsory private superannuation. It is just overly generous at the top end. That would seem to be a deliberate decision by Cullen to try to ensure that National do not destroy his legacy. It is a shame that he could not have approached it in a more open and collegial way rather than presenting a fait accompli. Just more of his arrogance and ignorance.
-
oh and btw. you are right about that graph. it sucks :-)