Posts by Sacha
-
Hard News: Because it's about time we…, in reply to Stephen Judd,
Any non-rural cafe in NZ can get great fresh beans easily if they want.
As others have said, that was perhaps one of the main things that went over Starbucks corporate heads when they entered this market. The visiting head honcho going on about our roasters being sub-par was also an utter laughing stock. And a dick.
-
Hard News: Only what we would expect a…, in reply to Kumara Republic,
who 'made off' with the dosh
-
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Gareth Ward,
Key isn't advocating selling the house to go mortgage free - he's advocating selling the house because you want another one but don't want to go further into debt.
Oh, you mean leveraged property speculation? Why didn't he just say so..
-
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
and yet those aren't the assets first on the block.
-
Signal to noise ratio at Standard seems to have improved today - another pertinent historic comparison (has links that I haven't duplicated here).
John Key 2008: Follow me and we’ll be like Ireland.
John Key 2011: Follow me or we’ll be like Ireland. -
OnPoint: Election 2011: GO!, in reply to BenWilson,
I'm not crazy in thinking that there's been a total flip-flop on the value of balancing books by National and it's support.
Marty at Te Standard reminds us of recent history.
In 2008, John Key’s line was ‘New Zealand doesn’t have a debt problem, it has a growth problem’. In Budget 2010, he said the Crown would be back into surplus in record time. In December, he said debt wouldn’t force a downgrade. Now, he says debt is such a problem we need to slash and sell. When did he mean what he said? Never. It has never been about debt.
...
Debt or its lack is just a convenient excuse for policies that enrich the wealthy (and the illiterate will buy it wholesale).
In 2008, even though the debt projections were worse (remember, the ‘decade of deficits?’) Key said that debt wasn’t a problem, therefore we could afford to borrow $1.5 billion for the April 2009 tax cuts directed at the rich (does anyone even remember those?).
In Budget 2010, the net debt projections had improved dramatically to the point where we’ll back in surplus in four year’s time. Our government remained one of the least indebted in the world, and even our country as a whole was less indebted – our net international investment position has improved from debt equaling 93% of GDP to 85% of GDP as people borrow less. Again, this was cause for tax cuts directed at the rich, which aren’t fiscally neutral but will, according to Treasury, cost $1 billion over the next four years.
But, now, for no apparent reason, debt is supposedly such a problem we need to start slashing spending (the $800 million nominal increase is barely enough to cover health’s minimum increase due to inflation and population growth, everything else will be cut in real terms) and have a fire sale of assets. Yet, despite debt suddenly being a crisis issue, I notice that Key hasn’t reversed the tax cuts that he made when he said debt wasn’t a problem.
-
This government's pervasive lack of ambition continues to unimpress me.
Key says there are only two options - borrow or increase taxes.
Nothing about increasing our national *income* especially by improving productivity and smart investment that creates attractive jobs, business opportunities and sustainable high-margin returns for New Zealanders.
-
Hard News: Only what we would expect a…, in reply to Matthew Poole,
Of course, if National make it to a third term and Pull-ya Benefit is still in charge of slagging of DPB mums and the unemployed all bets are off.
You don't seriously think that will take another term?
-
For those who haven't seen it, John Campbell's interview with Key was also revealing - and streets ahead in the intelligent interviewing stakes, though some spin still slipped through.
Nailed him on the whole 'mums and dads' being taxpayers thing, though. This is just another transfer of wealth from all of the public who already own those assets to those who can afford to buy shares. That's 'mums and dads' who look more like the Hotchins and the Fays - or foreign investment funds, more like.