Posts by WH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
The idea that he has been running surpluses for seven years in anticipation of a looming economic crisis is nonsensical.
Fiscal policy under Cullen has had two distinct periods. In the early years, the government was making a concerted effort to increase the surpluses in order to implement the New Zealand Superannuation (“Cullen”) Fund. But in the later years, the government has found itself with surpluses much larger than required. This was not a policy decision; this was a direct consequence of Treasury underestimating revenue. The high surplus era is an accident of history.
Keith can answer for himself, but I personally doubt that the surplus era can be fairly described as an "accident of history".
First, Labour originally won power on a promise to raise taxes and thus improve the government´s fiscal position. Second, Cullen has maintained the surplus by resisting strong and ongoing pressure to increase spending and/or cut tazes at a rate proportional to the increase in government revenue. Third, New Zealand is better off because Cullen has run a contractionary fiscal policy and has not balanced spending over the business cycle as you propose. Fourth, Treasury is known to make conservative estimates of revenue (perhaps underestimating revenue under Labour and overestimating it under National, but I don´t have the figures to support this).
The question of whether the New Zealand economy will require further fiscal stimulus in the light of recent events remains moot. There would appear to be scope for changes to monetary policy should stimulus be required (ignoring for present purposes the problems in the housing market). However, economic growth is not the only consideration of government policy and IMO there are powerful social equity reasons to prefer government spending to tax cuts, a point that is clearly not lost on Cullen.
owever, there is now overwhelming political pressure (generated by years of debate about tax cuts) to reduce the size of the surplus, and this pressure can no longer be ignored, even if many of us wish it could be. If fiscal stimulus is needed - and I am not suggesting that it is - the New Zealand Government would appear to be well placed. Ralston´s column was poorly argued and Keith was right to point that out.
-
Great piece Keith. You should be writing for the Herald instead of Ralston.
-
Krugman´s writing deserves greater respect than your lazy iconoclasm would give it, Craig.
-
"The day after passage [of the Civil Rights Act] , Johnson told his aide Bill Moyers, "I think we delivered the South to the Republican Party for your lifetime and mine." Indeed, he was defeated in five Southern states in 1964, four of them states Democrats had not lost in more than 80 years. The losses didn't faze him, and he turned his energies to voting rights for black Americans."
As EJ Dionne pointed out recently, the MLK/LBJ argument is based on a false choice.
-
-
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2008/01/the_clinton_rebellion.html
Clinton and Obama are both good candidates IMO, but in the many dozens of articles and opinion pieces I have read on the race for the Democratic nomination, I have very seldom read discussions of the policy differences between the leading candidates. Just shite about Clinton´s inevitability or her divisiveness, and references to the "fearsome Clinton political machine", or her alleged coldness. I guess it is just easier to write. Man from hope, new type of politics, not like those other washington types blah blah blah.
Iin 2000, people said that Gore, who won the majority vote, lacked charisma, invented the internet and that Bush was the better man to invite round for "a beer". Fuck that, I say.
Its good to see McCain take out NH, he´s the only Republican any Democrat could want to win.
-
And then there was Malcolm McPhee: Climate of fear starting to make my temperature rise in Fridays Herald ...
Which was given a brisk fisking by Hot Topic, where it was described as "breathtakingly nonsensical".
Jim Hopkins shared his boundless wisdom on the topic of climate change on Friday too.
Is the Herald trying to look stupid?
Ditto that...
Speaking generally, the political/editorial coverage at the Herald is of a regrettably low standard. I saw a couple of senior writers interview a Cabinet minister on Agenda recently. They were trying to maintain a "i´ll-make-the-perceptive-comments-here, thanks" tone, when it was reasonably obvious that the Minister knew quite a bit about the topic (climate change in this instance) and they did not.
IMO, the tone and style of the Herald´s political coverage is in serious need of change. If you are going to offer what is essentially insta-opinion poorly disguised as context and analysis in a major newspaper, get someone who knows their topic and has good ideas to write the stuff (I acknowledge the possible irony of this remark).
Thinking back, the comments page has generally been good when they get two "guest" experts to write, not necessaily in contradistinction, but perhaps with each writer having a different perspective.
-
and when I experience things like I describe, I do my level best to simply ignore what I'm experiencing
The scientific method is only one of the means people use to obtain information about the world around them, even if it is one of the more reliable and reproduceable means.
I suppose that I prefer not to rationalise people´s experiences away, notwithstanding that the line between openmindedness and gullibility can be a fine one.
-
There are some things that people prefer to talk about in safe environments. I suspect that there are lots of people who have had experiences like Dyan's, but would rather not have to defend the quality of their perception or judgment to others. Thank you Dyan for saying what you did, I found it a very interesting read.
I can't claim to have had supernatural experiences of my own, but I have a sense of spirituality. There are lots of people who use their intuitive as well as their rational faculties. IMO each is part of an integrated whole.
-
And your co-worker's account of what she experienced is just that -- what she experienced -- it is not necessarily the same thing as what actually happened
If you say you saw a unicorn, I'd suggest that some sort of veterinary examination would be in order before I would believe you.
Fair enough. :)
I'm just saying that the elements of the story could have happened as my coworker described, and that we are not in the best position to contradict her.