Posts by Rob Hosking
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Coupla things:
Rich wasn't the only Naitonal MP to vote for the anti- smacking bill - Paul Hutchison did as well (and I think one other MP - Clem Simich? Not sure).
Her retirement from politics does seem to be for genuine family reasons. And I know for a fact the Nats tried to dissuade her. There is a Labour spin doing the rounds on this, that its all a sign the right wing boot boys have pressured her out, but that seems to be just bullshit.
-
Has there been any serious scholarly investigations into what has driven the housing price rise in NZ this last few years?
The Reserve Bank's done some work: it should be on their web site. Arthur Grimes did some work for Motu last year as well.
There isn't a single reason, of course. And its important to remember Australia has had an even bigger housing market boom but they've got some quite different tax laws (including a proper capital gains tax).
-
Or you pick the rat-bastard you'd rather have down the hall where their potential for trouble-making is limited. About the only reason I can see for Eisenhower selecting Richard Nixon.
And then when it was his turn, Nixon picked Spiro Agnew.
This was a ratchet effect which could only go on for so long, until you get...oh.
-
Clark's choice of words was, as I recall, unfortunate, but the grievance was for real.
Yeah, but the same could be said about Key's comments. the context of 'economic vandalism' was that, given the value of the Hobsonville site, the govt could have sold it off and got enough money to build quite a lot more houses elsewhere, on cheaper land, than the numbers it is building on the Hobsonville site.
As with Clark, it wasn't all that difficult for poltiical enemies to make it seem like a 'keep the plebs away from me' comment. In both cases that wasn't entirely fair.
-
But easing up from 0-2 (and getting rid of Brash) came at a moment when commodity prices took off- and there was plenty of (relatively) cheap credit to be had.
Coupla things:
0-2% got eased to 0-3% in early 1997. One of Winston Peters' gifts to a grateful nation. Cullen moved it to 1-3% in Sept 2002 - well after the start of the commodity boom you mentioned.
One big factor in the commodity boom early in the decade had nothing to do with anything any party did: the currency hovered in the low $US40c for quite some time.
If you have any evidence Cullen 'got rid of' Brash, lets have it please.
-
The idea that the ´reforms`of the 80s and 90s´explain our current economic performance, but that Cullen´s policies have nothing to do with it, is, IMO, kinda flawed
Not quite what I said. I did say the reforms had to be given quite a bit of credit for it, and I'll stand by that. Partly its the greater business flexiblity, partly its the commitment to low inflation; also the steadier fiscal policies (a product of both the Reserve Bank Act and the Fiscal Resp. Act); also the cheaper imports because of low/no tariffs.
The fact Labour hasn't really rolled any of those reforms back (one major exception being the ECA) should tell you something. Shit, for all their outraged rhetoric about the benefit cuts of 1991, Labour hasn't reinstated those benefit levels.
And as I pointed out, the surge in growth began early 1999, post-Asian Crisis. The economy was already on the upswing when Labour came into office.
Poltitically, that is ideal for any new government. National benefited from this in 1949 and again in 1960: so did Labour in 1935. It means you can blame all the bad stuff on the previous mob. It's good for the partisan raspberry-blowing side of politics, if you like that sort of thing, but we shouldn't base policy analysis on it.
I also didn't say Cullen's policies have contributed nothing.....He's been careful to avoid the more obvious traps of previous left wing governments. But specific, new policies which have contributed to economic growth? Hmm. He's put quite a bit of money into infrastructure, which was one major imbalance which needed redressing. Linked to that is the policy of encouraging state owned enterprises, esp the electricity companies, to be more aggressive.
Arguably, this could have been done more easily -eventually - by selling them off, but that's a separate argument.
He's also done wonders for the funds management industry, although I'm not sure that is showing up in GDP just yet (although it will be in the tax take).
-
I have a sinking feeling they'll have no option but to do something.
After something which has been as publicised as this, if the govt announces its not going to increase security, we'll see a procession of disturbed types pulling stunts like this on provincial flights.
-
In fact, it puzzles me how Obama has had such a relatively quick rise within the Democrat party, without having achieved anything much of note as a senator.
I hate this explanation, because it comes close to saying 'magic' or something similarly elusive, but here goes: there is such a thing as 'X FActor'. Charisma might be another word.
I was talking to someone yesterday who heard Obama speaking on the teev in the next room and was drawn in. Said the guy was magical, but admitted that, when asked what he'd actually said, he couldn't give a coherent answer.
JFK had the same thing - he did diddlisquat as a Senator too, by the way. And he - unlike Obama - dodged all the main controversial votes during his time in the Senate (McCarthy Censure, Civil Rights).
I'm saying this as observation, btw - I think JFK was a lousy president, and at this stage there's no particular reason to think Obama would be all that good, although I suspect he'd be better than Kennedy...(shit, George Bush the Elder was better than Kennedy)
Locally, the best speaker I've seen in our current Parliament, in terms of that X Factor, is Winston Peters. The day I vote for the guy will be the day Satan is ice-skating to work, but I've seen him do a few spellbinders.
-
A lot of points I could address: I'll confine myself to a few:
1. A boost of some sort - either extra spending or tax cuts - has already been budgeted for. Cullen set aside an extra $3 billion unallocated spending for the next financial year (roughly $1.2 billion of which will go in the company tax cut on April 1) and another $2 billion for each of the ensuing two years.
This unallocated spending practice was begun some time ago: the idea is the minister sets aside a sum for new measures the following year and/or as a buffer. The highest it ever got was $800 million under Birch, so having several billion is a huge hike. It's an election war chest. Note, the current sum was set before the dairy price surge, which will add about $400 million in tax revenue.
Secondly, the biggest single reason for the govt's fiscal 'surprises on the upside' is the economy is performing better than anyone - not just Treasury but private sector economists - expected. This began with the post-Asia Crisis recovery in early 1999 - we got over it far quicker than we recovered from earlier, similar crises. The main reason seems to be businesses are a lot more flexible now. As for why that is, quite a bit of credit has to be given to the reforms of the 80s and 90s.
Thirdly...as a matter of historic record, Cullen is right when he says we've historically practiced one-sided Keynsianism. We started that in the Holyoake years; then Kirk and Muldoon intensified it.
But...when you continually collect billions more than you need in tax - there should be some adjustments to the tax thresholds. That has to be done carefully if there are already inflationary pressures in the economy.
Tax cuts don't cause inflation, despite what some are assuming. But they can add to inflationary pressures if those pressures are already there.
-
Re:Elvis Costello. And he was perceived, at the time, as being a critics' favourite.
Someone - can't recall who, but I think it might have been Eddie Van Halen - said most rock critics liked Elvis Costello because most of them looked like Elvis Costello.
Prediction for internet: A lot of the great stuff on YouTube will disappear as the copyright lawyers hoe into it. Which will be a shame as there's a ton of great old musical obscurities on there.
Like this: