Wednesday, September 17, 2008

Those damn communists!

We've seen no shortage of bloggers telling us NZ's current economic problems are down to having had a left-wing govt the last 9 years. I guess the continuing stream of good news stories coming out of the US economy clearly demonstrates how much better things might have been for us if we'd instead had a right-wing govt over that time, like the Americans have...


Barnsley Bill said...

Drawing a long bow PM.
The difference I believe is we would not have had a minister of finance spraying money around like an old ladies piss.
Half a billion here half a billion there.
The same MOF o who claimed with a sarcastic it serves em right attitude that the sub prime crisis was an American problem and would not affect us.
The rape of the baby boomers is almost complete in NZ.

Anonymous said...

you've no idea what you are talking about. Do some research about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. You will find that they are a state intervention backed by an implicit (now explicit) government guarantee, and heavily lobbying democrats in Congress to keep their regulation at bay - corrupt, certainly, free market, not likely. You may also find that FDR set the ball rolling, but it took Bill Clinton to realise that he could use them to artificially inflate the housing market by extending credit to people who couldnt afford it. Strangely, eventually all bubbles burst. who knew!

whats scary is that while you can have a fun ol' sneer, this Tsunami is on its way over the Pacific. So hold onto your hat, its going to be messy.

Redbaiter said...

Milt, you charactize the utter ignorance of the real world that underpins the thinking processes of the left. You're just a dumb politically narrow uninformed bigot who doesn't do any research.

Your looking at outcomes generated by big government, socialism and crony capitalism, the very things that I and so many others rail against day after day, and you can't even get that. This is happening because you have had control Milt, not us. What an utter waste of oxygen the left are.

Anonymous said...

Oh Dear
The very reason why you keep socialists away from anything that requires
1) A Brain
2) Understanding
3) logic
or 4) a combination of the above.
PM the real yard stick is how a place like Australia is handling what happened in the states.
What you are doing is wearing a rain coat because a hurricane just hit texas, rather than having a good supply of country music because the studios have been flooded.
Or is this a whoosh moment for you?


I read somewhere where the sub-prime mortgage crisis happened due to political correctness.
The Democrats wanted home ownership extended to poorer people and certain ethnic groups so lending criteria was releaxed.
And such groups, due to their income, could not afford t repay he money, hence the crisis.
I might have even blogged on it here, I will have a look.

mateiro said...

The reason NZ is having economic woes greater than a lot of places, is because the whole world has been on a massive growth spurt the last 10 years. Countries like Oz, Ireland and a lot of Easten Bloc countries put initiatives in place to maximise returns during this period.

However the "self serving" Cullen and Clark sat back and watched NZ grow and said "look at how well we are doing". Yet in comparative terms the rest of the world rocketed past us.

Now, because nothing was put in place during this unprecedented growth phase, NZ is first to fall to its knees.

And that twerp Cullen, says the worst of it is over.... When they're in opposition, what's the bet he is sledging the Nats economic policy, as reckless, saying there is more turmoil to come.

Can only despise the pair of contemptuos cunts.

mawm said...

It's all been said above. Now the mettle of a finace minister will be tested - and unfortunately if cullen stays in charge we are well and truely fucked.

Psycho Milt said...

Yeah yeah, I know nothing, right-wingers are gods of economics in comparison, blah blah blah.

The facts:
1. Bloggers have claimed that our economy is in the shit because we've had 8 years of lefty govt, and things would be in so much better shape if we'd had a righty govt over that time.

2. The US has had a right-wing govt over that time, and surprise surprise, their economy's in the shit too.

Now, you can blather on all you like about my ignorance and all the lefties who are really responsible for the US crisis, presumably on the basis that you've changed your mind and having a right-wing govt actually counts for jack shit after all, but the above facts remain facts.

Sus said...

Left/right .. it's still the state calling the shots. I want both the bastards out of my life. (And wallet).

"Hi Big Govt! We're Big Govt, too!"

That recent cartoon captured it beautifully:

Obama: National SOCIALISM!
McCain: NATIONAL socialism!

Red is (this time!) spot on when he blames "big government, socialism and crony capitalism".

Hear, hear.

Psycho Milt said...

There are plenty of places in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Ethiopia and so on where no govt holds sway, Sus. You could always escape the ugly consequences of govt by going to live in one of these ungoverned paradises.

Redbaiter said...

"but the above facts remain facts"

They are not facts. No country has had a right wing government for decades. I don't know of one.

Sus said...

Who's talking "no govt", Milt? Not me, for sure.

I'm talking *limited* govt. Big difference - as you well know.

There's little freedom to be found in a state of anarchy, thanks - except the "freedom" to rape & pillage. So much for individual rights. Not for this little black duck.

Anonymous said...

Cullenomics has encouraged Kiwis to invest in property rather than prodduction.
This is why we have had , what is it? 30 finance house collapses.
I've lost counbt.


Psycho Milt said...

Who's talking "no govt", Milt? Not me, for sure.

I'm talking *limited* govt. Big difference - as you well know.

Yes, I don't really mistake you and Redbaiter for anarchists (especially not Redbaiter, who's an authoritarian if ever there was one), it was a cheap shot.

But I do think that what you and the other libertarians are talking about is not "limited" govt (because all Western democracies have that), you're in fact talking about govt limited according to the preferences of your self-interest. Which would be all very well, if it weren't for the fact that different voters have different interests, and therefore a different set of proposed limits for govt. In the face of that disunity, govt's the winner.

OECD rank 22 kiwi said...

Let’s see the facts shall we:

1. Latest this month New Zealand will official be declared in recession after two quarters of negative growth. Treasury and the Reserve Bank are saying that the third quarter will be negative as well.

2. The US by comparison had positive growth in the most recent second quarter. No recession for them.

After NINE rubbish years of poor economic management by Cullen and Hels the legacy they will leave the country when they are booted out of office on 8 November is that of a country deep in recession with poor prospects.

OECD rank 22 kiwi said...

“talking about govt limited according to the preferences of your self-interest.”

What limits do bludgers on the left want to impose on government?

Here’s a picture I’ll paint for you of your typical Leftie bludger. It’s a person with their hand out expecting other people to pay for their lifestyle, FOREVER!!.

Psycho Milt said...

Re your first post: yeah, our economy must be in much worse shape than America's because we don't have any emergency programme of nationalisation going on to try and stop it crashing completely. Interesting logic you have there.

Re your second post: come back when you can do something other than spout gibberish.

OECD rank 22 kiwi said...

The US was the Number 1 economy at the start of the year. It will be the Number 1 economy at the end of the year.

All the better for President McCain to pay for the troops in Iraq and where ever else he deems appropriate to show the world who's boss!!

Are you afraid of markets in action PM?

OECD rank 22 kiwi said...

Actually answering PM's moans (and by default boosting No Ministers number of posted comments):

That's right no emergency programme of nationalisation of BANKS in recent history. Sure the BNZ was Labour's handy work but lets not fight the battles of twenty years ago, Clark owns the monopoly concession on fighting the battles of twenty/thirty years ago. Everyone else is looking to the future.

Sure Cullen is addicted to nationalising every company(Air New Zealand, FailRail etc) he can get his dirty little hands on like a cocaine fiend, all with other peoples money(the taxpayers).

Lucky for insignificant New Zealand all the main banks are owned by "dirty foreigner" except Kiwibank which again sucks up taxpayer funds like a whore sucks kok.

Is PM upset that some people enjoy shooting down (metaphorically speaking)public servant(of the bureaucrat type) for sport? Tough!!

It's open season after 8 November, which is nice!!

Sus said...

"But I do think that what you and the other libertarians are talking about is not "limited" govt "because all Western democracies have that),"

Jeez, if only! 'Limited' is not synonymous with 'big', Milt - which is what every western country is currently saddled with, more's the pity. Govt constantly interfering & coming up short.

Libertarianz definition of "limited govt": police, defence & justice. That's it.

".. you're in fact talking about govt limited according to the preferences of your self-interest."

Eh? I want efficient services, that's all. And that can only be delivered by the private sector. Or would you rather the state ran supermarkets, too? (Shudder!).

".. that different voters have different interests .."

Now you're talking. Got it in one. Return tax dollars to the individuals who earned them & allow them to make their own choices.

It's respecting adults for what they are. It's also not presuming to interfere in the lives of others by claiming that you know what's best for them.

Psycho Milt said...

I prefer to stick with the regular English language definition of "limited," Sus - call it a quirk.

You're entitled to your own view of what society ought to be like, of course. It's a view shared by a proportion almost too small to measure in political surveys, of course - the rest of us recognise that the efficient pursuit of self-interest doesn't always net the best result for society.

Sus said...

Ah, 'society' again. Convenient collectivist terminology. Back to square one.

Thanks for knowing what's best for me. Undoubtedly for my own good, of course.

"the rest of us recognise that the efficient pursuit of self-interest doesn't always net the best result"

Really? Kind of tricky to defend those hospital die-while-you're-waiting lists, isn't it?

And don't you go buying anything at the supermarket after hours, please. It's strictly bureaucratic M-F, 9-4 for you - and you'll get in line & get what you're given, if we deign to give you anything at all. Achtung, baby!

Do you enjoy exercising force? You must, to defend it so.

Oh, and size doesn't matter, by the way! Once upon a time slavery abolitionists were in the minority, too. ;)

Come on, Milt. You can do better than that, surely. Maybe not. Even the (Russian) socialists realised that socialism didn't work!

Psycho Milt said...

Like most ideologues, you don't seem to entertain even a vague possibility that alternatives to your ideology other than totalitarianism exist.

Let's try again. You're proposing "limited" govt, restricted to just police, defence and justice. All else should be run by private enterprise, because it's more efficient.

That invites an obvious question: if private enterprise is more efficient, why not entrust police, justice and defence to private enterprise, rather than to the oppressive, totalitarian, commie socialist state? The answer: because some aspects of society are best handled by the collective, in the interests of fairness and to avoid the concentration of power in individual hands.

Which invites an obvious conclusion: the question of which aspects of society should be handled by the collective in the interests of fairness and avoiding concentrations of power is a matter of opinion, not objective fact.

It's clear enough that in Western democracies the majority opinion is that supermarkets don't come into this category, but roading does. Like I said, it's a matter of opinion and the majority don't share yours. That doesn't make them all Soviet apparatchiks.

Sus said...

Good response, which deserves one in turn.

Explanation: It comes down to how one defines government and what it's there for.

We've established that having no government is akin to a state of anarchy .. the Wild West, for example. Lawlessness abounds. That is not desirable because anarchy and lawlessness allows *force* to occur.

Thus the need for govt to protect the rights of the individual and his property. That naturally includes police and justice, and armed services for external protection. After all, a country worth living in is a country worth defending. There's your limited govt. It exists to protect the *rights of man.

You know the mantra, Milt: "my freedom ends where your nose begins", ie the concept of 'non-initiation of force'. I'm protected from you and vice versa. I can't be truly free unless you are.

It's not a matter of opinion; there *is* only freedom or authoritarianism. I don't care whether it's red, blue or green authoritarianism; it's still authoritarianism, another word for force. Freedom *is* indivisible.

The food supply is just an example of how it works when run privately, and doesn't when centralised. That's a sad fact well demonstrated via years of Eastern bloc communism and North Korea today. The thought of state plumbers and undertakers is ludicrous. And yet that's exactly what we impose upon health & education - and then constantly wonder why it's stuffed, FFS!!

Matters transport & roading is a specialty of Libertyscott .. he posts regularly on the topic. It's worth a look.

*That is, real individual & property rights; not the manufactured "you owe me" bullshit kind that masquerade as such).

Psycho Milt said...

Fine, except that you didn't explain:

1. Why, if private enterprise is so much more efficient, we have to turn over police, justice and defence to the collective. (important because it's at the heart of my objection to your ideology - if the collective is a better supplier of these products, the question of why it's not a better supplier of health, education, water supplies, sewerage disposal etc remains unanswered)

2. Why the Libertarianz' definition of individual and property rights trumps everybody else's (important because the fact remains, the majority fail to share your view of what those rights are limited to).

Mark said...

Actually Milt, why is police, defence, justice, health, education etc is meant to be provided by the public service rather than the private arena assumes that it isn't.

Failure in these areas means that the private sector has moved into to replace the inefficent public service to anyone who can afford to pay, i.e private health care, education, security etc.

So the real question if the private sector aready supplies those services at a cost to those who can pay against a public sector where it's all meant to be free then how inefficent is the public sector.

The answer to that question should be clear to anybody.

There is a huge amount of waste and inefficent behaviour in the pubic sector.

It only exists to gooble up more and more resources.

You complain that the US is a right-wing government assumes that the public sector has been reduced in the time Bush has been in office.

It hasn't, it has the same probelms NZ has due to growth in the public sector goobling up more and more resources adding more and more of a drag to the US economy.

So what needs to happen in both countries is the reduction in the size of government. Until thi happens the current crises will continue.