Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[John Nick]

To be fair, a finance minister could rely on expert advice to guide them and do an ok job.

But Labour has appointed people to the treasury with non finance backgrounds (but meeting Labours ideology). Robertson had surrounded himself with clueless people, focusing on well-being budgets and incorporating Maori principles of finance and then is it any surprise that the blind lead the blind and we get wildly inaccurate predictions from treasury that the finance minister screws us up based on?

By expert advice do you mean Consultants
Hasn't that been a criticism of the government.
Surely the fact that the major parties don't include a financial expert with top notch qualifications is a basic mistake of their own selection process.
Seems simple enough to include at least one quality financial person in the parties who total plenty.
Not having a dig at you guys but asking basic questions.

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

How is our international credit rating remaining so steady and forecast to stay that way if the teeth gnashing here is true

Cullen (a great Labour finance minister) and then English ran the economy sustainably and set us up to weather crisis’s by prioritising paying down debt and staying in surplus the majority of the time.

Robertson has spent like there’s no tomorrow and used up all our buffers and left the cupboard bare.

He is greedy, self centred and lies to the country and is ill suited as a financial leader. It’s no surprise with those attributes his father was convicted of fraud…

 

[Inruin]

How is our international credit rating remaining so steady and forecast to stay that way if the teeth gnashing here is true

Your ability to repay current debt isn't a sign that everything is ok, or even that things are good.

 

[miket12]

Luxon wasn't even astute enough to articulate his tax plan which has been criticised by a long list of economists.

Election 23: Christopher Luxon rules out rethink on tax policy in response to PREFU

The National leader is rubbishing any suggestion the party's tax cuts will be inflationary or are fiscally irresponsible.

www.rnz.co.nz

How is our international credit rating remaining so steady and forecast to stay that way if the teeth gnashing here is true

I think it was on RNZ where they had two economists discussing whether Nationals tax cuts would be inflationary. One said it would be but didn’t think the Greens would be. But had no reason for the difference. The other thing he couldn’t answer was why it would be inflationary for the taxpayer to spend that money but not for the government to spend it.

You‘ve got to wonder how much of their “opinion” is clouded by their own political bias.

 

[Bruce]

Real estate is an investment vehicle every non communist country.

I think our housing market is one of the most over priced in the world.

Bernard Hickey blames lack of a capital gains tax. However the hinese economy and property market are bearish, to say the least. Take some of thos einvestors out of play and see what haopends.

Our rental returns are based on capital gain, not rental income. A pretty ratshit investment IMO

 

[Bruce]

Your ability to repay current debt isn't a sign that everything is ok, or even that things are good.

Out debt to GDP looks ok, but that is government debt, not private sector debt. In any case I would not like to be Merka or Japan, for example.

 

[Bruce]

You‘ve got to wonder how much of their “opinion” is clouded by their own political bias.

All of it.

 

[defensivebomb]

Skim reading Treasury's PREFU yesterday, and then listening to Robertson, it became abuntantly clear to me that the government shouldn't be dissecting the report to the media. Far too much glossing over details and spinning

The actual report was fairly well-written and contained a lot of clear assumptions, risks and analysis.

The crazy thing is, as Juju has mentioned, the experts are the ones in Treasury. Certainly not the people who end up presenting it

 

[Bruce]

I say we get supply of enough houses sorted. It’s the fundamental aim of housing and needs to be the priority.

It is a social responsibility, which Friedman economics just ignores.

 

[defensivebomb]

The other thing he couldn’t answer was why it would be inflationary for the taxpayer to spend that money but not for the government to spend it.

That's really the crux of the ideological divide between Labour and National

Labour = we'll take more tax and spend it on your behalf
National = we'll less tax and you choose how you spend it

A good example is the regional fuel tax take. Labour implemented the tax, collecting it at the fuel pump and have put aside for infrastructure projects, and is currently sitting in a bank account (what's left of it). National wouldn't have implemented the tax, and so motorists could have had more money to spend on food, housing, mortgage payments etc.

I know what I'd prefer, but everyone's different...!

 

[Fonzie]

Just in case anyone is confused about the role of monetary policy:

 

[John Nick]

So none of the so called experts on here cannot or are not prepared to explain why we have to settle for unqualified financial personnel no matter who we vote for or who enters parliament.
Pretty sad endictment of our electorate system.
Listening to Willis a week or so ago and her taxation policy she says "trust me. I have done the figures ".
Couldn't explain the policy was a retake of a policy that was suggested by a very qualified financial person (John Key)
who after expert advice found the policy was either illegal or unworkable or untenable. Take your pick.
Not convincing enough for me.

 

[defensivebomb]

So none of the so called experts on here cannot or are not prepared to explain why we have to settle for unqualified financial personnel no matter who we vote for or who enters parliament.
Pretty sad endictment of our electorate system.

I’m no expert, but a regular poster, but I can’t imagine the prospect of leaving a well-paying career in finance / business / economics to start at the bottom of a political party would be appealing to anyone with half a brain. It must only appeal to those that have a strong perception of public duty

Put it another way - to succeed as a politician, and to be considered as one of the best and therefore a candidate for the finance minister role, you need to hood at navigating the political ladder. Brown nosing the right people, fundraising, arguing until you are red in the face on whatever topic. So the people high on the party list end up being good politicians. And they eventually sit around a table and ask each other “anyone know anything about finance?”

 

[Inruin]

Cullen (a great Labour finance minister) and then English ran the economy sustainably and set us up to weather crisis’s by prioritising paying down debt and staying in surplus the majority of the time.

Robertson has spent like there’s no tomorrow and used up all our buffers and left the cupboard bare.

He is greedy, self centred and lies to the country and you can’t have that as a financial leader. It’s no surprise with those attributes his father was convicted of fraud…

do you have to have a qualification in a certain thing to be good at it? Ie should a person need a commerce degree or be a qualified accountant to be finance minister? Should the education minister have a teaching degree? Health minister has to have been a doctor? And so on and so on. With the level of support and personal backing them it shouldn't necessarily be a prerequisite. What is more important to me is having people capable of managing, driving, measuring and accounting for their ministry they are in charge of. Generally the best ones, but not always, are the ones who have had successful private sector roles.

 

[Bruce]

Just gotta say, about authoritarian leaders, we had one once, who was a genuine nasty little shite, Robert Muldoon.

A story from the vault.

I share this because one of my dinosaur mates didn't know the truth of this, which I saw an an example of a bullshit story that caused a lot of pain, when there was no need.

It is our version of "the election was stolen".

44 years ago in November an Air NZ DC10 took off from Auckland for a flight over the Antarctic.
As a safety measure it was planned to avoid Mount Erebus.
The experienced pilot was meticulous in his planning.

Two major things happened, on arrival over the destination there was a whiteout, so the crew and passengers couldn't see anything, and flew around blind.

The other thing, was that the night before the flight an airline technical employee changed the navigation coordinates, without telling the crew.

So because of the whiteout the flight captain reverted to his autopilot, believing it was planned to avoid Mount Erebus.
However the change in navigation coordinates had the plane headed smack ban into Mount Erebus, and that ladies and jellybeans is sad history.
However, that was just the early part of this tragedy.

While the airline officials were public wringing their hands wondering what could have happened, they already knew, very early on, exactly what had happened. Being highly trustworthy and responsible people they decided to cover it all up and blame the accident on pilot error.

Airline executives visited the home of the grieving widow. ostensibly to offer condolences, but they really wanted to see what written information that captain may have left behind e.g. the correct navigation coordinates.

They had formal enquiries. One by the CAA blamed the Captain for pilot error. That was based on the principle that the captain is responsible for the aircraft, and should know where he was going.

Those two words, pilot error became like a mantra in press headlines and as I realised this week, 43 years later, that some people still believed them.

The government also had a Royal Commission.

Just to explain, it can be assumed that the head of Air New Zealand, Morrie Davis, was a hard little bastard, and was good mates with the other little hard bastard Robert Muldoon.

They sort of stuffed up in their cover up by allowing one of New Zealand's most distinguished judges, Peter Mahon, to head the Royal Commission.

I knew Judge Mahon. He was honest, clever, brilliant with words, and could strike to the heart of an issue like an arrow. He was the wrong guy to investigate a cover up, from the bad guys perspective I mean.

Anyway, Judge Mahon saw straight through the bullshit and said that Air New Zealand had presented "an orchestrated litany of lies." that line became famous as well.

Now, that should have been the end of it, like the 2020 US POTUS election. However Robert Muldoon and Morrie Davis were in the mould of Donald Trump.

If you don't like the message, attack the messenger, and if you are going to spread bullshit, spread plenty and don't stop.

The short version is they attacked Peter Mahon with every dirty filthy lying trick they could.

They broke this honest, decent, jurist, just because he told the truth.

He left the bench, and died younger than he should have. Many believe the stress led to his death.

I hate disinformation, and those that knowingly spread it. They are dangerous people.

Rant over.

 

[Bruce]

I’m no expert, but a regular poster, but I can’t imagine the prospect of leaving a well-paying career in finance / business / economics to start at the bottom of a political party would be appealing to anyone with half a brain. It must only appeal to those that have a strong perception of public duty

Put it another way - to succeed as a politician, and to be considered as one of the best and therefore a candidate for the finance minister role, you need to hood at navigating the political ladder. Brown nosing the right people, fundraising, arguing until you are red in the face on whatever topic. So the people high on the party list end up being good politicians. And they eventually sit around a table and ask each other “anyone know anything about finance?”

You really know how to sugar coat things

 

[Bruce]

2018 census there were 9000 properties sitting vacant for this reason (of 95 000 empty properties total)

I know some of them, I wouldn't put my dog in them.

 

[Bruce]

By expert advice do you mean Consultants

Define a consultant please ...and no need to mention they are expensive

 

[miket12]

So none of the so called experts on here cannot or are not prepared to explain why we have to settle for unqualified financial personnel no matter who we vote for or who enters parliament.
Pretty sad endictment of our electorate system.
Listening to Willis a week or so ago and her taxation policy she says "trust me. I have done the figures ".
Couldn't explain the policy was a retake of a policy that was suggested by a very qualified financial person (John Key)
who after expert advice found the policy was either illegal or unworkable or untenable. Take your pick.
Not convincing enough for me.

Looking back at the qualifications of the most famous, or infamous, ministers of finance of the 80’s and 90’s, Ruth Richardson had a law degree but both Douglas and Muldoon had accountancy backgrounds…. considering the last two, perhaps a background in commerce or accounting shouldn’t be a prerequisite

 

[John Nick]

I’m no expert, but a regular poster, but I can’t imagine the prospect of leaving a well-paying career in finance / business / economics to start at the bottom of a political party would be appealing to anyone with half a brain. It must only appeal to those that have a strong perception of public duty

Put it another way - to succeed as a politician, and to be considered as one of the best and therefore a candidate for the finance minister role, you need to hood at navigating the political ladder. Brown nosing the right people, fundraising, arguing until you are red in the face on whatever topic. So the people high on the party list end up being good politicians. And they eventually sit around a table and ask each other “anyone know anything about finance?”

Thanks mate and you make sense.
Salaries for financial politicians are not up to standard.