Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics

[MrFrankWhite]

More fundamentally is what's behind it Frank. And the motivation is greed and wealth extraction at a scale we've never seen before.

whatever. Its the standard left/right dichotomy.

Given this has happened at least three times here, where is the collective institutional memory on this?

The American health system is the worst in the developed world, if not one of the worst for those who need to rely on public health, in the world.

And Australia's is better than yours. Not getting your point.

If only journalism hadn't been destroyed by private industry, someone might be able to take the data from the last 45 years along with a cost benefit analysis of all privatised assets and infrastructure and come up with some kind of well researched conclusions.

^^ now this is 100% facts. Ive posted before about the problems getting empirical govt data. You should start your own price indexing

 

[MaybeTop8]

Lest we forget

How asset sales went wrong - Business News - NZ Herald

Latest breaking news articles, photos, video, blogs, reviews, analysis, opinion and reader comment from New Zealand and around the World - NZ Herald

www.nzherald.co.nz

 

[MaybeTop8]

Lest we forget - all major infrastructure has been built by the state

On The Government’s Gaslighting About Growth

Trump and Luxon have in common a lack of any experience in how to kick-start economic growth, especially in the wake of a recession. Their real expertise lies in deal-making i.e. in the re-packaging of wealth that’s been created by others, and on selling ...

www.scoop.co.nz

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

More fundamentally is what's behind it Frank. And the motivation is greed and wealth extraction at a scale we've never seen before.

You talk about the coalition privatising everything every other post since National took over but National haven’t and won’t privatise anything this term…

Great economic leadership by Luxon ever saying he will take it to the voters if they want to sell anything.

 

[Worried2Death]

I am looking at it from a perspective of someone running a business, generating and income and claiming deductions with a nexus to revenue. (Ie aligning the principles of deductions with other activities)

I like the element of the interest limitation rules rewarding new dwellings. But I don’t think limiting interest deductions is the best tool to achieve it as it drives an unequal tax system

I’d prefer a loosening up of residential zoning and RC rules to achieve the housing availability and stability

Isn't the residential housing sector somewhat propped up by socialism in the form of the MSD accommodation supplement paid to low income earners? Why does no one mention this.

 

[MaybeTop8]

Isn't the residential housing sector somewhat propped up by socialism in the form of the MSD accommodation supplement paid to low income earners? Why does no one mention this.

Subsidies for landlords everywhere.

 

[MaybeTop8]

You talk about the coalition privatising everything every other post since National took over but National haven’t and won’t privatise anything this term…

Great economic leadership by Luxon ever saying he will take it to the voters if they want to sell anything.

National is all in on this, they're just happy for act to take the heat. A double axis play.

 

[Worried2Death]

Subsidies for landlords everywhere.

And directly to banks, low income mortgage holders get it too. But I suppose if we take it away the whole house of cards collapses.

 

[Worried2Death]

No, it's more fascinating that a poster who is self proclaimed self starter business guru... feels the need to run down on a rugby league forum of all places.

We're the only idiots who'll listen to him

 

[juju]

How embarrassing for our forum echo chamber....

EXACTLY what Maybetop8 has been saying in this thread & being relentlessly bullied by this forum for is the agenda.

Underfund public services, run them down and then use that as an excuse to sell to your mates. Neoliberalism 101.

Christopher Luxon hints National will campaign on asset sales in the 2026 election

The prime minister has ruled out selling off state houses, but said he is open to having a wider conversation with voters, while Labour says it's a "typical right-wing government playbook" move.

www.rnz.co.nz

David Seymour says Kiwis are too squeamish about privatisation – history shows why they lost the appetite

Analysis - State asset sales have been a political dividing line for decades now, and it seems voters are again being asked to decide which side they're on.

www.rnz.co.nz

 

[juju]

We're the only idiots who'll listen to him

Yeah none of his staff do...

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

To manufacture crises on multiple fronts.

But if you can defund it, it won’t be in good shape. And there is a standard technique of privatization, namely defund what you want to privatize.

Please expand on this conspiracy theory accusation your continuously throw around with some proof:

Please state which crisis were started under National? They all seem to have started under Labour?

Which ministries are being defunded? - name the organisation with funding figures over the past 5 years so we can see a trend.

 

[MaybeTop8]

Please expand on this conspiracy theory accusation your continuously throw around with some proof:

Please state which crisis were started under National? They all seem to have started under Labour?

Which ministries are being defunded? - name the organisation with funding figures over the past 5 years so we can see a trend.

Maybe check out what juju last posted

 

[MrFrankWhite]

Yeah none of his staff do...

I didn’t realise a life on WINZ benefits gave you such keen business insights

 

[MaybeTop8]

How embarrassing for our forum echo chamber....

EXACTLY what Maybetop8 has been saying in this thread & being relentlessly bullied by this forum for is the agenda.

Underfund public services, run them down and then use that as an excuse to sell to your mates. Neoliberalism 101.

Christopher Luxon hints National will campaign on asset sales in the 2026 election

The prime minister has ruled out selling off state houses, but said he is open to having a wider conversation with voters, while Labour says it's a "typical right-wing government playbook" move.

www.rnz.co.nz

David Seymour says Kiwis are too squeamish about privatisation – history shows why they lost the appetite

Analysis - State asset sales have been a political dividing line for decades now, and it seems voters are again being asked to decide which side they're on.

www.rnz.co.nz

I wish I could say I was psychic but....this is the neoliberalism right. This is what they do. What they've done here. All think tank driven. All designed to extract wealth for the few at the expense of us all. Of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

 

[miket12]

How embarrassing for our forum echo chamber....

EXACTLY what Maybetop8 has been saying in this thread & being relentlessly bullied by this forum for is the agenda.

Underfund public services, run them down and then use that as an excuse to sell to your mates. Neoliberalism 101.

Christopher Luxon hints National will campaign on asset sales in the 2026 election

The prime minister has ruled out selling off state houses, but said he is open to having a wider conversation with voters, while Labour says it's a "typical right-wing government playbook" move.

www.rnz.co.nz

David Seymour says Kiwis are too squeamish about privatisation – history shows why they lost the appetite

Analysis - State asset sales have been a political dividing line for decades now, and it seems voters are again being asked to decide which side they're on.

www.rnz.co.nz

What pisses me off is how the opposition will use the same speech as the previous opposition... just the names are changed.

John Key went into the 2008 Election saying how the anti-asset sales Labour government sold houses.

Go forward to the 2017 Election and Labour were pointing to the number of houses nation sold during the housing crisis. Yet, KO sold over $80,000,000 worth of houses under Ardern and Hipkins until the last election.

And now, Labour are pointing out that Luxon is selling of assets (state houses) when he said there wouldn't be any asset sales.

The simple fact is that a lot of the time, no matter who is the government, state houses reach the end of their economic life when it becomes too expensive to maintain them or upgrade them to the latest standards, or the houses are sold/donated to Iwi or social housing providers, or the land is considered too valuable for KO to develop.

The simple fact is, "no asset sales" is an extremely open ended phrase and the meaning of it changes depending on who is talking about it. But, it's "poli speak".... Luxon says the government will not sell assets this term but over 20 state houses have already been sold. If the old interislander ferries were about to be replaced next week, it could be said the government has "sold assets" when the old ferries were either sold to another ferry operator or sold for scrap. Old machinery or computer systems or over ordered product is "sold" could be counted as "selling assets". It all depends on how a person defines an asset sale.

And, when this current government's turn is over, as sure as night follows day, the Nats or ACT or NZF will accuse the new Labour led government which campaigned against asset sells of breaking an election promise because of the sale of some asset.

Oh, and before I get accused of defending the current government, or being a neo-lib, or living in an echo chamber.... if I go back far enough, I'll find where I had this same discussion with inruin or someone else about whether the Labour government was breaking an election promise selling houses when it said there wouldn't be any "asset sales".

Same play (asset sales), same script (sound bites for the media) just the actors (polis) have reversed their roles... and we, the audience, are left to decide whether or not selling houses constitutes an asset sale... and our interpretation will most likely be led by our political leanings.

EDIT: I should copy and paste this post and link into a word doc so, when the actors reverse their roles and the government changes, it would save me re-typing this as an answer to one of the right wing brigade here.

 

[juju]

What pisses me off is how the opposition will use the same speech as the previous opposition... just the names are changed.

John Key went into the 2008 Election saying how the anti-asset sales Labour government sold houses.

Go forward to the 2017 Election and Labour were pointing to the number of houses nation sold during the housing crisis. Yet, KO sold over $80,000,000 worth of houses under Ardern and Hipkins until the last election.

And now, Labour are pointing out that Luxon is selling of assets (state houses) when he said there wouldn't be any asset sales.

The simple fact is that a lot of the time, no matter who is the government, state houses reach the end of their economic life when it becomes too expensive to maintain them or upgrade them to the latest standards, or the houses are sold/donated to Iwi or social housing providers, or the land is considered too valuable for KO to develop.

The simple fact is, "no asset sales" is an extremely open ended phrase and the meaning of it changes depending on who is talking about it. But, it's "poli speak".... Luxon says the government will not sell assets this term but over 20 state houses have already been sold. If the old interislander ferries were about to be replaced next week, it could be said the government has "sold assets" when the old ferries were either sold to another ferry operator or sold for scrap. Old machinery or computer systems or over ordered product is "sold" could be counted as "selling assets". It all depends on how a person defines an asset sale.

And, when this current government's turn is over, as sure as night follows day, the Nats or ACT or NZF will accuse the new Labour led government which campaigned against asset sells of breaking an election promise because of the sale of some asset.

Oh, and before I get accused of defending the current government, or being a neo-lib, or living in an echo chamber.... if I go back far enough, I'll find where I had this same discussion with inruin or someone else about whether the Labour government was breaking an election promise selling houses when it said there wouldn't be any "asset sales".

Same play (asset sales), same script (sound bites for the media) just the actors (polis) have reversed their roles... and we, the audience, are left to decide whether or not selling houses constitutes an asset sale... and our interpretation will most likely be led by our political leanings.

EDIT: I should copy and paste this post and link into a word doc so, when the actors reverse their roles and the government changes, it would safe me re-typing this as an answer to one of the right wing brigade here.

The start of wholesale Neoliberalism was enacted by Labour here / so not really a labour national thing/

It's just amusing for all the bullying of Maybe Top 8 - exactly what he said was happening is happening.
And he get's a hysterical response to his posts.

Look at Seymour's speech - look at Luxon's stance all of a sudden softening towards it. Text book.
And it's not to benefit the average voter at all.

 

[juju]

I wish I could say I was psychic but....this is the neoliberalism right. This is what they do. What they've done here. All think tank driven. All designed to extract wealth for the few at the expense of us all. Of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

Next they will accuse you of being a conspiracy theorist for raising think tanks... ignoring that's at the heart of this movement (especially Act)

 

[wizard of Tauranga]

The current government appears to fundamentally misunderstand how government financing and debt work, treating surpluses as a silver bullet for economic growth, when, in reality, the opposite is often true. A government surplus means a deficit in the private sector, forcing households and businesses to borrow more to make up the shortfall. This often reduces economic growth and is especially counterproductive during a recession, when the private sector is already struggling.
Remember: a government deficit is a private sector asset. This is rooted in the concept of sectoral balances, which show that the government’s financial position is inherently linked to the private sector’s. When the government runs a surplus, the private sector must run a deficit, and vice versa.
In New Zealand, where private sector debt (mostly housing debt which is closely linked to SME business debt) is already a significant issue. Surplus targeting risks making matters worse. By draining financial resources from the private sector, the government leaves households and businesses more reliant on borrowing, creating the conditions for private debt bubbles and further economic instability

All very good points. So I would expand:

A govt surplus taxes more tax than services spent back into the economy so has a slowing effect.

A govt deficit pumps more money into the economy and has a growth effect.

Given 2020/ 21 we had a booming economy, was it right to run record govt deficits? Didn’t this inflate the economy and lead to inflation? And what productive assets did we gain?

We are in recession now and despite trimming govt spending (or reallocating as the govt spend hasn’t actually decreased just not grown) we’re actually still running a huge deficit. Is this true? And isn’t this the right action to stoke the economy at this time? What does the govt not understand?

We have a plan to return to surplus in years and years time. Isn’t a plan to return to surplus in the future indicative that we will have a thriving economy and isn’t that a good aim?

Fundamentally, is it good to run endless deficits? While as a sovereign nation we can’t really go bankrupt, other countries can still lose confidence in us effectively resulting in the same thing.

Agree on the borrowing/ deficits needing to be in ‘good’ investments.

 

[Inruin]

What pisses me off is how the opposition will use the same speech as the previous opposition... just the names are changed.

John Key went into the 2008 Election saying how the anti-asset sales Labour government sold houses.

Go forward to the 2017 Election and Labour were pointing to the number of houses nation sold during the housing crisis. Yet, KO sold over $80,000,000 worth of houses under Ardern and Hipkins until the last election.

And now, Labour are pointing out that Luxon is selling of assets (state houses) when he said there wouldn't be any asset sales.

The simple fact is that a lot of the time, no matter who is the government, state houses reach the end of their economic life when it becomes too expensive to maintain them or upgrade them to the latest standards, or the houses are sold/donated to Iwi or social housing providers, or the land is considered too valuable for KO to develop.

The simple fact is, "no asset sales" is an extremely open ended phrase and the meaning of it changes depending on who is talking about it. But, it's "poli speak".... Luxon says the government will not sell assets this term but over 20 state houses have already been sold. If the old interislander ferries were about to be replaced next week, it could be said the government has "sold assets" when the old ferries were either sold to another ferry operator or sold for scrap. Old machinery or computer systems or over ordered product is "sold" could be counted as "selling assets". It all depends on how a person defines an asset sale.

And, when this current government's turn is over, as sure as night follows day, the Nats or ACT or NZF will accuse the new Labour led government which campaigned against asset sells of breaking an election promise because of the sale of some asset.

Oh, and before I get accused of defending the current government, or being a neo-lib, or living in an echo chamber.... if I go back far enough, I'll find where I had this same discussion with inruin or someone else about whether the Labour government was breaking an election promise selling houses when it said there wouldn't be any "asset sales".

Same play (asset sales), same script (sound bites for the media) just the actors (polis) have reversed their roles... and we, the audience, are left to decide whether or not selling houses constitutes an asset sale... and our interpretation will most likely be led by our political leanings.

EDIT: I should copy and paste this post and link into a word doc so, when the actors reverse their roles and the government changes, it would safe me re-typing this as an answer to one of the right wing brigade here.

yeah we had a discussion around State housing sales where both parties sold them. The conversation by politicians should have been around manageable stock levels. spend and replacing old ones with new. I mean it makes sense to sell high value single houses and replace with multiple new homes.

As for asset sales in general, where it makes sense we should be doing that. Points you have made make sense. We aren't going to see any asset sales this term (major ones outside of what you have already mentioned) and I don't think we will see much if any next term either. I see John Key has just come out saying it isn't something worth doing and there are other things that we can do to drive economic growth.

I also don't see how running down something like health or education puts the Government in a good place to get re-elected and able to implement asset sales, if that's what they are trying to do.

Time will tell.