Sigh.... Do you even read all of the articles you post or just find a snippet you can latch on to for your disinformation
Not sure the people of your hometown are overjoyed with this option WizFrom your own article:
‘The Government retains ownership of the road, and resumes operating the road at the end of the contract.’
NO PRIVITISATION
This is what the right is - smart, gets things done and we get to a road delivered and paid for before it would even be built by the left.
There is no need to go to the private sector for money for roads or other key infrastructure. PPPs cost more to the public.From your own article:
‘The Government retains ownership of the road, and resumes operating the road at the end of the contract.’
NO PRIVITISATION
This is what the right is - smart, gets things done and we get to a road delivered and paid for before it would even be built by the left.
Taking your comment on face value, the only problem with what you are proposing is that we won’t get the infrastructure we need as it will constantly be kicked around and nothing will get done. When the government continually gets judged on its handling of public money, large projects are difficult to get off the ground
It's only an easy sell because the public doesn't understand how PPPs work - it's not free money. PPPs simply shift upfront costs to become a financial burden in the future, at a higher cost due to private sector profit margins and higher cost of capital. Educate the public. Show the business case. Get on with it. Public financing is cheaper, maintains full public ownership, and better long-term value.
Not saying it’s a bad idea. But given the difficulty with politicians educating the public on simple things, I have little faith of politicians educating the public on more complex things.
We're polarised on this particular subject because we’ve allowed this flawed fiscal narrative to dominate our politics—that the government is like a household and must balance its budget. The reality is that government finances operates entirely differently. Governments issue their own currency and can sustain deficits to fund productive investments that grow the economy and improve our lives.
Do you think there's a deliberate promotion of the "household budget" narrative by govts for self-serving agendas?
The neoliberal ones for sure.
The ministries, the economic related ones at least, my suspicion is they're utterly entrenched in the prevailing far right economics that has been neoliberalism for such a long time, as well as their own orthodoxy that it's very hard to shift into any kind of deployment of new thinking and any kind of different approaches
Yes, the 'household budget' narrative has been promoted deliberately to serve private capital and private financial institutions. It justifies austerity by creating a false perception of capital scarcity which limits public investment, while relying on the private sector to drive economic growth. This favours private profits (privatisation, deregulation, tax cuts) and perpetuates inequality (poor services and underfunded infrastructure). The narrative is rooted in orthodox economics but has been thoroughly discredited by modern economic theory and real world evidence.
What are the chances that flawed orthodox economics will be replaced by better modern theories in practice, are we too captured by private financial institutions and power structures for that change to happen?
I'm with Wayne Brown, you'd have to pay me to go and listen to PinkStuff
www.stuff.co.nz
Can recall the outcry when Ashley Bloomfield accepted some tickets to a sporting fixture. Wonder if these will be held to the same criticism
Are you calling for Muldoon economics? Get some good ideas and just build it?
Don't know. Modern monetary understanding has been around for 30+ years, but it's in direct conflict with orthodox economic thinking.
No, just sound/evidence based infrastructure policy - funded by the govt.
