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.
Politics 🗳️ NZ Politics
- Thread starter wizard of Tauranga
- Start date
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.
The private sector already makes a margin when planning and building the infrastructure. Using private money to fund it is a double dip - We will be paying a premium for the cost of capital.
Again we fatally misunderstand how govt's pay for things to the detriment of wider society and the economy.
Just do a proper business case on the infrastructure - BCRs higher than 1.5 - it's going to be worthwhile to build using public money.
Last edited:
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
At least with a PPP, things move forward as it is an easier sell politically. If there is greater cost, the benefit *should* be a faster project approval and therefore, infrastructure
What’s better - needed infrastructure we can use, but with an added margin. Or less infrastructure that takes longer but less margin?
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.
The PPP infrastructure being talked about is likely going to be tolled roads, which is just more added cost to our daily lives. It's completely backward thinking if you want to address our high cost of living.
PPPs aren't going to speed up the approval/planning/construction phases - if they use fast track legislation, the Govt can also use this legislation for infrastructure they want to build with public money.
This is about political will, and not painting yourself into a corner by constraining sound investment in infrastructure to arbitrary fiscal targets.
Govt spending isn't a burden on future generations (as the Govt is self financing), PPP debt to private capital is a real burden for future generations.
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.
e.g. QLD politicians have managed to convince the public that daylight savings would mean that cows would get confused. So the state hasn’t adopted it. And the sun rises at 0430 in the summer…
NZ has become so polarised politically that for any good idea, there is at least a very vocal 40% that opposes it
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.
Just build the infrastructure. Politicians are there to govern at the end of the day.
Build a solid business case (which is a good check + balance), backed by evidence and long-term value - that'll be pretty difficult to pile in on.
Attracting good politicians is a different discussion! But having stronger leadership and mechanisms within Ministries would help with this, allowing more open free and frank advice. Ministries should be the hive of good ideas, providing Ministers with well-researched, innovative, and practical ideas/options to tackle structural economic and societal challenges within their purview.
I don't know anywhere PPPs have worked? Just look at the sale.of the gentailers, we got $10B for that not that long ago, what did it deliver - fuck all, and now power is more expensive, no investment into more generation or r&d.
Rizzah is right, the govt just need a long term bipartisan strategy and build the infrastructure themselves. Otherwise we will end up being a foreign owned basket case. Even if we fuck it up it's better to be a locally owned basket case.
Rizzah is right, the govt just need a long term bipartisan strategy and build the infrastructure themselves. Otherwise we will end up being a foreign owned basket case. Even if we fuck it up it's better to be a locally owned basket case.
Do you think there's a deliberate promotion of the "household budget" narrative by govts for self-serving agendas?
The neoliberal ones for sure.
100%
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.
Noitall
👤
Stuff: Latest breaking news | New Zealand
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
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: Latest breaking news | New Zealand
Can recall the outcry when Ashley Bloomfield accepted some tickets to a sporting fixture. Wonder if these will be held to the same criticism
- Thread starter
- #15,516
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.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying we should do away with private capital or capitalism - but there is a better way for govts to function under it.
No, just sound/evidence based infrastructure policy - funded by the govt.
- Thread starter
- #15,519
Faulty economic models entrenched for the benefit of roading mafia cartels, teamsters and fat cats of course
Similar threads
Politics
🤡 Donald Trump
