Jacinda Ardern exposes Australia’s pathetic Fake Left

Jacinda Ardern, legend:

New Zealand prime-minister-elect Jacinda Ardern has described capitalism as a “blatant failure” in the country, nominating poverty and homelessness as her priorities when she takes office.

Speaking in her first sit-down interview, on TV3’s The Nation, Ms Ardern said New Zealanders were not feeling the benefits of prosperity. Asked if capitalism had failed New Zealanders on low incomes, Ms Ardern was blunt: “If you have hundreds of thousands of children living in homes without enough to survive, that’s a blatant failure. What else could you describe it as?”

“When you have a market economy, it all comes down to whether or not you acknowledge where the market has failed and where intervention is required. Has it failed our people in recent times? Yes.

“Wages are not keeping up with inflation (and) and how can you claim you’ve been successful when you have growth at roughly 3 per cent, but you have the worst homelessness in the developed world?”

Real measures that the public can rate the government on are important, Ms Ardern said, citing improved waterways, child poverty, homelessness and building 10,000 new homes every year to judge them on.

Via the ABC:

So why did Mr Peters choose to back Labour and not the outgoing National Party that gave him his political start four decades ago?

The answer: policies and power.

Labour will give him more of what he wants on both those fronts, though the exact details of any agreement are still to come:

  • four cabinet posts, with Mr Peters likely to become deputy PM
  • a crackdown on foreign ownership of residential and farm land (NZ First wants a ban)
  • deep cuts to migration, particularly of low-skilled temporary workers
  • ensuring people can retire at 65 and access publicly funded superannuation
  • a better deal for tertiary students (Labour’s promising three years of free tuition)
  • more affordable housing
  • a huge boost in police numbers

But there’s more to it than that. He wants change. And, at 72 years of age, he’s thinking of a legacy.

The man who can tear shreds off political opponents and questioning journalists says he wants a kinder capitalism.

“Far too many New Zealanders have come to view today’s capitalism not as their friend but as their foe, and they are not all wrong,” he said.

“Capitalism must resume a human face.”

And humanity is what Jacinda Ardern brings in spades, as she demonstrated so clearly on the campaign trail, with her ready smile and warm embrace.

Fantastic policy. Ardern is more Left than I am but I can recognise genuine values when I see them. Mighty congratulations should go to Winston Peters for seeing it too. Compared with the National’s  Bill English and his hypocritical sellout to ponzi-growth it was a no-brainer. The only wonder is the NZ people didn’t put Labour in directly.

The NZ political economy is now a shining beacon to the Australia Left, which is hopelessly lost in the dark of an identity politics that has launched a rabid class war on our most vulnerable classes and youth.

Lefty totem The Guardian summed it up on the weekend, obsessing over interest groups as usual, hardly glancing at the revolution over the pond:

Bleeding heart leftie, Rob Burgess, was tilting at Catholic windmills, haplessly oblivious to the rising Leftist power on his doorstep:

The Catholic Church has chosen ‘national anti-poverty week’ to promote a powerful idea that would stop politicians using vulnerable Australians as political footballs.

Through its peak national social services body, Catholic Social Services Australia (CSSA), it has called for an independent commission to “develop evidence-based benchmarks to ensure that income support payments are adequate for people to live a frugal yet dignified life, and have realistic opportunity of securing a job”.

CSSA’s phrase “frugal yet dignified” pretty much says it all.

Centre-Left feminist Jessica Irvine was busy burying the triumph of the sisterhood under a steaming pile of Australian Treasury propaganda:

It’s the biggest challenge bedevilling the Australian economy today: why is wage growth so low?

Australia’s jobless rate has tumbled to a fresh low of 5.5 per cent, we learnt this week, but signs of life in pay packets have yet to emerge.

RBA Governor Philip Lowe says high household debt and low wages growth continue to be problems for the economy, with household borrowing outstripping the growth in hourly earnings.

It’s too dramatic to say that wages have stagnated. Pay packets are still growing, by a bit under 2 per cent a year.

All three should be screaming the Ardern success and agenda from the rooftops.

Jess Irvine’s failure explains why they’ are not. Her dumb recycling of Treasury rubbish aims to hide how bad things are for Aussie workers rather than address it. The Wage Price Index referred to is rising but that does not account for job rotation from higher paid to lower paid jobs post mining-boom. When we add that, wages are falling in outright nominal terms for the first time in recorded history:

The horrible Irvine snow-job went on:

In a recent speech, Treasury’s deputy secretary, Macroeconomic Group, Nigel Ray, offered some fresh and valuable insights.

In short, Ray reminds us that recent times have been anything but ordinary – the world economy is still buffeted by the fallout from the global financial crisis.

…It is the impact of this mining boom that must be understood before one can make much sense of wages today, he says.

The impact on wage gains for households was profound.

Significantly, the boom hit at a time when Australia’s jobless rate was already very low. The massive ramp-up in investment in new mining projects in the mid-2000s created a surge in demand for workers in an already tight labour market.

Workers able to fly in and out of mining towns were rewarded with lucrative contracts, famously earning $150,000 a year for driving largely automated monster mining trucks.

…wages relative to the prices that consumers pay for goods and services –has been largely flat since the peak in the terms of trade,” says Ray.

“This is a very unusual event.  We have to go back to the years following the recession of the early 1990s to find another example in Australia.”

But far from being a cause for concern, Ray says this subdued growth in labour costs has actually been one of the key ways the Australian economy has adjusted so well to the end of the mining boom.

…As the unemployment rate continues to fall, there is good reason to hope there are more normal days ahead.

The main problem with this analysis is this:

Is it reasonable, defensible or responsible to expect the terms of trade to remain above its highest boom points in history in perpetuity? No, Treasury has botched it and is covering it up.

We can add that we’re also going through a second and so far roundly ignored structural adjustment: reductions in the pace of growth of household debt, which is about to turn much slower again, so more slack is guaranteed.

The question is, how does one best manage these structural adjustments? Both booms leave your economy very inflated and its cost structure uncompetitive. So the way to fix it is to engineer a real exchange rate adjustment that enables export and import competing businesses to grow again.

To do that you do is this:

  • explain it the people so that the burden of adjustment can be shared appropriately to stabilise the political economy;
  • support the vulnerable;
  • boost productivity reform so that as much of the adjustment as possible can be absorbed by efficiency gains;
  • contain asset prices to improve competitiveness;
  • contain other input prices like energy;
  • pursue weak dollar policies to ensure that as much of the deflation is absorbed externally as possible;
  • use fiscal stimulus to absorb labour market slack as the private sector deflates and deleverages, and
  • ensure industrial relations fairness so that capital doesn’t force the entire adjustment onto labour.

What have we done?

  • raised expectations with parlour tricks and cheap excuses that of course failed, destabilsing the political economy and throwing out multiple governments;
  • blamed the vulnerable;
  • zero productivity reform;
  • deliberately juiced asset prices with failed credit containment and mass immigration;
  • blown energy prices sky high;
  • pursued strong dollar policies at every quarter;
  • deployed fiscal austerity (until recently), and
  • trashed the industrial relations structure via mass visa rorting.

In fact, pretty much the only economic input cost we’ve let deflate is wages and by doing so have launched a ribald class war on labour to take the full brunt of the structural adjustments emanating from the end of the mining and household credit booms. It is especially bad for lower income workers and youth. We may see some ebbs and flows in wages growth but they are not going to lift in trend terms until we change our policy remedies specifically to redirect the adjustment to a fair share for capital by shifting to the above list of aims.

There is little recognition of this in the open borders loons that run the post-Australian Labor party. Nor, perversely, the supposed more traditional Left Greens. There is none of their media cheerleaders. Their defensiveness about special interest groups has unwittingly led them into an alliance with the rentier capitalists that are sucking dry working people, low income households and youth.

I’ll tell you where social advancement, higher welfare, higher wages and, ironically, a lower currency to improve competitiveness, is going to improve the lot of these working classes. In NZ, where they have a political party that knows what class warfare looks like, that isn’t hung up on not being labelled racist, that isn’t in the thrall of vested interests and is not afraid of a good dollop of economic nationalism.

Jacinda Ardern has exposed the hypocrisy, feeble-mindedness and moral cowardice of Australia’s entire pathetic Fake Left.

Bloody legend.

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)


  1. Lefties are so good at finding the dull side of a gold coin. They never think to look for the bright side.

    • “I’ll tell you where social advancement, higher welfare, higher wages and, ironically, a lower currency to improve competitiveness, is going to improve the lot of these working classes”

      And where is all the money coming from to help pay for all this Welfare …? Oh, its going to be literally stolen from people who earn’t that money and given to someone who didn’t. Genius plan Lefties.
      Just sowing the seeds of your own destruction, literally can’t wait to watch NZ turn into Venuzuela. Whom will you lefties blame then?

      • And where is all the money coming from to help pay for all this Welfare
        It could easily be taken back from the elite scum who stole it previously from the public. A person who understands economics could see both the efficiency and equity gains to be had from such policies.

      • Peas and thimbles Fuji99. Watch more closely. Neoliberal capitalism is the best devised system yet to extract from the bottom and redistribute to the top.

  2. i have my doubts NZ Labor would have said anything on the immigration front if NZF didnt have a gun to their back. and we’ll see what they’ll actually do when the time comes; we’ve been stung so many times by main parties all over the world you never know whether this time will be any different. though with NZF guiding the way hopefully our kiwi friends will get some good policies for once.

    the free university thing might not be the best idea. anything that increases enrolments, which free uni would probably do, is only going to exacerbate the graduate glut. the focus should be on inducing employers to take on and train young people and job seekers, not increase the size of the unemployment suppression reservoirs otherwise known as “univeristies”.

    • stagmal, I share your skepticism. Bob Hawke said “by 1990, no Aussie child will live in poverty” to win an election – which he did. But did he do anything about child poverty? I doubt it. He could have made bus tickets free for every school kid.

      As for universities, they are just like Harvey Weinstein! While he may have said “give me your body and I will advance your career”. The unis say “give me your money and I will advance your career”.

      If NZ decides to charge $200/day for each work visa, the firms would be forced to hire Kiwis and Aussies.

    • Although earlier generations have benefited from almost free university education, one must realise that maybe only 10-20% went to University in a lot of countries. Almost free education is still the norm in Scandanavia, Netherlands and Germany ( this also includes trade or polytech), but it might be a better idea to make them get a loan for the first 2 years and if they pass, they get the last 1 or 2 years free. Entrance to Uni/Polytech should be selective to make sure students are motivated and capable.

  3. ceteris paribus

    What a breath of fresh air this young woman is. Of course the economic system is an appalling joke- at least in terms of its merciless outcomes. Some of us sat in our median priced Melbourne house last finacial year making over $300 day in and day out by having a cup of tea at he kitchen table. While those without work were provided with near starvation rations. Gillard prattled on about setting the alarm clock early every day as if sloth was the reason for employment exclusion; and just for good measure, she also ripped pension-level payments off many single parents and demoted them to Newstart. She had no intention of dealing with the breath-taking inadequacy of Newstart.
    Shorten avoids advocacy for the poor like the plague. It doesn’t help his Lodge aspirations. And he knows Labor has the poor vote already simply because Labor will cut less than Robot-debt Tudge, Porter, Morrison, the evasive Malcolm. Don’t mention the axemen of yesteryear, Abbott and Kevin Amdrews. They seemed to live to disposses the poor.
    At any rate, go Jacinda. (Don’t mind her smile either. Yeah, I know – I am hopeless and sexist)

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      “What a breath of fresh air this young woman is. Of course the economic system is an appalling joke- at least in terms of its merciless outcomes. Some of us sat in our median priced Melbourne house last finacial year making over $300 day in and day out by having a cup of tea at he kitchen table. While those without work were provided with near starvation rations”

      She is a breath of fresh air.

      Although it is easy to depressingly predict the Media, the NZ establishment and Coporate Global Plutocracy will drag her down, it’s important for us all to be at least a little positive about the possibility of some real change.

      Of course more widespread Participation in the Democratic Process would make a successful redistribution of POWER more likely.

      I’d like to think what Tony Benn says here 9.30mins in, pretty much sums up what Ardern stands for,


      • migtronixMEMBER

        If she’s a breath of fresh air you live in a highly polluted environment, because all I see is another BS artist

        “capitalism is so bad I decided to spend my life on the public teat” – she’s another Bligh in the making…

      • They only made that money if they sold. Then they’d have to buy in from someone else similarly crystallising their gains. The whole thing is a farce.

    • I think perhaps the biggest wake up call is for ALP in that the coalition of these disparate NZ parties is what might happen to rain on Ball-less Bill’s election day parade.

    • Some of us sat in our median priced Melbourne house last finacial year making over $300 day in and day out by having a cup of tea at he kitchen table

      If energy prices don’t stop rising the electricity required to boil the kettle to brew said cup of tea will eat into that margin noticeably.

      • Even more so for the people that don’t own a house that’s going up $300/ day.

        Oh well – feck ‘em, who cares.

  4. Look past the initial political rhetoric … to reality …



    … extract …

    Remove barriers that are stopping Auckland growing up and out

    Labour will remove the Auckland urban growth boundary and free up density controls. This will give Auckland more options to grow, as well as stopping landbankers profiteering and holding up development. New developments, both in Auckland and the rest of New Zealand, will be funded through innovative infrastructure bonds.


    It is important too to understand the significance of the opposition political parties working together within the MMP environment … as illustrated with the RMA (planning) amendment legislation back in March (much the same with the HASHA legislation September 2016) … reported by Bernard Hickey of Newsroom soon after …


    7. Just in case you missed it…

    One curious coda to the RMA debate that concluded last week was that the Opposition parties plus ACT and United Future all voted again during the third reading debate for amendments that would have abolished Rural Urban Growth Boundaries and allowed the financing of infrastructure bonds paid for with targeted rates.

    The amendments were defeated by National and the Maori Party.

    The irony of a Government that has railed against restrictions on land development by councils voting against removing those restrictions should be noted. And also that the proposal for infrastructure bonds was backed by the right-leaning New Zealand Initiative and voted for by the Greens and Labour. Strange times indeed.

    Kingmaker delivers NZ a new PM on housing and immigration – Macrobusiness Australia


    … concluding …

    … MB (Macrobusiness Australia) supported Labour in this election campaign. This support was based largely on its excellent housing platform that addresses both supply and demand distortions via negative gearing reform, banning foreign buyers of existing homes, tighter capital gains taxes, removal of urban growth boundaries, plus bond financing for infrastructure. We also supported Labour’s plan to reduce immigration by around a third in order to relieve chronic housing and infrastructure pressures.

    Listen up, Australian Labor and Greens.
    I sure am thrilled to be rid of that National – led coalition (which was anything but right – wing ) … check out extensice background info at http://www.PerformanceUrbanPlanning.org .

    • Jacinda Ardern should really be seen as the effective messenger and credible leader the New Zealand Labour Party needed … desperately.

      The public concerns / issues and Labour Party policies were already in place when she was appointed leader 1 August.

      Roy Morgan Research updates its polling on what the real issues are. They are dominated by ‘Poverty and the gap between the rich and poor’, ‘House prices & Housing affordability’ and ‘Housing shortages & Homelessness’ as the vote nears | interest.co.nz


      2 weeks after … remarkably … she blundered badly with the Tax Working Group idea. That sure trimmed Labours % of the Party Vote.

      I would like to know how that unfortunate fiasco happened.

      Was Grant Robertson responsible ? I have doubts about that guy.

      I am very impressed indeed with Jacinda Ardern. She has the makings of an outstanding political leader … and I wish her every success.

      I am very grateful for the fine work of former PM Bill English and Governor Graeme Wheeler of the RBNZ.

      The same cannot be said for John Key … refer my archival website http://www.PerformanceUrbanPlanning.org … in particular …

      1 John Key Housing Reform 2007 … VIDEO
      2 The 5 Important Graphs
      3 the GONE GONE GOING section

    • Big hole in the Auckland development story, 7 volcanoes,
      Anyone who lives there is inviting disaster.

      • Yeah, I have often wondered whether responsible NZ government would look at promoting and investing in urban growth in identifiable lower risk locations. Auckland has the volcanoes. Wellington is right on a major Pacific Rim fault line. Christchurch turns out to be on a similar quake-amplifying “basin” as Mexico City. That’s the 3 biggest cities. Perhaps Hamilton and Palmerston North are safe as well as having flat-land growth potential. And well inland from Tsunamis too. There is an interesting theory that Maori habitation was all well inland when European settlement arrived, because coastal settlements had ALL been wiped out by a massive Tsunami centuries earlier. The original Polynesian arrivals had been sea-goers.

      • P, the Waikato and the Wanganui both flow along old fault lines
        One day Rangitoto or Ruapehu will do a Krakatoa, and the whole joint will disappear.



        Issi Romem, buildzoom.com’s chief economist has made a valuable contribution to the growing literature on the severe unaffordability of housing in a number of US metropolitan areas. The disparities between the severely unaffordable metropolitan areas (read San Jose, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego, Portland, Seattle, Portland, Denver, Miami, New York, Boston, Sacramento and Riverside-San Bernardino) and the many more affordable areas in America are described in “Paying For Dirt: Where Have Home Values Detached From Construction Costs”. Romem points out that: “In the expensive U.S. coastal metros, home prices have detached from construction costs and can be almost four times as high as the cost of rebuilding existing structures.” … read more via hyperlink above …

      • Polling told NZ Labour to get ‘interested’ in housing and poverty.

        Prior to the appointment of Andrew Little as leader 18 November 2014, NZ Labour didn’t give a rats arse about these issues … as I explained mid last year within … RESTORING AFFORDABLE HOUSING: AN ADVOCATES TALE …


        … extract …

        On 18 November 2014, Andrew Little was appointed the new Leader of the NZ Labour Party.

        Following his famous ‘Let’s Cut The Crap’ speech in the Parliament (where he made a particular point of praising the Governments Finance Minister Bill English and Housing Minister Dr Nick Smith for their integrity), he sent out the following email communication to Party members on the same date …

        From: Andrew Little, Labour Leader
        Date: Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 5:59 PM
        Subject: Housing
        To: ………

        As someone who’s shown an interest in issues affecting Kiwis, I wanted you to be one of the first people I wrote to in my new role as Leader of the Labour Party……

        And that’s why I’m writing today. Thousands of people recently completed a survey about the state of housing in New Zealand. A staggering 97% of people reported that they’re concerned about the country’s housing crisis.

        But housing’s an issue this government just doesn’t seem to want to fix. They should be lowering house prices by building new homes. Instead, they’re planning on selling off our limited stock of state houses, and removing the safety net which makes sure all our kids have a warm, dry roof over their heads.

        As one of my first actions as Leader of the Labour Party, I’m going to launch a housing campaign. But I need to know how much people are willing to get involved, so I can decide how much of our limited resources we should put into the campaign.
        Back in October 2008 I explained in the clearest terms possible just what a disaster the Labour Clark / Cullen Government had been … ‘KIWIS PAY PRICE FOR CULLEN HOUSING BUBBLE’ …


        … and John Key (in responding to public opinion’ ‘milked’ the housing issue for all it was worth 2007 / 08 in the lead up to the election. Watch this and weep … JOHN KEY – HOUSING REFORM – 2007 …


        Check out the GONE GONE GOING section at http://www.PerformanceUrbanPlanning.org to see how its housing failures ‘did in’ the Nationals / Tories … the eunuchs of New Zealand politics !

        Will this Labour led government perform or perish ?

  5. What a great thing this is for New Zealand-leap years ahead of Australia.How impressive has Winston Peters been.If this were to result in a significant drop in real estate prices and a significant fall in the New Zealand dollar could there be ramifications for our banks?

    • I’d say it would be the opposite.

      If NZ house prices fall because of immigration cuts, real foreign buyer bans and anti-land-banking actions on zoning etc, this will be a leading indicator for Australia, meaning such reforms would be off the agenda here for a decade.

      Stuffed NZ loan books would result in government guarantees AUS loan books. Small price to pay.

    • NZ does at least have top economists saying things like THIS:


      “…There are no totally easy or fail-safe ways to unwind the disaster that the New Zealand – especially Auckland – housing market has become. But this is a clear example where the sooner it happens the better. If house prices rose sharply one day and were reversed the next, almost no one suffers. If prices rise sharply for six months and then fully reverse, a few people will have difficulty – but the losses will be isolated and limited, posing no sort of systemic threat. But if real house prices stay at current levels for the next 20 years, most of the housing stock will have been purchased (and borrowed against to finance) at today’s incredibly high prices. There will have been a massive real wealth transfer to this generation of sellers (sellers, not owners). And that transfer itself simply can’t be unwound no matter what happens to house prices. If house prices were to fall now, there has still been quite a redistribution, but four years of turnover is quite different from 20 years of turnover….”

      That is Michael Reddell. Arthur Grimes, arguably NZ’;s most distinguished economist, says much the same.

      • Yes, Hugh has been drinking some sort of moonshine to believe Labour are going to change any of the fundamentals. It has been the lefty council anti-development mentality that is partly responsible for the issue in the first place. Moratoriums on development, Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone (BANANA) mentality etc etc.
        I have seen little other than a we will build ‘x’ affordable homes, and how are they going to do that in a market with rampant inflation in the building materials market?

  6. Nice to read that Jacinda talked about homelessness and poverty.

    Nov 4, 2010 – The most efficient way to spend money on the homeless might be to give it to them.

    – The Economist

    That is right. The left wing can talk about award wages, penalty rates, and minimum wages all they like but perhaps it is best to simply give out the $900 cheques again and make them permanent. The richest 3% have way too much wealth and if any tax reform proposal makes the 3% scream, it is a bloody good tax proposal!

  7. NZ First gets 4 cabinet roles & Peters as deputy if he wants. Will NZ First get minister of immigration & also foreign affairs ?

    “The new Government can slash immigration numbers “overnight” once it takes power, says former Immigration Minister Tuariki Delamere.
    With net migration at 71,000 in the year to September, Jacinda Ardern said she expected numbers to be cut by 20,000 to 30,000 per annum.
    Its coalition partner New Zealand First, which has also lobbied strongly to reduce immigration numbers, has set the lower target of 10,000 people a year.

    Former Immigration Minister Tuariki Delamere told the Herald that these drastic changes could be made by the new Government without having to change the law.”

  8. Once again H&H provides a most quotable one-liner:

    “..Their (the Greens) defensiveness about special interest groups has unwittingly led them into an alliance with the rentier capitalists that are sucking dry working people, low income households and youth…”

    Contemporary useful idiots of the Left, genuinely think that the world’s fattest rentiers (such as Soros and the Rockefellers) fund them so lavishly because they are saints, not because they are massively profiteering from the idiocy. It is all about rigging markets and keeping them “un-free”. Particularly the market for urban land versus land for other uses.

    Ironically this kind of urban planning obstructs the best kind of useful assimilation of large numbers of migrants into a growing, productive local economy, that marks the USA’s median-multiple-3 cities of the south and heartland. This is typical of most socialist policies – idealism about outcomes needs to be matched by pragmatism about “how to pay for everything” and ultimately it is “all about the economy, stupid”. I hope Jacinda Ardern and her team have the right kind of pragmatism – it was the fact that Roger Douglas genuinely wanted good social outcomes, being in the Labour Party all along accordingly, that led to his insights about a “round-a-bout” way there – market efficiencies being central. Even the Chinese Communists (particularly Deng Xiaoping) worked this out.

    • One thing that is sad about MB, is that its early days showed bright promise in that the quality of the commenters, such as Gunnamatta and PfH007, was right up there with the clarity of H&H and Leith regarding the difference between rentiers and rentier capitalism; and producers and free market capitalism.

      But as time has gone on the comments have increasingly been swamped by the exact useful idiot class I am describing above – people like Skippy and Sweeper – so that the one-time clear consensus we had on MB about obvious things like urban land rationing by central planners, is just as much smokescreened and obfuscated in the comments threads here, as it is on, say, Property Investors forum comments threads.

      In fact the inevitability and tiresomeness of the smokescreening and the obfuscation, on the entire internet, not just MB – there is no forum immune from it – leads one to suspect that included in the lavish funding of the activism for every aspect of the racket, is large budgets for paid trolls.

      I just read someone commenting in an Amazon Book Review the other day, that any skeptical review on the CAGW subject, no matter how stale the review thread is, brings forth a deluge of alarmist comments sufficient to bump the skeptical review off the “page one of the thread”.

      • Quite sensationalist there, Phil. The assumption is that both yourself & 007 are by default correct, being above the pettiness of intellectual challenge; it is the arrogant moron that cannot tolerate the fire of debate. This is not a critique on the merits of you’re argument, but merely an observation of the attitude that bemoans the loss of an unassailable circlejerk (even if it existed to begin with).

      • Brenton,

        The debate appears below in all its messy glory. I remain puzzled how so many so called card carrying progressives seem determined to support, almost at any cost, a monetary and banking system that has demonstrated its dysfunction time and time again.

        Especially when the problems with reserving a role for private banks in the public money system have been understood for decades and decades.

        The bankers have done a splendid job of defining a paradigm that suits them wonderfully and many now consider there to be no alternative to.

        But that is all that it is – a swish bit of banker propaganda.

      • Oh aye, I have been following it in all it’s glory haha. As a humble spectator (choose to remain so in this particular thread lol), I have to say it is pretty bloody entertaining… Dare I say, it is probably more so for the participants, as they stretch their intellectual muscles and vent their rage? All part of the fun imo.

    • Wolf in sheeps clothing commentary.
      Like Keating Roger Douglas betrayed the working class and shifted the political culture to the right.
      These turncoats (not pragmatists) are the primary reason for the poor social outcomes we have now.

      • See response intended for Phil+ below and concur with the wolf trying to stay in the fold come hook or “crook”.

    • Ironic. H&H seems to have deleted a comment I made, lamenting the decline of MB comments threads from promising early days, epitomised by enlightened people like Gunnamatta and Pfh007, to the current time, epitomised by useful idiots to the rentier racket like Skippy and Sweeper! While my comment was getting deleted, Skippy and Sweeper were both popping up proving my point!

      This site once had a useful consensus on what was “rentier racket” elements and what was not.

      • My recall on this is that there was never consensus on who the rentiers were.
        Unhappily for you people are starting to see that developers are right up there with the worst of them.

      • Phil,

        I can understand the frustrations of the old school authoritarian pseudo ‘leftists’ like Sweeper and Skippy.

        They have been hibernating and waiting for the authoritarian corporatist/state to crumble so they can cheer a new march towards the Big Technocratic Gummint that they prefer.

        Sadly for them, while there are long over due signs that while the pendulum is swinging away from the period of corporatist/state rent seeking excess it appears unlikely to swing back to the nirvana of their imaginations.

        There are too many developments that allow people to make their own choices, for people to welcome the likes of Sweeper and Skippy regulating every minute of their lives in pursuit of the greater good..

        The frustrations of Sweeper and Skippy are remarkable – just this weekend they spent hours railing against the idea that private individuals should be allowed to settle their private transactions however they choose.

        While they work very hard to shut down discussion – Skippy’s word soup is the classic technocratic dust storm technique – I don’t see much sign that anyone is particularly interested in the product they are peddling.

      • “just this weekend they spent hours railing against the idea that private individuals should be allowed to settle their private transactions however they choose”.

        Have you heard of greshem’s law 007?

        Guess who wrote this:
        “We have always had bad money because private enterprise was not permitted to give us a better one. In a world governed by the pressure of organised interests, the important truth to keep in mind is that we cannot count on intelligence or under- standing but only on sheer self-interest to give us the institutions we need. Blessed indeed will be the day when it will no longer be from the benevolence of the government that we expect good money but from the regard of the banks for their own interest.”
        They were a big fan of a free market in private money as well.

      • Sweeper,

        Poor Sweeper still can’t deal with anything other than the binary choice of

        Total Control by the State – Sweeper’s preference

        Total Control by a Corporate/State partnership – Skippy’s preference and Sweeper’s second choice.

        What is it about a mixed economy where the government controls public money and private parties are free to use that money or anything else that they trust – that you struggle with?

        Your private banker buddies hijacked the regulation that was supposed to keep them on a short lead. Skippy reckons it was a conspiracy by a bunch of nerds in a Swiss resort town. You reckon it was Paul Keating.

        Your corporate/state partnership model is broken and has been for 30 years.

        Not fit for purpose.

        The sensible solution is break up the partnership and let the state operate a monetary system to deliver what it is elected to deliver and let private organisations either use the state’s money or any private alternatives that they trust.

        Private citizens who just want a secure way to save will no longer be FORCED to deal with private banks. They can maintain their deposits with 100% guarantee with the government. If they want to play with you bankers they will be free to do so – at their own risk.

        Not difficult provided you can tolerate the idea of a bit of choice.

      • Come on oo7 your the one banging on about having a totalitarian board control by undemocratic means the nations money supply….

        I’m only forwarding social democracy within a capitalist setting, I view banks as just another corporation chartered by the state and regardless of your feelings about so called private fiat [oxymoron-ideological goal seeking] MMT provides the necessary architecture to do all the things you – promise – will happen after your camp takes control of the money supply, and without completely overhauling the entire payment system.

        Be nice if you ever really engaged in reality and stopped arguing from from purely hypothetical assumptions based on a pile of metaphysical musings. I mean come on noone is talking about national socialism or anything that might put the Hayekian paranoia on defcon 4 here, so stop with the projections.

      • Skippy,

        “..I’m only forwarding social democracy within a capitalist setting, I view banks as just another corporation chartered by the state..”

        Yes – that is exactly what we have.

        An economy dominated by private banks operating within a state charter and all the privileges that go with that.

        I have only ever said you that and Sweeper are supporting the status quo.

        A status quo that you both insist is the best choice.

        The only sticking point is you just don’t like owning up and taking responsibility for the consequences, so you attribute those to “evil doers” from Swiss Holiday resorts and other shadowy conspirators.

        The model you SUPPORT is operating exactly as intended.

      • oo7….

        For one that likes to ride on Hudson’s coat tails its quite funny to hear you say – “that’s what we have”. I completely disagree with you, especially when your camp thinks democracy is a gateway drug to communism or national socialism [were all gonna starve]. Particularly since in the US case as it ranks quite low on international voting fairness, electronic voting machine dramas, citizens united and moeny as a vote, corporate sponsorship of mainstream economics and the privatization of higher education and the currant attempts at public schools via core [IP education for profit (rent)].

        Sorry oo7 I think your confused by your past attempts to manage me, you projected your own bias on me and could not make an accurate assessment of where I was coming from, worse, tried to engage in perception management for other readers.

        skippy… I have always been clear that I’m in the PK, MMT, NEP/EPI/TJN/B.Black camp and don’t really care that you, Phil, Hugh or fellow travelers are reluctant to clearly state your camp for others. Though I do find it irksome that some would think deception is a sound intellectual base to operate from.

      • Skippy,

        “…about having a totalitarian board control by undemocratic means the nations money supply..”


        You really can’t make your mind up can you?

        One minute I am an AET free banking fan who wants to remove any role for the government from money and the next minute I am trying to institute a total public monopoly.

        Despite my constant clear statements to the contrary.

        Rather than making stuff up why don’t you just own the fact that you support the status quo which is a Corporatist/State partnership and effective monopoly.

        Watching you and Sweeper thrash around trying to clamber to the moral high ground while supporting a corrupted corporatist monetary model is great fun.

        What is about it the current control of monetary policy in the hands of an “independent” RBA board and “independent” APRA that you don’t understand?

        You call that Social Democracy?


        As for what camp that puts you in Camp UI “useful idiot” seems an excellent fit. I have heard that the facilities are sponsored by the Australian Bankers Association so there is that.

      • I’ve always been upfront about my priors as Old Keynesian / Tobinist.
        Whereas you (007) seem to jump around depending on the audience. Some days you want free banking, other days you want central banking and money financing of deficits. Some days you seem to want to abolish legal tender law, other days you argue for all broad money to be issued by the CB etc. etc. It can get very confusing. But the underlying premise that the system/ideology is fine we just need a technical, apolitical fix is very clear.

      • Thanks for proving my point again 007…

        Their is absolutely no evidence to support your claims, pure spurious conjecture, all based on the disagreement with your – one – pet theory, you don’t talk about anything else and attempt to make it the cornerstone to all other events – regardless of historical account.

        In fact you used to agree with me on many issues, it was only after taking you to task over your monetary preference and the ideology behind it, that you chucked a tanty. In fact you once stated on this board that “skippy and my views are largely the same” in response to questions about AMI [the science ™ of money – chortle].

        So at the end of the day, it all boils down to yours and fellow travelers preconception and desperate desire to control the monetary system… en fin. This is in complete denial that the currant system can deliver all the things talked about, except for the currant ideological capture of the political system e.g. congress.

        Disheveled… come on oo7, ellen brown, muskgrave, and the whole excessive moralization of the word debt [slavery], guess what, debt is like taxes, its a fundamental aspect of any society, I prefer a social democratic one with markets that uplift humanity and not cram it down for the jolly’s of a few or their feeble attempts a philanthropy [tax evasion and rent seeking].

      • Skippy,

        When it comes to neoliberalism we are still in broad agreement.

        What you and Sweeper are blind to is that a corrupted Corporate / State monopoly over money is simply fantastic for neoliberals. They get to dominate the economy with the ‘figleaf’ and protection of the state.

        Both of you try and hide behind the notional capacity of the state to regulate the partnership even though we have had decades demonstrating that it doesn’t work. The states regulation of the fused model has been completely captured.

        You keep telling us how that system of capture has operated across the rest of the economy but simply refuse to see it at work in banking.

        You insist the solution is the fantasy that the corporate/state model can be made to work.

        The answer is to give up and accept that a fused model IS the problem and we simply have to end the role of private banks with respect to public money.

        Let the state control public money and to avoid the problems that a complete monopoly might allow (your totalitarian concerns) you allow private organisations or individual to compete in the ‘money’ space by creating private forms of money whether they be bitcoins or even private IOUs.

        Its a mixed economy simply applied to money..

        You are the one trying to make the case that the fused model with a track record of dismal failure should be persisted with.

        100 years ago bankers were making the argument that the current model COULD work in the interests of the public.

        That you are still making their arguments for them despite the record of the last hundred years is remarkable.

        But keep it up as without you and Sweeper going into bat for the status quo I would have fewer opportunities to discuss how our banking and monetary system is a failure and requires fundamental reform .

        When Sweeper is endorsing the views of Jamie Dimon doesn’t that tell you something?

      • Only on bitcoin. And they are also endorsed by Varoufakis fyi who I know you are a fan of. So what does that say?

        And talking about private banks creating public money is a really problematic description.
        As pointed out endlessly, what they are issuing is promises to pay the states money on demand (like a heap of other promises that non banks issue) and these may or may not be accepted as means of exchange.
        The difference matters when you then start advocating free banking and abolishing legal tender law so that banks can actually issue their own money.

      • oo7…

        As sweeper clearly states, your all over the shop, logically inconsistent, recalcitrant on clearly stating your sides view by name, completely absent on corruption, and a cornucopia of other issues. In your book, all that has to be done is fix[????] the moeny problem and everything else can go on as usual, no human agency – the market – will automatically sort it out.

        This is coming from someone that offered the neoclassical quasi monetarist views of the RBA as backup…

        If you would just stop with the endless pettifoggery and clearly state your position by association, plus provide some means to evaluate how you arrive at your conclusions, out side your belief in such. Additionally once anyone challenges your perspective stop with the immediate vitriol, I stoop the level like I did with mig yonks ago, I can give as good as it comes thingy.

        disheveled… its like dealing with a grab bag of competing concepts pulled out of a hat, any actual evidence to support such claims are unnecessary.

      • Sweeper,

        There you go again.

        “..The difference matters when you then start advocating free banking and abolishing legal tender law so that banks can actually issue their own money…”

        More standard Sweeper nonsense. Skippy thinks I want the government to control ALL money and you think I don’t want the state to control any money.

        You are not helping your defence of the banking status quo with such dumb arguments.

        Here is a tip for both of you.

        If you want to support a Corporate / State monopoly model of money despite its woeful track record you need to walk us through exactly how you plan to rebuild an effective model of regulation – both the specific regulations and how you would build political support for the changes.

        Unless you can do that you are just conceding that there is nothing that can be done.

        Skippy will find this particularly difficult given his miserable, dystopian view that everyone is hopelessly brainwashed – apart from him of course.

        The reason I concluded that splitting the fused model was the only alternative was because I could not see how a functional fused model could be rebuilt. As long the bankers have the privilege attached to their licence they would always be pushing for less regulation and gaming of the fused model.

        If you can make a convincing case for fixing the broken fused model I am all ears but to date you and Skippy have not even bothered to get out of bed.

        Which is why I think it is fair to conclude that both of you actually don’t mind the current dysfunctional state of affairs.

      • Skippy,

        Rather than just spraying nonsense why don’t you actually make the case I have invited you to make.

        As far as I can tell you don’t actually dispute my assessment that the current banking and monetary model is corrupted and dysfunctional.

        Yet when it comes to fixing it you and Sweeper have nothing to say at all.

        Just a bunch of boring old links about the fall of Rome and claims that things were better back in the day.

        Its your preferred model so why don’t you explain how to fix it , if more fundamental reform is too much for you.

      • Which part? You have advocated that banks be allowed to issue their own private money. Have you not? How are they meant to do this legally unless you abolish the legal tender law?

      • oo7….

        I never said government controlled, I said controlled by your camps hand pick board of governors, which are not responsive to the democratic process aka totalitarian. The government actually controls soverign money, has for yonks, tho neoliberalism having become dominate means the majority of those in control are pro corporatist, ill informed, or are quite happy with the state of things [contrary to what is said in public].

        I also should point out the fallacy of composition that you make by automatically ascribing being not in your camp as being pro bankster, quite the opposite, per Hudson / MMT et al, government does not even need to issue bonds. Hangover from the gold – hard money standard to smooth out things, and free gravy for the elite.

        Disheveled…. maybe Yanis can help May with negotiations…. attempt to use tech to run around a political problem [contracts] not a money problem. Seems you hanker for a trade shock, why, I have no clue… the result is the same every time.

      • Phil…

        Your school boy antics actually are a disservice to your cause, makes you look sophomoric and by association your camp.

        disheveled… there is zilch means to evaluate how you arrive at your conclusions, seems a feature and not a bug of your camp.

      • Sweeper,

        The legal tender laws? What are you talking about?

        Have you read them?


        Section 36 Notes to be legal tender
        (1) Australian notes are a legal tender throughout Australia.
        (2) For the purposes of subsection (1), an Australian note of a denomination specified in the first column of the following table has the value in the currency provided for by the Currency Act 1965 that is set out in the second column of that table opposite to the denomination of that note:

        Withdrawing the bankers current privileges and leaving them to intermediate public money OR create their own has no impact on the legal tender laws.

        Unless of course you thought that I had in mind to make the new private bank notes legal tender?

        Not in a million years!

        Why on earth would I want to do that.

        The new private bank bank notes would have no status beyond that which people we were wiling to give them. If people trust the Westpac bank to honour its notes then they may well be willing to accept them in trade and commerce.

        Chances are though that if given the choice they will simply say “Give me some real legal tender – some Australian Dollars, I am not interested in Westpac Wozza”

        In some countries a Westpac Wozza might be preferred – for example in countries where the state was incompetent and managed its money badly. Robert Mugabe for example.

        In other words private bank notes would be just like crypto currencies except on thin slices of wood pulp.

        I don’t think you really have thought about what I am proposing.

        If you spent less time trying to make up soft imaginary targets and actually engaged with the point i am making we might start making some progress.

      • oo7…

        Again we have hard data on your theory and how it plays out in the actual world, not to be confused with the rational agent free market one that some use as a base line. That you would attempt to repeat the experiment with a tweak or two is irrespective of the massive amount of social and capital destruction that results. You seem quite fine with that eventuality, something IMO Hudson would not agree with. You seem to want your cake and eat it too, allow laissez faire market agency [blows up everytime] and then believe by administering soverign money under the auspices of your camp that somehow you’ll provide some sort of fire wall to stop contagion.

        This is in complete refusal to understand or acknowledge that the so called free banking is why in large part the Fed and CBs were created in the first place, then some mob thought stripping out all the things that held back such manias and unethical behavior was a smart idea – sorta like raygun and pubic psychiatric care, just increase the private prison industry and problem fixed. Its just you can never let them leave again once they are institutionalized.

        disheveled…. really don’t understand why you just can’t come out an honestly forward your camps entire socioeconomic preference and fixate on money crankery…. I mean outside of your quasi private – public theory about money creation its pretty much straight out of the peterson, cato, heritage play book.

      • How is it money then?
        What you are proposing is just being made up on the fly. Let’s be honest.
        I’ve asked you a heap of specific questions. What’s the settlement medium/medium of account? gold or CB money? is the non legal tender private “money” redeemable on demand? Into what? Do the banks redeem each other’s notes? Why will this prevent credit boom and bust? Why won’t banks over issue to gain market share? Never get an answer.

      • @Sweeper…

        As far as can tell its just a gimmick to enable unfettered free agent market capitalism, new same as the old with improved PR – the banksters made us do it.

        Sadly I cant reconcile their input which enabled so much poorly issued credit, by issuers in the first bloody place, especially bundling risk, booking profit and offloading the long tail risk on the public at large. This had absolutely nothing to do with the monetary system, tho the liquidity moment it gave birth too did necessitate injections and ending aggressive shorts.

        Disheveled…. it does seem like a last gasp attempt to let her rip and then – ????? – not that for a moment I think such a poorly thought out project would ever be realized, its just another utopia around the corner, that it is not here yet is those ev’bal commies and socialists in the road, drowning liberty and freedom in the tub….

      • Sweeper and Skipster

        “..How is it money then?..”

        You guys are hopeless.

        One minute you trying to argue that the banks don’t create an effective equivalent to public money in response to my criticism that they should not be granted a role in the public money system.

        The next minute when I say that I am happy to give them plenty of freedom to make their own “Not public money money” you start squealing that it would not then be money.

        Make your minds up!

        As for Skippy’s increasingly desperate references to 19th century banking and how woeful it was. Well guess what brainiacs that is exactly why I am not proposing Free Banking.

        You guys brought up Scottish banking and Free banking because you thought it sounded good.

        “Hey we can’t respond to the criticism of a Corporate / State monopoly so why not say that pfh007 supports Free Banking”


        The point that clearly eludes you is that when those banks were running wild we did not HAVE public central banks that were capable of delivering a public alternative.

        Commonwealth Bank of Australia – predecessor of RBA – circa 1913

        Bank of England – private until nationalised in 1943

        Federal Reserve – 1915 – or something like that – and it still isn’t fully public.

        We now have everything we need for a fully public monetary system option with a private option for those want a private option as well.

        Including the most important bit – a fundamentally disgraced corporate / state model with a track record of failure.

        Yet you guys don’t want it

        I am starting to realise you don’t actually understand what you are talking about and are simply arguing for the defunct old system because you haven’t a clue what a monetary system might look like with a fully public option AND a variety of private options.

      • oo7…

        Your antics aside, we have public money right now and have had for a considerable time, its called the federal budget, which has noting to do with taxation or private bank credit creation. Now if you take issue with the way corporatists and their enablers have carried on one would think you should deal with it and stop deflecting from the core issues – your quips about finding sage people to regulate when that is the very proposal you make with your monetary governance. This is the same rhetorical gaming you resorted to wrt UBI, until I unpacked all the nastys most don’t know about, voting rights i.e. modern proponents opinions and its authors track records.

        I completely disagree with your framing of the whole topic, that you – insist – that the debate has to take place in your preferred framing is a tell imo. You endlessly attempt to hand wave away anything which does not suit that framing or actually refutes it. Its an epic case of trying to perfect an inaccurate proof without reconciling any data that does not suit its agenda, arbitrarily dismissed. I really don’t know how many ways you can say the same thing, but try to make it something its not. So much for our past talk about numerology and philosophy becoming incoherent, not that the philosophy underpinning the numerology I was talking about was incoherent from the start, it was just a marketing bit of PR to start with.

        We actually have tools these days to quantify such and then inform on how to go about it, see Black.

        disheveled…. I don’t confuse a corruption problem enabled by wonky philosophizers as a soverign money problem oo7… your focus is on the output and not the underlining bases to it all….

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        FK me dead,…are you guys still at eachother!

        Keep up the good work boys,…it’s very entertaining,… and informative!

      • drsmithy….

        So your going to play the uplike game without showing your work too – ?????

        I mean you are aware Phil’s camp is just a PR front right, oo7 still does not understand neoliberalism and whence it came, nor how the system actually works [bit of a mishmash of commodity money theory and various grades of monetarism]. His camps one and only gambit is to concoct a whole new terminology based on some notion of public vs private money wrapped around various AET and neoclassical belifes e.g. IS-LM, rational agent models, self evident freedoms and rights [proclamations]. He never really delves into the heterodox or historical examples which clearly show the agency behind it all and the end results.

        Conversely –

        William K. Black
        September 26, 2017 Kansas City, MO

        UMKC has just hosted a well-attended conference on Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and job guarantee (JG) programs in which the federal government would provide the funds for employer of last resort programs. In conjunction, MMT and JG allow full employment to become the norm. MMT is based on reality, it explains how the monetary system in a nation with a sovereign currency actually functions. Most monetary theory taught in conventional economic classes is a fiction arising from carryovers from the era of the gold standard in which nations lacked a sovereign currency.

        Jared Bernstein has just published an op ed in the New York Times entitled “Do Republicans Really Care About the Deficit.” Republican elites, of course, have not really cared about federal budget deficits for decades. That is a good thing that Democrats should embrace in a bipartisan spirit. Bernstein, of course, is correct that the Republicans are hypocrites about federal budget deficits, pretending to care about them when the Democrats hold power and displaying their lack of any real care when Republicans hold power and the context is tax cuts for the wealthy.

        Democrats display a similar hypocrisy. Even Democrats like Bernstein who know that the Republicans proposed expansion of the federal budget deficit through tax cuts is not a real economic problem are primed to attack Republican hypocrisy by falsely asserting that the Republican deficits would harm the Nation. Democrats should embrace honesty as the best policy and stop embracing the politically attractive pose of claiming to be the Party that “really cares” about the federal budget deficit. That politically attractive pose is not simply dishonest and financially illiterate, it is also a trap.

        The Republican and New Democrat deficit strategy is to force Democrats to make an endless series of “Sophie’s choices.” Choose which excellent program to kill in order to save (temporarily) another from the chopping block because we supposedly cannot afford to provide both. Then repeat the process. The Republicans and New Democrats constantly, and falsely, claim that the federal government cannot afford to provide medical care availability that is routinely provided in most of Europe and Canada. It is a pure myth that the United States cannot afford to provide the safety net of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.

        We need to start with first principles. In a nation with a sovereign currency like the United States, federal tax revenues do not fund federal expenditures. If that sentence, which is indisputably correct, strikes you as bizarre then it is a measure of the force of the propaganda you have been fed throughout your life. Today would be an excellent day to free yourself from the hold of that destructive lie. This web site, the Levy Institute, and Bill Mitchell’s sites all have excellent resources that will help you clear out the falsehoods about money that you were force fed. Money cannot be “scarce” for a nation with a sovereign currency. Real resources can be scarce, not a nation’s sovereign currency. – snip


        disheveled…. umm…. oo7’s make believe world or the real one that Bill Black unpacks….

      • Skippy,

        “…Your antics aside, we have public money right now and have had for a considerable time, its called the federal budget, which has noting to do with taxation or private bank credit creation..”

        Skippy that is exactly what I am saying you are saying.

        Very very telling that you think fiscal policy has been the only public ‘monetary’ game in town for some considerable time.

        Nothing to do with private bank credit creation… we just need to talk about fiscal policy.

        Look over there ……squirrel.

        Anna Bligh could not say it better herself.

        As you insist you are not a stooge of FIRE that leaves only one conclusion.

        You don’t know what you are talking about.

      • I love how Phil starts the whole ruckus and then proceeds to put his feet up, popcorn in hand lol!

      • oo7….

        I understand your entire time spent on this blog, as well as your own, that’s in context and not individual comments which change with the wind.

        It does not square with the information MMT or the likes of Black, et al. Just the opposite and I have linked directly to the source, your past quips about the american model aside, its the same, only as reserve the US has to run deficits in the long run. Which gets back to your fundamental argument about having to change the administration of the monetary system to your model of governance and the rest is a free for all. This is not what PK, MMT, or the likes of Black propose.

        We firstly want to end the forced un-under employment as the result of NIARU, secondly restore the rights labour fought for and won [human dignity], end the looting w/ enforcement of the laws on the books, end the tax evasion and arb used to beggar state vs state, restore common pool resources to there rightful owners – citizens present and future, clean up the mess created by failure to mitigate environmental externalities in the name of short term profit [more looting], end TBTF monopolies [economy of scale arguments that are crushed under their own weight (especially when so big even the executives don’t have a clue whats going on)] – tis a short list…

        Oh yeah… your plan is to fix public money by making it really public[?????] but all the rest is good to go – ????? Phew that’s some epic logic oo7, still waiting to see how your suggestion actually works out as intended, considering it does nothing to redress what neoliberalism has wrought.

        Disheveled… we actually have a comprehensive plan, based on operational reality and not some deductive exercise where money crankery is the bottom line and then stand back and let the good times roll.

        PS you just seem to have this bizarre notion that competition will fix everything as long as the status of money is according to your camps want.

      • @Brenton

        Its a common tactic by some, drag the debate off into the bushes or distract from it, adds no substance to any of it. Its also a common dialectic style used by some camps in an attempt to establish some sort of unwarranted authority, blithely state others don’t know what their talking about, repetitive statements or oversimplifications which by saying over and over again somehow makes it truth or fact. Especially the bit about trying to make out oo7, by the will of phil’s endearment, some how quantifies oo7 as an “authority” on anything. All we have is oo7 word on everything without any means to evaluate its origins, oh we do know of entanglements with AMI, affiliation with the likes of Brown and Musgrave, but nary a word on his core economic underpinnings. He steers well clear of owning that, might open up some cracks with the rest of his shtick. where as sweeper and myself have been quite clear about that.

        What do you think is the reason for oo7 to keep everyone in the dark about such common matters, be earnest about it, yet all everyone gets is the endless dancing around the money crankery may pole.

        On the other hand –

        In the concluding paragraphs, MMT—and the fact that taxes do not fund federal spending—is admirably broad-brushed by Steve Grunbine of Real Progressives, who was an active attendee at the conference. An LA Times op-ed by Stephanie Kelton, titled “Congress can give every American a pony (if we breed enough ponies)” is also prominently discussed. The upshot of the explanations is that “the only obstacle” to implementing the expensive goals of the progressive platform—e.g. Medicare for all, free College tuition, a Job Guarantee—becomes simply an issue of “politics, not economics or ‘how to pay for it.’”

        This, it seems to me, is a crucial moment for the MMT community. Not only has a historically fragmented progressive movement apparently begun to coalesce into a unified voice, but that voice—of necessity, I believe—has actually begun the difficult process of convincingly explaining the workings of modern fiat money to the political mainstream. This is something even Bernie Sanders never attempted to do, even though he had one of the most competent personal coaches for the doing of it in Prof. Kelton. The reality is, the understanding of modern fiat money is what will make the progressive agenda ultimately work—and as that realization and understanding spreads, it should dramatically strengthen and empower the progressive alliance on many fronts. – snip



        Empirical tests of the existence or not of a crowding out effect have also been quite extensive and are again inconclusive. Following the theory, one would expect that a higher fiscal deficit would lead to a higher natural rate and so a higher nominal interest rate, and that if the fiscal position moves toward a surplus interest rates would fall. Figure 21.6 shows that, for the United States, a relationship between nominal interest rate and the fiscal position of the government is very weak to inexistent. Figure 21.7 shows a similar lack of relationship if one takes estimates of the natural rate of interest. In the end, for the United States, one cannot conclude that a fiscal deficit will lead to higher interest rates. Post 6 provides an explanation of why: the Federal Reserve System and Treasury work hand in hand to ensure that fiscal operations have no, to very limited, impacts on interest rates. This is a feature of monetarily sovereign countries. – snip


        disheveled…. and again, what has oo7s camp have on offer, oh yeah, making public money more public by installing a non democratic board of ridged ideologues that have deductively surmised the “Science of Money”…. Truth ™ is revealed for all….

      • Marvellous!

        Only Skippy could whinge about ‘calls to authority’ while doing exactly that with a grab bag of irrelevant cut and pastes.

        None of this is particularly complicated. The issues being debated are straight forward.

        I asked you and Sweeper to make the case for sticking with the broken corporate / state monetary model and you can’t.

        Instead we get cut and paste, strawmen and enough gobbledygook to spack fill the grand canyon.

        That it is the long and short of it.

        Thank you linesmen thank you ball boys.

      • oo7….

        Never made claims to authority – “Only Skippy could whinge about ‘calls to authority’ while doing exactly that with a grab bag of irrelevant cut and pastes.”

        I would like to see how you arrive at irrelevant cuts and pastes, seems not everyone shares your opinion oo7, but whilst were at it Black is an expert authority with in his field and the fact that he put over a thousand financial fraud crims in jail cleaning up the S&L debacle and pissing off some very influential senators (Keating 5) would seem to be the kinda bloke you would embrace. Not to mention his book – The Best Way to Rob a Bank is to Own One: How Corporate Executives and Politicians Looted the S&L Industry.

        See that’s another logical error you’ve created for yourself, you can’t bang on about ev’bal banks but yet give short shrift to the one guy who actual did something about it through rigorous examination and evidence based argument through due lawful process. You on the other hand want to play theoretical bingo with the monetary system and let everything else go through the “natural” market wash cycle, consequences be dammed.

        disheveled…. when your ready to actually discuss the information and prospective offered in the links we can have an informed discussion, especially the IR one.

      • Skippy,

        A link to Black would be relevant to your argument if the link said that Black endorsed the current Corporate / State monetary monopoly model that you and Sweeper love so much.

        But it did not say that.

        Bill Black has done a top job demonstrating that YOUR Corporate / State monopoiy model is not fit for purpose by rooting out flocks of the crooks and frauds who make private banking their home.

        Give us the links where Bill Black says he loves the Corporate / State monetary model as much as you and Sweeper do.

        Not fit for purpose is exactly what Hudson says in that link you served up on the weekend – which I had already read.


        As pointed out to you yesterday this does not sound like you or Sweeper

        “……. The past century has shown that if society does not control the banks and financial sector, they will control society. Their strategy is to block government money creation so that economies will be forced to rely on banks and bondholders. Regulatory authority to limit such financial aggression and the monopoly pricing and rent extraction it supports has been crippled in the West by “regulatory capture” by the rentier oligarchy.”

        Funny thing is back in the day when I pointed out that Hudson has no time for the current role of private banks in the monetary system you threw him under the bus because MMT at the time was as silent about private bank credit creation as neoclassical economics..

        Now you just ignore what he is trying to tell you.

        The Corporate / State monetary model is a stinker.

      • 007,
        You haven’t added any flesh to the bones of your rapidly evolving positions. I asked specific questions. No answer.
        You didn’t even have a guess on who authored that passage. Just have a guess. What’s there too lose? I’m guessing you won’t answer that either.
        You can’t set out how your multi-money world is meant to work why greshem’s law doesn’t apply in the 007verse. What the settlement medium is.
        It’s getting a bit frustrating.
        Skippy is right about your private money thing (Westpac wacko’s etc.) is just a gimmick (like bitcoin)
        Your point about the history of central banking is way off.
        The Bank of England has been the government’s financier / banker since royal charter in the 17th century. Bank notes have financed *government* spending since day 0. Formal ownership is irrelevant. They became the sole CB with the *governments* approval and at times had to bailout the free banks in Scotland. Because free banking is unstable (like bitcoin)

        “Federal Reserve – 1915 – or something like that – and it still isn’t fully public”.

        Yes it is. All seigniorage except a small fixed dividend goes to Treasury. Only Treasury can recapitalise the Fed. The governing body (board of governors) is nominated by the executive and confirmed by congress. The has been a long history of government chartered banks issuing either paper or hard state money going back to the 18th century.

        “The point that clearly eludes you is that when those banks were running wild we did not HAVE public central banks that were capable of delivering a public alternative”.

        Wrong. There were state chartered banks including the Bank of England who periodically bailed out and backed the rubbish you’re preferred model produced.

        You seem to have several positions on rotation (depending on the audience), which all advocate technical, apolitical fixes to one component of a social/political problem. All are high on jargon and camouflage and lacking in substance. It’s wrong in theory and practice as well.


        You don’t seem to get that public v private control and oversight over banking (be it in the form of ownership or regulation) is far more significant than whether some banks can create liabilities which serve as means of exchange payable in the states money (in shrinking proportion).
        Or that a hard money (deflationist) v paper (countercyclical) monetary bias is far more significant than whether some banks can create liabilities which serve as means of exchange payable in the states money (in shrinking proportion).
        Because both of the above reflect a tug of war of power. And the same plumbing has produced totally different results at different periods depending on the politics. And pretending there is a technical, apolitical fix to something which is about politics is fundamentally ignorant and straight from the Austrian song sheet imo.

      • oo7…

        What part did you miss about Black being a key NEP member that escapes you, that includes MMT.

      • New Economic Perspectives – Dedicated to modern money theory …

        Dedicated to modern money theory (MMT) and policies to promote financial stability and the attainment of full employment.

        MMT Primer

        The posts from the MMT Primer series have been collected and…

        About. This website offers policy advice and economic…
        William K. Black

        NEP’S Bill Black appears on The Real News Network and says…

        Money & Banking

        Money & Banking. The following posts and textbook were…
        Stephanie Kelton

        ~Stephanie Kelton. *Podcast audio starts garbled but quickly…
        L. Randall Wray

        Steve Grumbine talks with NEP’s L. Randall Wray for Real …

        What part of that search header do you fail to grasp oo7, Black is one of the original member’s of NEP, he even joined Occupy, the drama is he is pedantic about the devil in the details and does not go off half cocked on some ill informed view or purist ideological band wagon. You are aware that in the past with miggie I pinged Bill and he popped by pointing out Milgram wrt miggies views on individual agency, miggie just blew him off arbitrarily with some rudimentary closed system philosophy.

        Disheveled… I wonder how many cognitive contortions and mental gymnastics you think you can create out of whole cloth and still lay claim to any resemblance of cohesive formal logic. I mean menger could not even finish his last book, with help, too many internal contradictions, that’s what happens when you fall into the narrative, especially one with no attachment to the actual world or the people that inhabit it.

  9. Jacinda Ardern is also fake left – true neoliberal who just happen to believe that neoliberalism was pushed too hard too quickly so that it faces danger.
    Her major goal is to make sure neoliberalism doesn’t fail, and if the cost for that is giving few poor people a bit of bread that’s fine. It’s only important that the system survives.

    • It;s a fair point. I guess it depends where you think Left genuinely begins. She is genuine centre-Left at least. The crucial distinction being she Recognises class struggle. As opposed to our mob of rent-seekers.

      • I’d put in a strong favourable word for Phil Twyford, who has been the Housing spokesman for years. He is one of the most genuine intellectually curious people possible, with a massive thirst for knowledge and understanding of the topic. Total contrast to Nick Smith and the National “free market right wingers in name only”.

        Twyford is responsible for proposed legislative amendments on two occasions, voted against by National both times, that would have abolished urban growth boundaries and made ex-fringe growth self-funding in its infrastructure requirements. I believe that some National backbenchers found this deeply distasteful, and that they were whipped into voting for perpetuating a deeply immoral and unenlightened status quo.

  10. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    “All three should be screaming the Ardern success and agenda from the rooftops.

    Jess Irvine’s failure explains why they’ are not. Her dumb recycling of Treasury rubbish aims to hide how bad things are for Aussie workers rather than address it. ”

    I’ve been surprised at the lack of coverage of Jeremy Corbyn and Labours leftward swing there, very little from our Media,.. ridiculous amounts of Tabling Trumps embarrassing foot in mouth gaffs though.

    Our left party and the establishment media that support it, like in the US, are almost hopelessly infected with Ambitious, Careeist Apparatchiks of Plutocracy.
    A Proffessional Class completely removed from the Working class experience.


    Working People need to take back their Party!


    • Ermo, wise up. As SJW revolutionised plumbing AI robotics is going to put the scythe through general working occupations.
      40% soon to be on the street and they will all wonder how they arrived there.
      (they arrived there mostly cos they dropped the ball) the ever increasing no of poor will always be with us.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Happy with the reintroduction of Feudalism, so long as your not one of the serfs,…eh Wiley?

      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        Wiley, Agreed but the white collar will feel it worse as anything that can be put though a wire can be done somewhere or somehow else, eg architects will lose their jobs but hands on builders won’t.even with robotic brick layers.

      • Boom, correct, maintenance is the go, but then you ahve to deal with the public, like ermo’s trips to unnings cos the owner wanted to help out. Me>>>I’m cured on the public.
        Old business axiom, the closer your business model is to the public, the more drame you will have.
        and today where everyone is an expert cos of the Iphone, it even worse.
        Equitie S Mate that is the go.

      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        Thanks for the tip( maintenance is the go) but when the last time you went to a mechanic, they just plug it into a computer which tells them what to do. so anyone off the street can now fix it as you referred to with the Iphone. I have been repairing a few CNC machines lately but it won’t be long before robots will fix the robots.

      • Boom where are you based?
        I have some CNC work coming up, but I’m also workng weekends to change the design to use 3d printed parts
        the easy maintenance go here is air-conditioners, evaps and condensers and then mostly just the coils of same
        2 yrs sees out the fins. MAssive issue, most of the old highrise use individual ac, and they mostly are rooted.

      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        Based in Brookvale Sydney and factory Central Coast. Have been repairing other peoples CNCs, have only manual machines myself. Around the corner to get my 3d printing done. Robots are not the sole threat, years ago made a machine for the Uni of NSW for production of the worlds first bionic eye but heard nothing since. Maybe stem cell research killed it.

      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        Unfortunately, the thinner the fins or the thinner the walls of any heat exchanger the more effective but the shorter the life span.and 316 stainless doesn’t transfer heat as well as copper or alum.

      • Going rogue air conditioning repairman Harry Tuttle… eh… ref movie Brazil….

        Ahem…. do you have a “27B/C” – ????

        Anywho…. “Gilliam’s stifling Expressionism hammers home a world overly obsessed with the convenience of technology to the point where agency is handed over to it.”

        Disheveled… will you have one of those cool flying fox getaway zip lines and go all commando…. I’d pay good money just to watch… JK

      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        Just reminded me of working ( 1970’s) with the fridgies at Kailis prawn trawlers Fremantle making FDC’s etc, the boss was a real A/H. The apprentice did a beaut job and he (boss) came and tangled it all up saying no one can see it in the cabinet anyhow. Rumor had it that he only had one arm because up north they threw him into a fish chopper. Stories were that up north if a new hand wasn’t up to it they wouldn’t have to pay them just throw him/her overboard.
        Skip made a flying fox for St Pauls school once, way too heavy but didn’t want to get sued.

      • BE, I picked up my fridge ticket from the south perth TC, when i was engineer on the BP refinery expansion at Kwinana
        the highlight of going to night school was that I could get a mcdonalds, at the first one in wa.
        Havent times changed.

      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        Wiley, had a girlfriend in the sixties that worked at BP Kwinana, I went to do a shutdown early eighties I think( can’t remember exactly) but the hundreds of employees had been replaced by automation. I was taking the tube cut off’s out of the 2M dia heat exchanger end plates with a punch and a large sledge hammer. You guessed it the punch hit me between the eyes, out cold Iwas.

  11. Irvine just repeats the Treasury/RBA dross so she can keep good relations and access the officials for the next article…
    That’s how journalism works!
    Another lackey like that is Tim Dodd in the AFR. He just regurgitates Ministerial media releases so he can get exclusive access to the Minister’s press office

  12. And now watch the elite destroys NZ and complacent msm blaming the NZ government policy. It has been tried in the past and it never worked. We can go all the way back to the French revolution and it always ends into same outcome.

    • rob barrattMEMBER

      Ah yes, the Revolution. A few extracts from one of my tomes:
      “Assessing the final impact of the Revolution on the ordinary people of France is a difficult task. The period that began with universal hopes ended with the dominance of a new elite….”
      ”it’s (the Revolution’s) meaning and course had been taken from them by successive waves of leaders confident in their own misguided rectitude..”
      ”Of the 16,594 death sentences meted out across France during that period, less than 9% came from the ranks of the nobility”. So much for tumbrils full of mill owners…
      Every time I hear the phrase Political Correctness and witness the virtue signalling of the so-called Left it reminds me of the above… Viva Venezuela!
      Plus que ça change…
      Only 3 rules:
      1. Do it yourself, the polies aren’t in it to help you, they’re there for themselves;
      2. Harass polies endlessly;
      3. Change them frequently, for the same reason you change your underwear.

  13. It might be due to the fact that there is no such thing as free markets, its an oxymoron, see DeSoto et al. There are markets, which are the result of laws, which are informed by government, now what information the majority of government is beholden too, is another thing all together. We know that since the mid 70s that has been neoliberalism and its attendant neoclassical and AET dogma, which at the end of the day has been a relentless right wing ideological march with ratchet like effect e.g. –

    The main points of neo-liberalism include:

    THE RULE OF THE MARKET. Liberating “free” enterprise or private enterprise from any bonds imposed by the government (the state) no matter how much social damage this causes. Greater openness to international trade and investment, as in NAFTA. Reduce wages by de-unionizing workers and eliminating workers’ rights that had been won over many years of struggle. No more price controls. All in all, total freedom of movement for capital, goods and services. To convince us this is good for us, they say “an unregulated market is the best way to increase economic growth, which will ultimately benefit everyone.” It’s like Reagan’s “supply-side” and “trickle-down” economics — but somehow the wealth didn’t trickle down very much.

    CUTTING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE FOR SOCIAL SERVICES like education and health care. REDUCING THE SAFETY-NET FOR THE POOR, and even maintenance of roads, bridges, water supply — again in the name of reducing government’s role. Of course, they don’t oppose government subsidies and tax benefits for business.

    DEREGULATION. Reduce government regulation of everything that could diminsh profits, including protecting the environmentand safety on the job.

    PRIVATIZATION. Sell state-owned enterprises, goods and services to private investors. This includes banks, key industries, railroads, toll highways, electricity, schools, hospitals and even fresh water. Although usually done in the name of greater efficiency, which is often needed, privatization has mainly had the effect of concentrating wealth even more in a few hands and making the public pay even more for its needs.

    ELIMINATING THE CONCEPT OF “THE PUBLIC GOOD” or “COMMUNITY” and replacing it with “individual responsibility.” Pressuring the poorest people in a society to find solutions to their lack of health care, education and social security all by themselves — then blaming them, if they fail, as “lazy.”

    Phil that you and your compatriots, have the cheek, when the change in perspectives to your camps views, during the said period of time, now attempt to white wash it away and lay claim to some sort of ownership, too the new burgeoning reality, is so ethically challenged one does not know were to start. Who do you think enabled all the rentier capitalism, argued against anti trust, enable the revolving door, enabled endemic corruption, extolled the virtues of egregious wealth concentration, forwarded the rule of unfettered capital movement, and last but not least is responsible for the FIRE sector template.

    Good grief… sweeper pointed out in weekend links the face slap to the Friedmanites wrt NZ CB policy, contrary to oo7 hand wringing about nationalizing banks, not to mention Hughs years of barracking for Key et al. This is in full acknowledgement that just pre GFC, that key AET operatives were in the EU running consortium’s stocked with people in positions of authority in both the public and private spheres, extolling the successes of neoliberalism and the – self evident – success of its attendees and their obvious right to be in control of society. Since post GFC it been one massive CYA exercise w/ externalizing all failures on scapegoats i.e. the government, boomers, central banks, even to the point of eating your own e.g. Raygun, Bush, Greensplain, Farge, Key, et al, as unclean and unpure believers…. FFS your camp thought Obama was socialist commie, cheered the crack down on Occupy, or anyone or thing else that threatened your camps carefully concocted narrative.

    disheveled… Really enjoyed your last ripostes to the last comment you replied too wrt, circumstances in Florida, Texas, PR, – LIES[!!!!] – mate I remember that dialectical response from the dark days on FB economic sites. Zero intellectual honesty, ethics, or any semblance of morality, its all about keeping the faith…. barf~~~~~~~

    I just can’t wait for your camp to attempt to hitch a ride on Sanders or Corbyns groups like your trying to now with NZ labour.

      • Austrian economic theory aka the Von Mises camp, not that they have splintered off into about 4 different camps now [shades of religious camps thingy], some have even attempted to utilize old post Keynesian theories and dress them up as AET original product. Same thing as I describe above with attempting to insert themselves into the new sociopolitical landscape, these were the same mob that got traction from the establishment of FEE, which at the end of the day was a corporatist funded PR front. The entire purpose of which was to roll back all the gains labour had made post great depression during the FDR to Eisenhower period and return America to some ideological based sense of past greatness.

        Thing is now after all their econnomic models, whether metaphysical or wrapped in bastardized science i.e. EMH, QTM, Says Law, half of what Rothbard bangs on about, prescriptive [quasi religious dogma] and not descriptive [multidisciplinary comprehensive observation] attempts at human behavior in order to establish baselines as a means fleshout society or the physical world we live in.

        At the end of the day all they care about and are quite paranoid about is some vague concept of liberty and freedom, as extenuated from antiquity, and the fear that democracy – always – ends in totalitarianism, functional informed democracy aside.

        Disheveled… this is highlighted by Phil [and fellow travelers] clumsy attempts to smear MB or some of its commenters by insinuating that past beliefs in their dominance, wrt information presented here at MB, and the decline in that groups perspective is some how a grand conspiracy against them.

    • And you don’t see any role for government preventing, rather than enabling, monopolies and oligopolies by crony capitalists such as urban land rentiers?

      Your criticism of the modern day racket has a lot of truth in it, but you are one confused puppy on the above important point.

      For example I am the first to agree that a lot of “privatisation” has been bad – precisely because politicians sold monopoly enterprises AS ongoing monopolies. If they were going to represent the general interest, they should have created a free market – but then their publicly owned monopoly would have been worth a lot less to sell.

      And anyone who sees regulatory rationing of land supply for urban growth, as part of an over-arching problem of “too much deregulation”, is incoherent.

      Instead of focusing on “deregulation versus regulation” – a blind ideological framework – how about considering “does XYZ policy benefit rentiers or not”? The fact that rentier capitalists are sold a going monopoly, is not an argument that privatisation is evil, it is an argument that failure to allow competition is evil. If imports are subjected to quotas “to protect local manufacturing” and consumers end up paying ten times too much for an inferior product that has no competition, who benefits? Even if workforces are getting to shake the protected industry down for lavish payouts, this is a zero-sum game against the general interest.

      I am not “anti government”, I see a role for government in keeping free markets going to the benefit of the general interest, and utilising private sector efficiencies in the general interest, even if the bill is paid by government. Roger Douglas won the argument in the Labour Caucus in his day because he was formidably armed with the “cost” realities and the long term trend realities of a national economy imploding under its own inefficiencies. NZ could have been the first Anglo Venezuela.

      • “Roger Douglas won the argument in the Labour Caucus in his day because he was formidably armed with the “cost” realities and the long term trend realities of a national economy imploding under its own inefficiencies. NZ could have been the first Anglo Venezuela”.

        I’ve heard this stuff so many times.
        We were going to become Venezuela! Venezuela!
        And the way to avoid it is:
        Drown the local population in debt, explode the current account deficit, climb net foreign debt, reduce productivity to the bottom/avg. of the OECD, increase inequality, sell off foreign assets.
        Yeh do all that and we won’t become Venezuela..
        But developers did well didn’t they Phil?

      • “Developers”? What are you on about? What about “incumbent land owners”? Only the most benighted, slope-browed lefty useful idiot constantly goes on about the former and never mentions the latter, rather making excuses for the racket.

        In your ideal world no-one would even have houses to live in because you’d have hung everyone who actually builds anything! Or at the very least taxed them to death.

        Do you hate every free market that brings food, clothing and essential items with consumer surplus in them rather than economic rent; and do you hate the producers and suppliers in those markets? Housing being affordable or not is nothing to do with “the developers”, they are just links in the chain between the resource owners and the ultimate consumers. In so far as any “developer” is a deliberate land banker and profiteer, I condemn them as such, but the very term “developer” means “building stuff”. The real crooks will have got out of development altogether to concentrate on land banking and specufesting. Building stuff is a mugs game in comparison.

      • Phil…

        Every time you utter – free market – a synapses dies, not even Adam Smith would agree with your opinions on what constitutes a functioning market or its relationship with society. You must also reconcile that all the dysfunction in the market and society is a direct result of the decades under the missive some call free markets, especially the rentier problem that has grown like a cancer during said period of time.

        BTW I already showed Hugh mob is an ideological think tank for the developer lobby, shades of Milton’s old antics imo…

      • You guys don’t address my argument at all, all you do is give me a whole lot of lefty jargon-laden rhetoric that is unrelated to the point I am making. Say there was a banana republic with a problem with gougingly high food prices, and the food was produced by serfs who leased the land from a landed gentry, and the lease charges socked in to the serfs was constantly being jacked up, hence the high food prices – while the serfs were doing it tough and even folding and quitting the land altogether.

        I would say something needed to be done about the landed gentry and their connections in the government but you guys would say I am a “neoliberal” and it is those evil serfs who have to be “taxed to death”.

        You object to me using Venezuela as an exhibit against you, but your thinking is close ideological kin to that of Latin American slope-brows like Chavez.

      • The population was NOT being “drowned in debt” by any stretch at all UNTIL your urban land rationing policies became fashionable 2 decades AFTER Roger Douglas. Median multiples were consistently around 3, with mortgages commensurately modest. Even when it comes to public debt, the Roger Douglas era was marked by paying this off.

        You’re just thrashing around making stuff up.

      • @Phil…

        That you trot out the tired old leftie label right off the bat just shows how programmed you are, irretrievable stakes in the ground. I have made myself clear that first and foremost I’m a capitalist, albeit one that forwards it to be responsive to social democratic governance vs corporatist influence and bribery.

        How you conflate that to leftie anything is your bias projection and not my case, maybe your time would be better spent finding some hippies to punch or SJW to rant at, I know, old programed hatred is a hard thing to let go of phil…. good luck with that…

      • Phil…

        Apples and Kiwi fruit…. multiples based on different time lines under different economic dynamics are not applicable. RE became expensive when it was turned into a financial vehicle and all the cheap easy ex farm land around city’s was gone, this is what spurred all the intercity rejuvenation aka gentrification – see Trump et al. Now city’s have to transport food from across the nation or abroad just to feed themselves, not to mention consolidation of the Ag industry by C-corps – see worries about the next wave of bankruptcy in the family Ag sector, not to mention England’s unfolding dramas.

        This is also evidenced by the divergence between wages and productive with the lowering of credit standards as a panacea, good grief the market has had a dominate view that rising wages was a stock market growth killer. Now that wages have to grow so some ability to pay back all the debt floating around in the system [pensions, munis, you name it] won’t cause another Lehman moment, but, its so psychologically ingrained in the market and newly minted MBAs that its like the end of times…..

        disheveled…. same as the link to b. black, people have been spoon fed a whole lot of shite, the cog-dis at having to change fundamental beliefs is just too much for some. Easier to blame SJW, socialists, hippies, CBs, lefties, anything but the dominate narrative of the last 50ish years….. oh the humanity….. oh yeah… they have noone… oops

  14. “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Winston Churchill.

    I’ll reserve judgement. I have a feeling this is going to end badly for New Zealand.

    • Mate NZ is rooted. Winston Peters in turn has a gun held to his back by >>>the Maoris.
      Another Fiji event is unfolding, cept, the Maori dont muck around

  15. Ergh, she’s been in office a few days and already MB are having an ABC style lefty love in. Ill wait until she actually does something, other than that taxes and debt a plenty coming to NZ. She also has the whacko Greens at her back so thats only going one way. But hey, gotta get that honeymoon change leader period going.

    • greedypuppyMEMBER

      “She also has the whacko Greens at her back so thats only going one way. But hey, gotta get that honeymoon change leader period going.”
      The NZ Green Party demonstrated pragmatism by supporting confidence and supply. MMP politics is finally maturing in NZ after 15 years or so and finally the overblown impact of polarised politcis might be put aside once and for all. As for Whackos -there are actually a swarm of em in Australia holding back anything good -they inhabit the liberal party and dominate the Nationals. Lets see how this all works out

  16. Capitalism needs a leash. Pragmatic limits like “if you have no residence here, you do not need a dwelling here”.

    Super simple stuff that goes a ways to preventing “corporate raider” style bubbles.

    If it was the dollar being attacked like this, you can bet your ass they’d be preaching about speculators and raiders.

    The sad reality is, this new pm will probably usher in a recession in nz and cop the blame for it even though both our countries are waiting for the “recession we have to have”.

    • You are right and there are no good options. Whenever the crash comes, it is possible that the public debate will be dominated by the party that blames the other for “causing it to crash” and lost by the party that blames the other for “allowing the dangerous bubble in the first place”. We live in sad, decadent, loss-of-reason times.

    • exactly, that are many things that might be minor in and of themselves but added together represent positive changes for the most vulnerable. Better to make 5 real changes than one grand change that never happens.

      God speed Jacinda !

  17. I called it first on this site. All it took was 5 minutes to research NZ first’s policy.

    I agree Jacinda is a bloody ledgend.

  18. A lot of people preemptively besmirching Ardern’s character, she is yet to prove her mettle… we already know the mettle of the man she replaced.

    • Schiff is a key neoliberal promoter and true believer…

      Surprisingly, many business leaders believe that New Zealand is an over-regulated, antibusiness economy hostile to economic success. Complaints that companies are mired in “red tape” never seem to end. CEOs regularly report that fear of regulations keeps them up at night.

      These beliefs stand at odds with reality. Three times since 2005, New Zealand has topped the World Bank’s annual “Ease of Doing Business” report, which measures regulations that, at least according to the World Bank, enhance and constrain business activity. Every other year, it’s come third or, more often, second. It ranked first twice during Helen Clark’s Labour government, which often faced accusations that its legislation was making it impossible for businesses to succeed.

      Furthermore, Forbes has listed New Zealand in the top three “best countries for business” each year since 2010. It ranked first in 2012. Two years later, Forbes called it best in the world when it came to “red tape.”

      Every year since 2009, the conservative Heritage Foundation has put New Zealand in the top five countries for its “Index of Economic Freedom.” Investment banker and right-wing commentator Peter Schiff said he would like to live in New Zealand because of its lack of governmental interference.

      Resistance to “the nanny state,” a paternalistic government unreasonably worming its way into every little of detail of individuals’ lives, has also become widespread. This belief most commonly finds its expression in complaints about the welfare program, which many think discourages hard work and desperately needs to be cut back. This narrative took center stage from 1999 to 2008, when Clark’s Labour government went some way toward slowing, though not ultimately reversing, the march of neoliberalism.

      New Zealanders would be shocked to find that since 2001 and throughout all of the Labour years, social spending as a percentage of GDP has been on or below the OECD average. New Zealand has consistently appeared in the lower half of OECD social spending, closer to the United States than to countries like Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and even France and Germany, which rank far above it.


      • Yes, thanks for that info. Its interesting. I didn’t post his video to necessarily endorse his views but to provide some different input into the conversation.

  19. Thanks for the link but he lost me when he said being prime minister of NZ is akin to being a mayor of a large US city. Ummm, no. If Peter Schiff does not understand the set reality of NZ being a sovereign entity, with its own laws, currency, defence, international presence etc etc then he probably does not have a grasp of the dynamics of economic / political cycles either.

    edit: sorry, wrong spot, this is in response to the link provided by astrolin.

  20. Isn’t it interesting when both the Left and Right of politics can find agreement.
    I know many from the far right that are also pulling for huge wage increases in Australia they see this as necessary because Asset prices have gotten to far ahead of wages and falling asset prices is completely unacceptable, so wage raises all around.
    Personally all I see when I look at Australia is falling real world productivity and falling real world capability. So from my perspective it doesn’t matter what wages do, because if we can’t return ourselves to a globally competitive position, then the game is lost and poverty is the only possible long term outcome. This will leave the Left and Right just arguing about the fastest way to create poverty in Australia, oh wait a minute that’s what they’ve been doing for the last 10 years.

  21. This is hopeless, I am saddened to see that the Barnby Joyce has not been given a cabinet ministerial role. They are wasting such good NZ talent!

  22. The problem with Australia is that we all thinkgetting rich is the meaning of life ……. Plus our smug , satisfied take on the world.

  23. – Finally someone who calls a spade a spade. She gives the proper diagnose but will she be able to solve the problems ? I fear she will have fight an uphill battle.