*yawn* Is alive

[BlackUnicorn]

Actually my concern is more on the fact that government has been trying to get out of it, I am one of those people who believed ending free education in NZ was a terrible idea, perhaps John Key and Sir Roger Douglas and all their government cronies should pay back their free education to NZ, they didn't mind it when they held out their hands and got their share of NZ's bank (which they later sold through insider trading schemes to their close friends and put NZ further into debt - ironic that NZ is now owned by an Australian Bank aka Westpac).

Free education at a tertiary level costs way too much money, not to mention the number of people who get into tertiary education and drop out is much higher, that's ultimately a waste of resources. If you want to go on to further study you should see it as an investment in your own future, investment is a risk and risks aren't free and they don't always pay off.

Key and Douglas aren't exactly similar economically... Key has more in common with Helen Clarke.

How exactly does westpac own us? They own a big chunk of our national debt, is that what you mean? Shame on them, lending us money when we asked for it!

I know fuck all about the NZ banking history, maybe you'd like to elaborate a bit more?

But in all seriousness, if you believe National will rebuild Christchurch you must be joking,

I don't think they will (or should) rebuild Christchurch (in an absolute sense) any more than I think a labour government will (or should) do it. They're going to help by giving people capital to rebuild their homes, they're going to pay for roads and other infrastructure and they're going to give temporary financial relief to people, it's ultimately going to be individuals and businesses who rebuild the city, government's role will be significant but not the major player.

if he raises taxes he will hurt economic recovery and hurt the poor even further than he already has with his lovely GST hike, as for actual rebuilding it will be a few heritage buildings that are saved and flash new apartments for the rich, the lower middle class will have to sell up and leave the city.

National won't raise taxes, so what are the other options available to pay off the bill? Borrowing money and cutting spending. Unless you have another idea?

I agree that raising GST proportionate to tax raises was a bad idea, I'd sooner see zero GST and income tax raised proportionately, it's better for the people who spend a larger portion of their income.

They're going to spend taxpayer money on apartments for the rich now are they? Bullshit. Firstly, the high income earners will get the least amount of government support, they're insured privately and just like companies they will be required to exhaust their insurance before receiving a cent (just like large corporations and multi-nationals aren't going to get any help with paying wages). Secondly, it's political suicide, not even ACT would do it.

Personally I hope National looses the election and gets turfed out,

No chance.

we are in heavy debt and all along Labour didn't want to cut and 'hope' for miracles like catching up with Australia, but knowing popularism people will believe John Key, expect higher crime, more poor, and 10,000+ more educated people leaving to Australia.

Cut and hope is better than borrow and spend and hope.

And "popularism" means what exactly? Unless you mean populism? If that's what you mean the use of the word contradicts the sentences you've used it in.

Labour got us into debt in the first place precisely because they didn't want to cut, you can't have all the social services that they created without raising taxes or having revenue increase via trade and productivity, and with productivity barely growing there was no way it was ever going to work.

Closing the wage gap hasn't worked, it's increased by $40 a week, 5.6% rise in NZ wages vs 6.7% increase in Aus wages, a great deal of that has to do with how the countries did during the recession, namely the fact that Australia didn't have one, considering unemployment rose 3% here it's reasonable to say that if we didn't have a recession the gap would have closed, though with all the data we need to account for it's difficult to say.

I shouldn't laugh but if you believe the Nats will do anything positive economically here..you should read up where John Key gets his ideas from... the failed Meril Lynch that had to beg for a bailout and screwed its fellow Americans.

Hate to burst your bubble here but Key was with Merill Lynch back when they were doing solid business back in the Clinton days, long before the financial sector became reckless and negligent spurred on by guaranteed loans and cheap money - Besides, there is a huge difference between political economics and financial trading, very little of his financial trading skills and ideas are applicable to the former.

And NONE of those banks and investment firms should have been bailed out. Corporate welfare is something that does far more harm than good.

And what exactly do you think Labour is going to do to help economic growth that DOESN'T involve getting into more debt? Is there really any point borrowing money so we can live better now when future generations are left with the bill? It's like a mother saying "I need to keep borrowing to fund my lifestyle but don't worry my children will pay you back".

I like to bait, its one of things that people get pissed off about me.

My political allegiance differs by country and issues. I never vote Labour (vote Green instead), in the US I would be aligned with the Republicans, not due to religion or civil rights but due to their more radical economic thinking, and more due to the fact only the Republicans and Democrats have the real power over the system.

As for John Key, I don't like him purely because he was popular. My favorite politicians are unpopular, and think and act for themselves, it was no surprise that I liked Helen Clark over John Key.

Finally for your questions:

1. Borrowing money is the best option, alongside building up infrastructure, and massive immigration (a strategy that worked successfully for NZ in the 19th century by all accounts), cutting is not a proven strategy just like spending all you can. There are plenty of people willing to come to NZ and improve the country but the government bares the door. The worst possible way to get out of it is to borrow or cut, and when things get worse you can guess which party becomes unpopular and gets the boot.

2. Labour AND National. I wouldn't put it on a single party. But for a while now (1970s onwards) public and private debt has been steadily increasing faster than the GDP is growing, so the problem has been ignored for a while and reared its ugly head in the last few years. Labour had its mess of a deal with Toll NZ that is true, but its the fault of the bureaucracy, not Labour that there was a budget blowout before the recession.

3. Westpac is the governments principle/main banker, a bank in individual terms owns you if you have a loan with them you can't outright repay, the same with the New Zealand government in its position with Westpac, and it has the NZ government in a perfection position, to rape NZ dry (if it wants to), they may lend money but at a much higher interest rate than say if the debt was divided up among multiple banks in several countries or even among several different Australian banks. NZ is in a worse position than the US in this respect.

4. I never said taxpayer money would go into it, developer money would. Right now the land would be cheap (in comparison to pre-Earthquake levels), and with enough manipulation of local councils and buying out of residents a few areas of inner city land could be bought for the right price. Christchurch will be lost to overseas developers and loose its charm is what I meant, plus unless he plans massive state housing programs or provides jobs for people in Christchurch in the interim period (both would add billions on to debt) then the lower class will have to leave Christchurch, if he pushes through the ideas on cutting welfare then its guaranteed.

5. Speculation has always existed, merely regulations were changed in the Reagan years, then under Clinton and then under Bush to make it easier, and John Key joined in 1995 and left to join the US Fed, which many blame for the recent financial crisis (from Michael Moore to Ron Paul, not to mention the entire Republican Party and significant portions of the Democratic Party).

In 1995, he joined Merrill Lynch as head of Asian foreign exchange in Singapore. That same year he was promoted to Merrill's global head of foreign exchange, based in London, where he may have earned around US$2.25 million a year including bonuses, which is about NZ$5 million at 2001 exchange rates.[3][8] Some co-workers called him "the smiling assassin" for maintaining his usual cheerfulness while sacking dozens (some say hundreds) of staff after heavy losses from the 1998 Russian financial crisis.[4][8] He was a member of the Foreign Exchange Committee of the New York Federal Reserve Bank from 1999 to 2001.[9]

6. It decreased by chance, or you are going to have to admit Labour (and previous National) policies improved the economy, and that John Key merely took their work for his own.

7. John Key is popular now, but not when the shit really hits the fan, and the unemployment and poverty figures skyrocket in response, companies leave the country, and last but not least everyone starts striking for better wages and welfare the government can't afford to give them. Will merely booting National solve the problem, nope, but if it weakens National and Labour so they are no longer the dominating force in politics (and there are plenty of small parties who would be a breath of fresh air wanting a go) I am all for it.

But to be honest I would never trust or like a banker, accountant, stock broker or market speculator to run a country.

PS: Not saying Helen Clark's Labour govt was perfect, but I doubt NZ would have recovered at all from the 1980s if she hadn't been there.