Easier said than done....SINGAPORE IS NOT NEW ZEALAND.

1. It is not a democracy (as we know it) The goverment decides and "everybody" goes along. Try that in NZ....I live in auckland and have seen our motorway extension been delayed for more than a decade....think this can happen in Singapore ??

2.Singapore has the largest goverment surplus per capita in the world....NZ has a unending deficits...(even the much touted Cullen surplus is a mirage)

3. Singapore manages exchange rates instead of interest rates...tell that to RBNZ

4. Singaporeans are massive savers (up to 40% of income), New Zealanders are massives borrowers...

5. Singapore workers productivity...as compared to Kiwis ?? Need I elaborate??

I can go on and on and on forever......

Kin they where no 42 in 1965 and we where no 11 in GDP per capita. Today that's No 9 for them and No 46 for us. If we want to look at winning economies and behaviors then let's do that. Singapore is winning economy that is posting exceptional recovery results. So the doom merchants that said oh but look at them now at the beginning of the recession can go and eat some humble pie. When the economy is balanced it is resilient and the people benefit accordingly.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/3081655/Key-rejects-Goffs-call...

"New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association chief executive John Walley supported Goff's call for change.

Walley said New Zealand should look at Singapore's monetary policy, which had delivered it a stable exchange rate, lower inflation, lower interest rates and higher growth than New Zealand for decades."

I had to laugh at the, "..it meets international best practice." 'Emperor's Clothes' like comment. If we are best, I'd sure hate to see the worst! Come on, let's get real, it's "international best practice" for facilitating the lamentable transfer of wealth from the tradeable to non-tradeable sectors - for any community dumb enough to continue following the orthodoxy few dare challenge, such as Guernsey, North Dakota and Singapore:

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/11/06/opinion-how-neo...

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/11/18/opinion-how-the...

To say there is no alternative is simply not true.

No wonder John Key is always smiling.

I said before in another post:
"That continual dopey grin is giving him the look of the village idiot."
There is always an alternative, its just whether or not its palatable to your cronies.

Israel,
The head of Federated Farmers has come out and agreed with Key about how reducing red tape and therefore cost will lead to farmers getting more profit from what they sell. At the moment farmers get skinned by a LOT of people in the chain and that includes regulatory authorities as well.
I'm sure you would agree that farmers are the back bone of business people today. Do you know any farmers?
Or any currency traders?

There may be elements of Singapore's economy we can duplicate but we should be mindful of the differences. Singapore thrives because of its location as a transit point for trade going to and coming out of Asia. Hence also the success of Singapore Airlines using its Singapore base as a transit point for international travel.

It is also accused of being a laundering agent for a lot of asian criminal money and is certainly involved in being the middleman between arms sellers and unsavoury states like Burma ie they "re-export" stuff that other nations cannot sell direct but it shows up on Singapore's ledger as an import and export. New Zealand has neither the location or the inclination to be involved in such dodgy trading.

@David - My father-in-law was a farmer and I worked for a firm which traded currency.
I agree that farming is important, and yes reducing red tape is great, but its not the solution to our currency problems. We need to solve both but these two things a separate.

@kin - lets keep this about the issues and not the party. The issue here is we have a monetary policy which is not working for New Zealand and its hard working people. Monetary policy IS important for NZ. If we cant export competitively, then no amount of tax reduction, compliance reduction and increased number of businesses are going to solve the problem. I run an export business, our entire income is in foreign currency - if we don't make a profit because of a fluctuating and overinflated currency there is no tax to pay, no employees to pay, and no business whatsoever. When the NZ dollar moves monthly by over 20% (as it does regularly) it wipes out our entire profit. We run a tight ship, and stay lean, but we can not compete with a hugely fluctuating currency, which is often overvalued because of speculation and a monetary policy which has a single focus on inflation. I agree those other issues are critically important, its not an either/or, its BOTH.

I agree Les, John makes the point that there may be things we can learn from Singapore which is hard to disagree with. The leap to copying their monetary policy or even aspects of it, is a leap too far for me since there are so many differences in all areas of society.

Personally I think Dr Bollard does a good job in the circumstances and the fault lies in other areas. Don't forget the RBNZ has spent 9 of the last 10 years coping with a spendthrift administration unable to manage its own lunch money. At least the new administration has some people in it who have basic financial literacy skills. Don't knock it.

So John, any idea just what Singapore has done that has been good? Doesn't having a high exchange rate force us to be more productive like Singapore?

Roger W - I think the key thing to learn is that we could put more focus on external price stability, but IMO we don't have to adapt their framework 'lock and stock', see here for instance:

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/11/19/guest-opinion-w...

To be a TINA (there is no alternative!) doesn't do anyone any favours, and it's just not true - there are alternatives. So it's good to see one of the major parties willing to question the status quo on this issue at last.

Thanks Miguel.

One other point I think John overlooks is that borrowing is inferior to capital. If interest rates are too high then raise equity or reduce the size of the business. Bigger is not always better. The businesses that really accelerate away after a recession are the ones that went in with cash in the bank. They are then able to expand dramatically into the space left behind by the death of their leveraged competitors.

The water has been muddied here so much that much of what passes as accountancy is so much twaddle. Capital is equity. Long term loans are not capital. Why we pay so much attention to the banking industry's product beats me. They are more leveraged and therefore unstable than the people they lend to. Is that not obvious.

Reading today's blogs I feel like watching this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHWsIS7rDgM&feature=related

An economy strangled by too many hot spaghetti's, in stead of creation and implementation of new national economic models.

Walter

Switzerland as a template for NZ? You mean basing our wealth on massive capital inflows that also inflate the exchange rate? Well, if you say so...

Ross as my science teacher said you can never prove a theory you can only disprove it. Singapore and bunch of others disproves ours and that's the "KEY" message, we have got it wrong buster and this is not world's best practice at all. If it is back it up with data.

I see efficient manufacturing facilities, good products and low cost business structures, we know our farmers are efficient. All have relatively low wages, high levels of staff engagement and yet most of those operations cannot do much more than scratch a living.

Something is badly wrong when good operators cannot do better.

This is not their fault it is the way we chose to set up the economy. Unless we can capture value of our people in support of the "˜must trade' nature of the New Zealand economy we are all doomed to live in an economy in free fall.

Wealth transfers to the non-traded economy have to stop and soon.

John - its about productivity. Using more machines and less labour.
There was an article on TV about a research farm in the Waikato that could milk 800 cows with one person. Each cow had a computer collar than recorded all sorts of things including when the udder was empty and the cups could be released.
If farmer use their capital to increase productivity rather than increase land prices they (and we) may be better off.

For even more NZ productivity use skilled NZ labour manufacturing specialised machinery for NZ farmers - plus.

"Money supply and interest rates have a relatively modest impact on inflation and the level of economic activity in Singapore, given the greater contribution of external demand to growth than that of domestic demand. Unlike the larger economies where interest rates have a significant impact on investment, Singapore's economy is dominated by foreign multinational companies with foreign sources of funds, thus
limiting the importance of the domestic cost of borrowing."
http://www.bis.org/publ/plcy05k.pdf

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/11/20/top-10-at-10-br...

Start issuing our own interest free powered money base, spent into circulation for the building of worthy national infrastructure that we have sustainable physical and human resources to back. 1% RBNZ loans for worthy local government infrastructure and first home buyers . Take the power of credit creation off domestic deposit taking institutes, any foreign currency exchanged into NZ dollars unable to be exchanged back again for minimum 30 days, push for international accord that bans anyone from participating in any commodity market unless they can prove that they have the compacity to take delivery of the commodity they are dealing in. Reform shop credit and hire purchase structures.

What would make good our own sovereign Kiwi dollars would be the exact same colateral the the central bankers currently accept in return for monetising our sovereign debt certificates(Bonds) with their created credit. Cut out the middlemen and reduce the impost of the cost of credit down the food chain.

It comes down to cultural differences ! Quite common to see a singaporean woman serving in a shop, operating a till with one hand whilst supporting a baby with the other ! NZ the place where monetarist fantasists come to die.

"It is like a merry go round"¦ with the real beneficary being the BANKS"¦ who are completley UNPRODUCTIVE".

Please explain...a bold statement support with no argument let alone facts

Iain - "Start issuing our own interest free powered money base, spent into circulation for the building of worthy national infrastructure that we have sustainable physical and human resources to back"

Agreed, as NZ and Auz did back in the 1930's for same; as Guernsey does NOW, similar to the system used in North Dakota NOW.....

THE SAME AS NZ DID ONLY RELATIVELY RECENTLY VIA THE DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION (DFC) ISSUING 'SOFT LOANS' FOR PRIVATE SECTOR R&D.

Why not?

How could we improve on these approaches, ideas anyone?

Ian Wishart was the man who scooped the story on the Global warming scam

http://briefingroom.typepad.com/the_briefing_room/2009/11/hadleycru-says...

This must throw doubt on Kyoto.

Jack said: "Please explain"¦a bold statement support with no argument let alone facts"

I'm just applying common sense...sorry, no statistics or treasury studies....I'd like to hear your view.

In regards to the growth in debt in the Agriculture sector... the banks are the main beneficiaries of the interest earned on that debt.

The producers are the farmers. Productivity is the result the farmers efforts...NOT the banks.

The burden of debt is on the Farmers...NOT the banks.
When Farmers are struggling to pay down debt... do you think productivity and good farming practice suffers..???

As a sector Banking is "unproductive" in contrast to the agricuture sector..which is "productive".

I'm not anti banks... but I do feel that the huge growth of the banking/financial sector ,( globally ) and the resulting massive growth in credit...has actually lead to misallocation of investment resourses and as a result a weakened productive sector.... and also an economy that is far less resiliant and able to handle "shocks".

In New Zealand the Major banks are Foreign owned.... so their profits are repatriated offshore... Would you say that this is wealth enhancing for NZ..??? Adds to our standard of living..????

OR are Banks a bit like the flea on a dogs back...???

Rodney was ducking lamingtons at the Hide family picnic , Les . Cousie is genuinely feeling remorseful . The apology he made WAS the real deal . Auntie Marg. & Uncle Phil. say that he knows he made a gross error of judgement . ........... .Blinded by affection for a cute young lass..........We've all been there , ay Les ! Rodders will be back , alike his nemisis , Winston , he just keeps going on . Must have " Dura-Cell " batteries up his jacksie !

The Aussie banks awere back at it again last week;

International dollar-denominated debt issuers included Qatar $7.0bn, CDP Financial $5.0bn, Westpac Banking $4.0bn, Royal Bank of Scotland $7.0bn, Barclays Bank $2.0bn, Total Capital $1.3bn, Commercial Bank of Australia $1.25bn, European Investment Bank $1.0bn, Panama $1.0bn, BBVA $1.0bn, Gerdau Holdings $1.25bn, UPC Germany $845 million, Temasek Financial $500 million, Vodafone $500 million, Opti Canada $425 million, Bahamas $300 million, and Cayman Islands $300 million.

importantly, the unfolding global government finance Bubble is the largest and most precarious Bubble yet. Such a statement may today seem ridiculous to U.S.-centric analysts - but its becoming less so to those following developments in and around China. The unfolding backdrop is particularly dangerous because the Fed is poised to aggressively accommodate global Bubble dynamics for an extended period. Ultra-aggressive U.S. policy stimulus ensures ongoing dollar debasement, which feeds already massive financial flows to "undollar" assets and markets. Only aggressive policy tightening would contain Bubble excesses in China, Asia and the emerging markets. There appears no stomach for such an approach anywhere - and this is no mini predicament.

From Mr. Gross's perspective, the Fed will not back away from its aggressive stimulus until "your cash has recapitalized and revitalized corporate America and homeowners"¦" And this seems an accurate enough assessment of the Fed's point of view. But Gross then follows with a key sentence: "To date that transition is incomplete, mainly because mortgage refinancing and the purchase of new homes is being thwarted by significant changes in down payment requirements." If I had to speculate, I'd say Mr. Gross struggled with that sentence "“ and may even wish he could have it back.

It is fundamental to Credit Bubble analysis to appreciate that the unfolding reflation is going to be altogether different than previous reflations. As I've tried to explain repeatedly, the epicenter of reflationary forces have shifted from the Core (U.S.) to the Periphery (China, Asia, and the "emerging" markets). The dollar and sophisticated Wall Street Credit instruments have been supplanted by non-dollar assets and markets as the inflationary asset class of choice. The underlying U.S. economic structure evolved during - and for "“ a Credit cycle era comprised of massive ongoing mortgage Credit expansion, resulting asset inflation, over-consumption and mal-investment. Accordingly, the U.S. economy is today especially poorly positioned for the new global reflationary backdrop.

"Down payment requirements" have essentially nothing to do with the lagging U.S. economy. A historic financial Bubble fueled a housing mania. The Bubble collapsed and the mania won't be reappearing anytime soon. As a reminder of the nature of manias, Nasdaq traded above 5,000 in March 2000 and sits at less than half that level almost a decade later. Japan's Nikkei traded to 38,957 on December 29, 1989 and closed today at 9,498. Reflations may create new manias, but they don't rejuvenate the disCredited ones.

Years of steady home price inflation had convinced us that the more we borrowed to buy the biggest house - the wealthier we'd become. And the more we all accumulated debt (and Wall Street piled on leverage) the more home prices and our net worth inflated - and the more mad money we found to spend so freely. Not atypically, this mania was built upon Ponzi Credit and speculative excesses. Today, no amount of cheap mortgage Credit "“ and Fannie, Freddie, FHA and Treasury largess "“ is going to bring the housing boom back. Market psychology changed radically and the mania was crushed. The powerful inflationary bias percolating for years throughout U.S. housing and households was squelched. Spending patterns were significantly altered.

It is my thesis that there is no alternative than a major transformation to the underlying structure of the U.S. economy. In simplest terms, we must produce much more, consume much less and do it with a lot less Credit creation. The objective of current policymaking, however, is to quickly rejuvenate housing and asset prices with the intention of sustaining the legacy economic structure. Zero interest-rate policy is key to this strategy. The objective is to push savers out to the risk asset markets, as well as to transfer returns on savings from the savers to be used instead to recapitalize the banking/financial system. If this reflation is unsuccessful, the household sector will find itself with only greater exposure to risky assets.

and back to mowing the lawns

Agreed , Les . I believe that the rigours of office are knocking the wind out of his sail's . So much easier to be in opposition , sniping from the side-lines ! And , nothing so ridiculous than a middle-aged man making a prat of himself over a much younger lass . ( So I believe ...........Ahemmmmm )

ugg classic tall cheap
ugg classic tall boots sale
classic tall ugg
ugg classic tall chestnut
**