Neoliberalism: that's a term with many meanings, at least in the way it seems to be used. Can I please have a definition within the context of this article?

a case in point re emerging bubble in Singapore

"In Singapore, the government has shut down bank lending schemes that allowed buyers to defer mortgage payments on uncompleted developments, and hinted at land sales to increase supply."

The Singapre govt gives a crap about housing affordability, regardless of the short term benefits from injection of capital. This is an IMMEDIATE response. How long till our govt stops fluffing around.

All good points and certainly food for thought.

I've two questions, not opinions, on this.

First, wouldn't a move away from a strategy that is so carved in stone cause major disruptions. I'm guessing that even if our government were to debate changes in economic policy there would be a huge tide of negative market sentiment. In other words, the short term price of changing tack may be too high.

Second, do we still have people with the required skills to manage a transition? Wouldn't the non-neoliberal economists all have left the scene a long time ago?

Thank you David Hilary. I agree entirely.

Selwyn : What a pile of blithering nonsense ! . You want central government to have more control in our affairs ? We always have had massive central government control . Only for brief periods of 3 or 4 years at a stretch has capitalism been given a fair run in this country . Look at the parlous state nitwits such as Muldoon and latterly Cullen left our finances in . And the government already owns KiwiBank / KiwiRail / 80% of AirNZ / ACC / and soon the Cullen fund will pick up Shell's petrol bowsers . ........... .Our problem , Selwyn , is that we give up too soon , gotta stop for a cuppa . Introducing free market enterprise into a country with 150 years of entrenched socialism is a maraton run , not a 100 metre sprint .

Neoliberalism: that's a term with many meanings, at least in the way it seems to be used. Can I please have a definition within the context of this article?

Mark, does it matter what definition of neo-liberalism is in this context? It grates me when people just go on about 'neo-liberalism' and how it's bad, 'failed' etc without saying what it is, but in this case the author seems to be more making an argument for Singapore's handling of monetary policy - i'm not even sure it was necessary to mention neoliberalism.

Oh yes - its not working, problem is we are not trying hard enough, downing man just thrash harder.

Has anyone worked out that the above agenda aggregates wealth globally?

I think that is what happened at Easter Island. Brian W posted on this but I dont have the link can anyone help?

Anyone that thinks Selwyn is talking sense send my your email, click on John Walley and follow your nose.

Roger Thompson "Blithering nonsense" Really?
Bombast does no good for anyone.
Ever heard of reward for risk?
We know the risk because we are currently living it.
The reward under the present system is defiantly obscured 25 years on.
Selwyn's answer may not be any more risky purely because he can point to the Singapore case. Even if NZ were to have a modicom of commonality, I would be willing to give it a go.
Dream on Roger.

As a kiwi living in Singapore this is a great post that brings up many themes I'm interested in.

I have to say that Singapore maintains a steady hand and eye on their long term goals and ensure that there are no shortcuts taken. However it's far from being all on the government's shoulders, the general populous has a very healthy attitude when it comes to fiscal responsibility. While I don't like the way Singaporeans put such a high value on some consumer goods (LV bags are more common than anything I've seen, but how many are real?) they all strive for higher education for their children and will work long hours to achieve that goal.

Good article

good article, Mr. Pallett.
after so many decades of abject failure of the Reserve Bank Act, but still NZ persists in believing they are on the moral high ground, so it must be right.
quite close to the definition of insanity, really.

yes, economic religion.
yes. brain washed.
sadly for NZ, the majority of NZers have swallowed the "fee market" dogma hook, line and sinker, as my dad would have said.

Selwyn, what do you mean by neo-liberalism? And, other than restrictions on capital flows, which Singapore doesn't have, do you propose we copy from Singapore?

Maybe poor and random or rich and aligned is the choice we face? What makes the difference - leadership?

In a microeconomic sense, imagine if the players in a commercial activity were free to do what they liked, to the point of even doing nothing. I doubt there would be much competitive advantage generated.

Please don't confuse the presence of freedom with the absence of responsibility.

For two decades the neoliberal agenda had transferred wealth from our tradeable sector to the rest of the economy (as it was designed to do) "“ it really can't be sustained for much longer.

Selwyn : NZ & Oz . And I married a Filippina , so it's not safe to be dogmatic, I might get fried ! And did I compare us to Oz or to Singapore ? No ! So why make the comparison at all . I'd be happy just to see us enact policies that make us a happier and more prosperous little nation . Don't care where we fit on the OECD tables . But do care that our bright , energetic youngsters see better possibilities in Oz or elsewhere . And many don't come back . And I care that our economy is overbalanced with debt , holding up a ponzi-like housing market . ............ . And the solutions to our problems may invlove more commonsense , than drifts off into some other country's ideologies .

Definition of Neoliberalism:

Neoliberalism is a product of classical economic liberalism, which is the political and economic philosophy that supports and promotes the economic system of capitalism, opposing government intervention in the economy, and supporting the maximum of free trade and competition.

Broadly speaking, neoliberalism seeks to transfer part of the control of the economy from public to the private sector, under the belief that it will produce a more efficient government and improve the economic indicators of the nation.

I didn't know they canned their criminals. I hope it isn't for human consumption.

Fat chance NZ has of ever rising up the OECD rankings when we have people like Harawira, Hyde,Chris Carter,Douglas and company running and ripping off the country. In Singapore they would be in jail by now. And to John Key, for Gods sake stop grinning and saying " I can live with that" because the working people are getting very sick, very quickly with the rubbish that is going down and they are NOT prepared to live with it. Beware!

For how much longer can you guys afford banging heads with minor issues in stead of taking drastic actions. Guys - we are running out of time, we are also increasingly running out of options. There is only one solution the private sector has to engage the government (WORKING TOGETHER) in order to achieve major changes in our economy.

http://www.greens.org.nz/speeches/keep-manufacturing-nz-more-good-econom...

Setting up a "Green Light Industry" of course requires for a start more then just the private sector's initiative. Central & local governments need to be involved providing support and the finances for the "Set- up" for such an industry. It must be seen as an important task of national interest- in fact equivalent to our national security.
First priority we must reduce our current massive account deficit = less imports more export .
Now is the time for brains and shovels.

Walter

Bernard is calling for a revolution now!

http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/show-me-money/2009/11/6/new-letter-gene...

"When are generations X and Y going to revolt publicly?"

I'm not sure that's allowed is it?

Hey, before you young turks start assaulting the 9th floor, may I suggest you get yourselves organised to support a CIR that will yield concrete evidence for a change focused mandate?

Go the young turks, no, not to Auz, here:

http://www.elections.org.nz/democracy/referendum/referendums.html

Revolution indeed, how the hell are you going to do that from behind a keyboard?

Les, Selwyn, John Wally,
What is your opinion on R. Norman speech ? So far you didn't comment - rather strange, because he is obvioulsy a strong supporter of manufacturing.

I suspect we are suffering from what could be termed "battered country syndrome" and have developed a codependent relationship with our "abusers", the international, freewheeling money markets.

A very interesting analogy, but perhaps it over-emphasises that idea that the carry trade (i.e. money market speculators) are the core of our neoliberal reform 'problem'.

I think neoliberal ideology goes way beyond monetary policy, and has morphed into the wider and more encompassing ideology of globalisation. (See Steger, 2005, "Ideologies of Globalisation", Journal of Political Ideologies, 10(1), pp. 11-30).

That said, though, I definitely support your position Selwyn - it is an incremental step towards transformative change - and most certainly NZ needs one of Kuhn's 'paradigm shifts' in thinking, that's for sure.

Walter : Rod Donald was the one member of the Greens who was listened to , and who got respect . He is greatly missed . Since he passed , we have got very little of substance out of them . Indeed , Helen Clark used them as a proxy to do her dirty work ( anti-smacking bill ) . They have alot of hard work to do to regain respect , and to be taken seriously .

Rogie,
I thought Norman's speech is of high economic value. Anyway I didn't hear any of the Nats talking similar to him - ohh yes Brownlee coal- mining - hmm!

Opps- great article Selwyn Pellett.

Isn't it amazing how planning for a particular outcome instead of leaving it to the market to decide actually works?

That's the point - also works in Switzerland and other countries !

..and has nothing to do with government interference -> but working together.
Walter

Steve Keen in his book "Debunking Economics - The naked emperor of the social sciences" completely and utterly destroys neo-liberal theory. In plain language he easily shows it up as a cultish pseudo science full of theories that fall apart in the real world.
http://www.mobipocket.com/en/eBooks/eBookDetails.asp?BookID=131405&Origi...

New Zealand has done nothing but impoverish itself since 1984. I'm not saying the command economy of Muldoon was any better, but the knee jerk policies of Douglas and co were just as bad, and in terms of loss of sovereignty, far worse.

Also the belief that the private sector is automatically better and more efficient than the state sector is crap. Neither Air New Zealand or NZ Rail ran better under private hands - they both went effectively bankrupt. Problem was the government paid way too much to buy them back. They should have waited for the receivers. Telecom has been all about exporting profits and minimal reinvestment in infrastructure since it entered private ownership. The BNZ and DFC needed a bailout. The list goes on and on if you include all the companies on the stock exchange that have disappeared through incompetent management. Being in the private sector is no guarantee of efficiency.

Academics and journalists like Jane Kelsey, Bruce Jesson and Brian Gaynor blew the whistle on the croynism that saw Roger Douglas, David Caygill, Ruth Richardson, Bill Birch etc deliver to their mates Alan Gibbs, Michael Faye, David Richwhite and co huge transaction fees and in mind boggling conflicts of interest, cheap cheap prices as they sold assets to the very people who were advising on the sale! No one listened to them. Jane Kelsey and no doubt other nay sayers got SIS files for their efforts. The fact that the "democratic" state is so sensitive to criticism should be food for thought for all of us on this site and other form of dissenting media.

Properly regulated private enterprise based capitalism is good, unbridled neo-liberal crony capitalism has and will continue to kill this countries economy and destroy its environment. And by the time the second wave of the GFC finishes, John Key will go down in history as perhaps the worst PM in recent memory. That continual dopey grin is giving him the look of the village idiot.

Steve K; from a working person's view, the 90's we were robbed. As a cashed up oz mine worker, i've yet too see investment growth and honest at that, at a local level. But I bet if I had a nice degree or state all the buss words, yeah great. Or was the local lawyer or accountant in town. Funny thing is what worker has .5m cash, it's midde class that won't speak up or stand up. When they do, they will know what the bus workrs have had to go through. Again those 90's people just ripped us all off, everyone and our PM is one of them too.

Grant K - maybe you missed this sentence in Selwyn's article, "Let's be clear on this, there are economic policies and there are social policies and I'm not advocating that we adopt the latter." Given you say about welfare and, "... you are espousing the notion that Economic Policy and Social Policy can be totally segregated. I would venture to suggest that this is untrue for reasons that should be fairly obvious. If you don't have to fund a welfare safety net, it gives you a while lot more options with your economic policy and vice-versa."

Grant, I'm all for bottom-line thinking, that is, reduce costs, however, why do we have to assume that 'cherry picking' a few aspects of Singapore's approach to suit our context means no welfare net? Why do we have to assume we have to have the whole hog? If we look at what might be/should be possible with expanding the top-line an appropriate level of welfare would be sustainable. (Just for the record I'm not advocating we maintain the level we have now, it could be reduced with appropriate refocusing.) Think top-line too! (A message to a good few of you.)

Walter - can you stop using that term, 'Green Light Industry'. Each time you do I start thinking of 'Green Light Infantry' with you and Russell Norman taking point armed with a lathe and a welding set and spraying flammable cutting fluid into any real estate agent office in your path. Stop it - my sides hurt! Anyway, when you posted that link to Russell's vid. I watched and did make favourable comments about it. Remember me saying, "Not bad for a Sheetey," and you questioned what a 'Sheetey' is and I told you? Remember? As for your comment:

"Are you now banging heads again in stead of working together creating "New Ideas" "“ stupid!

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/10/23/opinion-why-new-zealand-needs-to-follow-singapores-example/#comment-43299"

If we are going to be repetitive, my answer to that kind of comment, here:

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/10/23/opinion-why-new...

Regards choosing between a planned approach and free markets - I choose neither, I choose bits of both, along with bits of the Singaporean approach, bit's of Neo-lib'ism, stuff we can enhance that we already have:

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/11/04/opinion-rbnz-ne...

any new stuff developed/adapted for OUR CONTEXT, while recognising an economy has finite boundaries - and because an economy behaves as a 'complex adaptive system', I reserve the right to change my mind, be adaptive and not get transfixed on any dogma or ideals - except of course implementing ..... nope, I can't say it, I don't want to spoil Roger's day so early.

@ Les Rudd: Thanks for your thoughtful and reasoned response. When are you running for parliament? :)

@ Selwyn: Nice to catch up with you again. Cheers :)

"Neoliberalism has become so entrenched in the political and economic thinking of our country that we can no longer see the value in simply applying common sense to solve our economy's problems."

Entrenched in our political, social, economic, employment...everything for the last 30 yrs.
Now I really dont know exactly what Neoliberalism is, or if it is the correct word, but do get the drift of where selwyn is going.
We dont have to look to Singapore, we just have to look at some of our enterpiners, farmers, sportsmen, adventurers and even employees that have survived from the 60s comfortably ....Old School commonsense has seen them thru alsorts of times.

The modern mentality is to pack cotton wool around those who dont want to measure up to their social responsablities...
ie an employ who contracts their labour in return for a given consideration, then spends work time surfing the net....Its simple ..this is theft as an employee (which I add, once was a serious offence) ..now that thief is protected by a whole heap of cotton wool, often resulting due to a truck load of technicalities being rewarded for the theft.
We have an education system that is failing a very large proportion of our children..for decades now...so we have a study (after study after study ) by highly educated ppl educated in modern narrow minded PC concepts, and total lack of plain old commonsense.
The greatest and most successful reform in education was the team of Frasier and Bebby..each from totally different motivations and basis, but the same good old common sense.

We have highly educated city planners who design public toilets on a busy street interesction...then put the door close to the road...making access for children, elderly down right dangerous....BUT the study shows this is the most effective way....commonsence CANT prevail
Motorway congestion....commonsense says to prevent this, get the cars off it fast, but no the data says drop a major intersection a 100m off the motorway....

History shows alway own at least 30% of what one posseses...why are we at this point in time financially? Because bean counters say the balance sheets show borrow borrow borrow...

We have also lost the ability to plan ahead, not for tomorrow, or next yr, but the next decades....
An art long lost...take the wood cutters of long ago, they marked trees and trained branches for the bows of big ships., over generations..and past these down father to son.
And the result of this planning...one of the largest, long lasting military/naval fleets and empires in history, The British Empire.

There s an old saying "Look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves".
I mentioned before the down hill slide started late 60s /early 70s about the time pennies turned into cents an no "Common".....about the time the old sayings our society, (and other civilisations) got scrapped.

We educate our children on modern 'fairy' stories..."Mommy and Daddy are going to live apart....what happened to 'little red riding hood' classic subversive learning.. dont talk to stangers....Goldilocks respect others property....

I waffle on here....
The point is this Neoliberalism liberalism now goes to the core of our society, in all matters, and is so bloody entrenched over several generations, maybe the only way it will be reversed is a simply full on collapse of our civilisation and start again...again history shows us this.
OR Get back to the basics of education from early child hood...make parents responsible AND accountable for their children again, and rebuild over the next 3 generations.

When a 1st yr Uni student can get 30% in a 1960s maths or English or physics School Cert exam paper, without a calculator, we will know we are on the right track.

"The world has changed and those that can't see that are locked into the past and need to be pushed aside so those of us who want to look forward can get on with building a nation that can actually support itself."

Stevek spot on. Odds on to whether JK will rise above GB in terns of losses to the people over the coming decade. Gordon is not a person that I would want my polical career to be measured against. History does not judge kindly failed doctines - ask Stalin, Hitler, Bush. JK could have made a a difference - that he chose not to in these times makes his crimes greater than any of Labours monumental mismanagement.

Great post! Capitalism works. We have to give it time and stop meddling with it, but then those poor banksters would not be making such ginormous profits! Can't have that now, can we?

sharonv Says: That JK could have made a a difference "“ that he chose not to in these times makes his crimes greater than any of Labours monumental mismanagement.

Ignoring politics and the economy for a moment....why would JK want to take the top job and then do nothing? I assume he is not a dull man and I assume he has ambition for something so what is it?

Frankly it's the question I am really struggling with as if I as JK I would rather be the most hated man in New Zealand's political history and go down in history as the person that finally put New Zealand on the right track than be the most popular man in New Zealand and be dismissed by history as irrelevant.

Unless there is some secret agenda that we are not aware of JK is going to fall from grace in a massive way as everyone wants real change and it's not coming. The king was naked no matter how many people said he had nice clothes. John Key had a very real mandate to change this country and the political currency (popularity) to do it. In the same way that Bush had the good will of the world after 9/11 and squandered it you may well see the same thing happen here at a local level.

Bad boys, bad boys what you gona do, what you gona do when they come for you... this is a longer post than I have made it a rule to use but hey when the rules need to be changed, change em - a adaptive response?

Non-Internationalization of the Singapore Dollar

Arising from the use of the exchange rate as a benchmark policy instrument, the policy of non-internationalization of the Singapore dollar was adopted in the early 1980s as a rather limited form of capital control. Singapore has eradicated all exchange controls since 1978 in order to promote the development of its offshore financial markets. Hence, residents and non-residents are free to remit Singapore dollar funds in and out of Singapore and are also free to purchase or sell Singapore dollars in the foreign exchange market. Singapore's role as an international financial center has also led to the development of a large offshore banking sector, the Asian Dollar Market (ADM), whose assets are denominated in foreign currencies. There are no controls on capital flows between the ADM and the domestic banking system, so holders of Singapore dollars can easily convert their funds into foreign currency deposits and vice versa.

However, the absence of capital restrictions means that speculative attacks on the Singapore dollar could compromise the conduct of the exchange rate-centered monetary policy. The non-internationalization policy, which restricted the international use of the domestic currency, essentially protected the Singapore dollar from speculative attacks to facilitate the effective conduct of monetary policy. At the same time, the policy ensured that the growth of the Singapore dollar market was in line with the development of the economy. Under the non-internationalization policy, safeguards were put in place to prevent a buildup of offshore deposits of the currency that could be used by speculators to short the Singapore dollar. These included allowing bank credit in the Singapore dollar to be extended to non-residents only in cases where borrowing was meant for funding real economic activities. Additionally, restrictions were imposed on inter-bank Singapore dollar derivatives to limit access to liquidity in the onshore foreign exchange, currency, and interest rate swaps and options markets in order to hinder leveraging or hedging of Singapore dollar positions. These restrictions mainly took the form of consultative requirements to limit speculative activities in Singapore's financial markets, and did not seem to have impeded trade and capital mobility (Lee, 2001).11

Nevertheless, the restrictions became overly binding as the Singapore economy became more globalized and its financial industry matured. In the first place, increased demand by corporate players and financial institutions for the Singapore dollar and its derivatives for commercial transactions called for the liberalization of the policy. Secondly, the noninternationalization policy hampered the development of Singapore's capital markets, particularly the bond market. For instance, short-sales of securities and access to domestic currency credit lines are essential to deepen market liquidity (see Gobat, 2000). Hence, under the imperative to foster greater financial sector diversification the restrictions on the non-internationalization of the Singapore dollar were progressively relaxed. Four major reviews were undertaken after the Asian crisis, resulting in the lifting of restrictions to avert obstruction of market activities. Table 2 [ PDF 31.6KB | 1 pages ] below traces the evolution of the non-internationalization policy.

The current policy has only two core requirements, as stated in the revised MAS Notice 757 of 28 May 2004. First, financial institutions may not extend Singapore dollar credit facilities exceeding S$5 million to non-resident financial entities where they have reason to believe that the proceeds may be used for speculation against the Singapore dollar. Second, for a Singapore dollar loan to a non-resident financial entity exceeding S$5 million or for a Singapore dollar equity or bond issue by a non-resident entity that is used to fund overseas activity, the Singapore dollar proceeds must be swapped or converted into foreign currency before use outside Singapore. These restrictions do not apply to non-resident financial institutions and there is currently a large offshore market in Singapore dollars abroad. Nevertheless, the MAS deems the current policy useful to deter offshore speculators from accessing liquidity in Singapore's onshore foreign exchange swaps and money markets (MAS, 2002).

On the first restriction, there is clearly an element of judgment involved in determining whether a client intends to engage in speculative activities. In the words of the MAS, "Financial institutions are expected to institute appropriate internal controls and processes to comply with this restriction...[these] include [obtaining] written confirmation from the non-resident financial institution specifying the purpose of funding"¦ and [executing a] formal evaluation process of the client profile, which provides a clear basis for assessing that the client is unlikely to use the Singapore dollar proceeds for currency speculation" (MAS, 2006, p. 3). In view of the reputation the MAS has for toughness, the financial institutions are expected to err on the side of caution when implementing this policy. As for the second restriction, which has been in effect since 28 May 2004, non resident non-financial issuers of Singapore dollar bonds and equities are no longer required to swap their Singapore dollar proceeds into foreign currencies before remitting them abroad. The amendment to the policy relieves foreign issuers from incurring the additional cost of swapping, thereby removing an advantage in directly issuing foreign currency bonds. For non-resident financial institutions, however, the requirement is retained.

With the lifting of the various restrictions, there is no longer a non-internationalization policy per se. Rather, the policy has been reduced to a lending restriction and is now known as MAS' policy on lending Singapore dollars to non-resident financial institutions. Has the liberalization of the non-internationalization policy resulted in the Singapore dollar being at risk of speculative attacks, or has the policy outlived its purpose? The past restrictions by themselves are unlikely to have been the single most important factor in protecting the Singapore dollar against speculative attacks. Rather, it is the maintenance of both internal and external macroeconomic balance as well as the absence of balance sheet vulnerabilities that offers little incentive for speculators to wage attacks against the currency or to circumvent the restrictions for speculative purposes. Furthermore, the MAS places great emphasis on the prudential supervision of financial institutions, ensuring sound credit practices and a strong capital position.12 In addition to its strong banking system, Singapore continues to develop deep and liquid capital markets for the efficient intermediation of financial flows, thereby enhancing the resilience of its financial system to shocks.

Note - exchange rate centered monetary policy - I wish.

@ Marshall

I have to say that Singapore maintains a steady hand and eye on their long term goals and ensure that there are no shortcuts taken.

head - nail - hit

John Key needs to step up and deliver us a 20+ year plan to move us into a low energy future based on a low cost energy infrastructure. Cheap oil dependance is rapidly moving into a bygone era.
New Zealand needs a "legend" not a three term trick - from what I have seen John Key has the humility but does he have the ambition to become one?
He needs to step up, lead the way and show us some balls on more than just economic policy.

Les,
After the brilliant speech of Norman in front of the parliament your commented: "Not bad for a "Sheetey,"
Is that the way you advocating parliamentarians who are in support of NZMEA , then I must say very poor judgment and political behaviour.
Question Les: Why not have a fruitful debate on that speech ?
-

Obviously you didn't read and listen many of my articles and links, otherwise you would understand the correlation among them and you wouldn't make such comments (7th 8:49am). So I'm quite happy to enlighten you with some more in the near future.

http://thegovmonitor.com/world_news/asia/singapore-highlights-new-sustai...

Cheers Walter

Rogie,
You and I are the two boys left at the back of the class.

Yes, that is nothing new for me anyway - brillant mind, but not capable of working within the system - useless !

http://www.futurebytes.ch/swisstrends/das-grosste-schweizer-sackmesser-v...
..not only to cut your gummy bears.

Wow - some "Israeli melons" planted in an old washingmachine next to US runner beans - like that.
You ask:
What are the traditional fruits and vege of Switzerland ? - GM spuds, fondue and NZapples.
What is in your garden, Walter ? Mostly my wife and weeds and many other flowers.
You experiment a bit too ? Yes - growing "Meat- trees" and "Cheese - berries".

Hi Grant
We have watched wealth transfers from the tradeable sector to the non traded sector for decades.

Simple arithmetic (I don't have to resort to partial differential equations to demonstrate this "“ sorry my suck up day) if we have a massive current account deficit to fix we need do or or both of the following:

"¢ Borrow less
"¢ Export more

That is it, not complicated is it?

Cheap imports (off a high dollar) and bugger all investment in more exports (high dollar) don't help.

So, sadly, the dollar must fall, prices must increase, margins on exports must not only increase but the 'powers that be' have yet to convince the people I talk to that risking more of their resources is worth the punt.

Until that happens we continue to slip slide away"¦

John, with comments: "Russell's speech, sorry I just do not buy the grand narrative centrally planned approach", you are evading the real issue.
The way you comment on R. Norman speech make it difficult to improve relationships between the Private Sector and Parliamentarians. Any such speeches from any politicians should be welcomed and considered as good examples by the NZMEA.
Your organisation should make this clear not only to other politicians, but also to the media.

I think comments "Not bad for a "Sheetey," are very destructive - a real shame.

Walter

@Grant K.

You wrote ""¦As part of my recent overseas trip, I spent a few days in Singapore. Certainly not enough to gain an in-depth understanding of their system as you have done, but it was explained to me what happens if you get sick in Singapore and don't have any money. Because there is no welfare, you are basically left to die"¦.."

This is your HEAR SAY. When you were there, did you see anyone fallen sick and don't have any money"¦ and was left to die ?????? Please tell us about it.

You also wrote ""¦..From an avoidance of volatility perspective, Singapore's monetary policy makes a lot of sense, but we have to keep in mind that such a policy "” assuming it was successful in driving down the Kiwi $ "” would also hit everybody in the pockets due to increased petrol prices, and other imports becoming more expensive"¦.."

If the economy is not growing, tradeable sector is declining, redundancy continues, job loses etc"¦, would you still care about the lowering of Kiwi dollar hence higher prices for petrol and imported goods ?????

Do you understand how macroeconomics work and how the impact of high Kiwi dollar could possibly come around and haunt at you maybe direct or indirectly ?????

By the way Perch are not really fit to eat...

No John : I saw Hugh Fearnly-Whittingstall poach one , and present it to guests of cultured palate , and they loved it . All in the cooking ( and not embarassing mine host on camera ) .

Read above:
Of course one cannot compare with other countries, but dealing and studying the website and make the right judgments shows the enormous potential for New Zealand.

Walter

Walter - I can't find the original blog comment where I said, "Not bad for a "Sheetey." referring to Russell Norman's vid speaking in support of manufacturing in parliament.

However, your interpretation, "I think comments "Not bad for a "Sheetey," are very destructive "“ a real shame." is incorrect. The fact is, and it's well known within MEA, the Greens and MEA have strong agreement on the important place of manufacturing, hi-tech, elaborates and indeed, in-firm production processes, within NZ's economy. When I first listened to Russell at an MEA event before the last election, his views were consistent with his predecessors and no surprise to us - given the agreement we have with the Greens on this aspect.

My comment wasn't destructive Walter, it was complimentary, smoko banter, being delivered one tradesman to another. I'm not a 'Sheetey' - clothe eared sods - I'm a 'Tractorhead' by trade - and enjoy my tinitus as much as any 'Sheetey' would enjoy theirs....

I'm surprised you've not taken up John's offer to be on the MEA mailing list and get to understand how much effort MEA puts into engaging with politicians. MEA is very able to, given it's apolitical and independent positioning:

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/09/24/exchange-rate-r...

You did seem keen at one stage to engage with MEA, or rather me in particular, trying to contact me via the MEA website. The association staff did pass your message to me. Given certains aspects of debate we've had on this site susbsequently, I'm still content I did not respond to your invitation, sorry. If you are feeling any sense of rejection and subsequent anger about that please don't let it get you and end up taking it personally - life's too short.

Why not let John put you on the MEA mailing list, you've nothing to lose, except perhaps some aspects of strongly held views that don't fit with the reality of experience for many MEA members and productive enterprises in NZ.

Cheers, Les.

Addendum: In the case of an "Honesty Box" being available, the apples were not for free for I am an honest person, but were extremely inexpensive and fresh when compared to todays' apples.
It was just a typo, although it sounded in need of correction!

Walter : I hope you hav'nt left us for awhile , as you said . Was enjoying so much learning about your homeland . A proud country , steeped in tradition , who achieved so much with so few resources . Including winning the Americas Cup , no mean achievement for a land-locked nation !

Selwyn - "The economic religion we have swallowed that says once implemented leave it alone is nuts." I agree, and don't doubt there are those in positions of power and influence who feel the same way, However, part of being invloved in a cult is to risk being ex-communicated* if one challenges. Plus, political opponents are all too eager to play a change of mind as weakness and thence to their own ends.

* http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/11/06/opinion-why-tax...

Roger's comment... well true or not, who knows, who cares, in some ways, but one wonders just how 'career limiting' it can be for public service advisors or others in that kind of swim, to challenge the norm?

Anyway, adding to my earlier post, as for definitions of neo-lib, whatever, I couldn't care less, I think the lesson we can learn from the likes of Singapore is that they could have chosen another path similar to ours and many other nations, that is, something more aligned to neo.lib.ism - or whatever it's called... the unchallenged norm(?) however, they didn't for whatever reason. Sure, some of their economic polices might have been easier to implement given their social policy and type of government, BUT, the thing for us is to see what we could 'cherry pick' from them. Before going on it's worth stating that, whether we 'cherry pick' from them, Auz, the central planning model, neo.lib.ism, whatever - we are going to have to also pick the untaxed property/capital-gain bogie, in some way or other. As I stated above, I guess that's why we have rejected that wee cherry in the neo.lib suite of thinking - broader, flatter taxes and abandoning subsidies - noting that absence of effective asset/capital gain taxation is NZ's 'subsidy that got away'. Funny that...

So what would I cherry pick (adapt)out of the Singaporean approach to things - simply this, the importance of external price stability - because like it or not, like them we have an export trade imperative, that if we do not act on - we'll go bust. Does that mean we have to have a managed, pegged, soft-pegged NZD; an 'Interest Linked Savings Scheme', variable fuel excise, mortgage tax, variable GST - not necessarily IMO at present. We simply need to REBALANCE the PTA so that the domestic sector, which generates the majority of inflation the OCR mechanism attempts (woefully) to combat is throttled more effectively with a complementary tool that more precisely reduces said domestic inflation, without killing tradeables, because the MCI does such a grand job reducing (eventually) aggregate inflation - "grand job" - yeah right! Presently, I'd like to support the suggestion that the simplest way to achieve this, as part of the next incremental step in the correct direction, is by putting more emphasis on and formally varying liquidity ratios as a complement to the OCR. Imagine the MPS statements then,

"Given the surge of growth brought about by the successful implementation of the recent tax reforms inflationary prospects now warrant further tightening of monetary conditions. We will at this time leave the OCR at 1%, but will initially increase liquidity ratios by x%. Have a nice day."

How would we ALL think then? How would Japanese and Belgian housewives think? Just imagine - savers and exporters dancing in the streets, but importers, RE's, the banks ...... all quite happy too, but not like they used to be - how sad nevermind. Anyway, and the CAD - if it could dance it would, given it would have gotten so much lighter - it's self-esteem is so much better now given it contributes a lower risk premium that has helped bring the OCR down to a new lower long-run average. Plus, it knows it's less of a threat to our economic sovereignty.

Let's make CAD happy today I say.

Just gotta keep it simple, and pick that bogie, somehow....

Right you are , John . The hawker bazaars of Singapore are a treasure trove of ingredients , and of food stalls . Even the market in Melbourne and the Central Market of Adelaide ( an old stomping ground ) are legendary for their produce . What they can teach us ! I am wailing and gnashing my teeth at the memory of them ........... Solice in a small bag of gummy bears . Ahhh , yummy gummy ......Hmmmmmmm.

Selwyn,

Your article is awesome and has alot of substance too. However, I wonder how many would appreciate the strength of successful policies from other nations and adopt selectively here. Instead, some appear to be picking on things that aren't able to work here and possibly shift your subject of discussion away from your main theme. This could be the main obstacle for many things.

Selwyn and John Walley,

I really appreciate that you have highlighted problems we are facing, and more importantly also put up suggestions on what could be done to address it.

It is always great to highlight problems followed with potential solutions. But, some who might just highlight problems without solution(s) is really a distraction. Do you agree?

Grandy - Failing to impartially and robustly evaluate the full affect of economic policy deprives us of the opportunity to implement new policies while understanding enough to circumvent the pitfalls.

If you think where we are is really good, and you think that present trends can reasonably be expected to get better (greater wealth with good high paying jobs) "“ no need to do anything. But if this is not the case maybe we should do more than just try harder doing the same stuff.

Here I am not discussing solutions just the need or otherwise to start looking for them.

I think my position on both points is reasonably out there.

Les - my tax, trade, and investment solution.

Nevertheless, just to clarify, I do support investigating initiatives that will prevent currency speculation and help create stability.

Chairman "“ remind me, what was your "solution" that John and I rejected?

... the links to past threads would help, and how about answer Trudy's questions. I do recall debating with you on a few points, but think we reached either stalemate, or you couldn't provide sufficient reasoning and evidence to support your case further?? Or was it that you are a 'big-state' 'central planning' fundie and things ended up as they always do with such?

Anyway, the real problem is, we have a problem and government have been conveniently ignoring it since Nov 2008, and before then since 1999 - and all solutions of the non-tinkering type require that,

credit issuance, land and property investment takes some pain,

as they never had to in the past - assuming of course that we don't simply want to become a retirement village for wealthy immigrants who continue to displace (globalise?) NZ's kids and grand-kids.

Who and what benefits from that scenario?

I wonder if Gareth Morgan would stand next election. He seems to have the metal that is needed.

John Key's second year test - politics - national | Stuff.co.nz
John Key promised champagne as well as small beer. ... proposals the group has aired, one for a capital gains tax and another for a broad-based tax on land. ...

Singapore is a theifdom in which the largest majority of its citizens are in peonage for the very same reasons in a majority of, so-called, sovereign nations in the global village, that reason being they to bow to the Debt Based Monetary System overseen by the privately owned central banking network and their locally recruited co-operatives within the nations upon which they prey.
The above posts sadden me, as it appears that all but a few think that they might be able to change something by saying to the powers that be, that we know what your up to, but we wont tell anyone if you give the prisoners a few concesions. These soughts of overtures of "keeping public confidence" in the system have been repeated over and over again, only to be scoffed at by the money monopolising elitists. I ask, is this the way you really think change can be evoked, or is it because you fear ridicule or being labelled a radical for attempting to tell the wider public the truth of something that is very, very hard to comprehend.
The only solution is envoking the Public Credit Facilities of nations, the only study has to be why some succeeded, Colonial Scrip, NZ Promissory Notes, Canadian Public Credit, NZ State Housing Scheme etc and why some failed, Lincoln's US Greenbacks, Zimbabwe etc? My studies lead me to believe that when the public credit issued never saw the money supply come close to exceeding available human or natural resources, by luck or design, no inflation occured, but when public credit was handed out "helicopter style" in a none productive manner, allowing money supply to exceed available resources, hyper inflation occured as the money funnelled to the few who paid inflated prices for what they desired, which removed those prices out of reach from those whom recieved less of the issued money.
Capital flow controls, Capital Adequacy Reqirement adjustments are all needed before and after the evoking of our Public Credit Facilities, but put in place before the latter they are only putting a bandaid on a bleeding jugular, put in place in conjunction with the Public Credit Facilties will see the patient stand a chance of full recovery as opposed to slowly but surely bleeding to death.
I put it to you that their has not been a Privately Owned Debt Based Monetary System that has not lept from crisis to crisis and ended up with an open theifdom with a majority of its citizens in peonage. And, I put it to you anytime the majority who have ended up owning less of the wealth are subsidising the few who have most of the wealth, this is the guts of Fascism, and the private debt based monetary system in its many changing forms throughout recorded human history has seen Fascism infiltrate and destroy any attempt of the learned behaviours of common decency over coming our self destructive animal instincts.
We are supposed to be the most intelligent species on the planet, but in ten thousand years since the age of reason, forgetting the technological advances, what can we really claim to have changed on a wide scale of our violent greedy nature? I would say a wide spread denouncing of the practice of canabalism would pretty much be it, but that in itself shows that wide spread changes in human behaviour are possible
in area's where canabalism was once "generally accepted" widespread practice.

Bad buggers regroup when good buggers procrastinate.

All good stuff folks, but time to get real.

No matter how many complementary tools and mechnisms RBNZ could have at it's disposal, what is required, more than new tools, is the WILL and FREEDOM to use them. I forget which thread, but last week I saw someone asking why RBNZ had been so slow in raising the OCR in 2005, when it was plainly obvious it should have been tightening more aggressively. (I think Tony Alexander has made this point in the past.) Then also someone asking why the exsisting liquidity ratio mechanism could not have been used to complement the OCR on the upswing of the last bubble.

You never know but maybe our central banks isn't as independent of political interference as we might like to think.

Think about it, who stood to gain from RBNZ's, apparent, poor performance back then?

Isn't it time we had a committee setting rates and minutes of the meetings fully disclosed?

If not, why not?

C'mon get real.

@ Wally, "You had it right when you figured the RBNZ policy was just a phone call from the Beehive away.." Dude, it's like balls on a dog, and sadly, I'm not figuring.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/technology/news/article.cfm?c_id=5&objectid=10...

Such projects should be 100% supported not only by the government but also by the wider private sector and media. Central planning should assist companies involved in "Green energy" and create conditions, so the manufacturing sector and others can work hand in hand for the "Green energy" sector.
In today's competitive world and recession, unfortunately most economic initiative will fail (patchwork) without central planning. Our Industries have to work together and make us less depended from "foreign" products/ knowledge (Imports). = saves MILILIONS !
This are ideal, strong activities for our country and we could enter a completely new area in our economy - more independence, providing full employment including research etc. and most importantly highly skilled jobs.

Walter

Waymad Says:
November 9th, 2009 at 10:09 am
More heat than light here, I'm afraid. Singapore as a model, apart from being an island like us, is a hideously bad analogy. Dictatorship, related party holdings up the wazoo (and y'all thought NZ was terrible in that respect) and dependent on imported water (supply from Malaysia), food and energy"¦not something yer average punter will vote for.

Just that they are No 9 in GDP / capita and we are No 42! I am not promoting Singapore as "the solution" it is however living proof that we don't have "the solution" today either. So yeah perhaps a little heat around the edges but the light is in the numbers which cannot be denied. Given your analogy of Singapore (not one I share by the way) it actually makes the point even stronger. They should be No 42 in GDP / capita not us.

Your arguments sound oh to familiar Waymad. Let's just keep doing what we have always done and it will be okay. Farming can't double but our need for tax revenue and foreign exchange will. Your answer to that is?

Les, again "NZMEA moaning" - nothing new !

What about attending or listen (invitations) to conferences with a number of NZ politicians, so they can educate them selves and learn to understand how important new directions in our economy are ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31NDaGgK584&feature=channel

What I hear is they go in holiday a lot - so it should be easy to make them feel guilty and engage them for actions, which help to decrease our account deficit.

Walter

That's it from me.
Reading bloggers today again "“ it is all about how to keep NZ noses above the waterline.
There are hardly any new, positive elements for a turn around in our struggling, unbalanced economy- a culture change.
There are far too many people here just sitting on donkeys with calculators in their hands looking for direction.

Brains and calculators do not solve our problems, only "Brains & Shovels" do.

You all have a good day.
Walter

PS > Les, I'm on the mailing list.

Actually Walter , I'd given up on this thread , the whole " Neo-Liberal " thing seems rather daft . I'd rather learn more about your splendid home-land . A study of Switzerland would be positively illuminating , compared to this limp topic . Cheers man , Rogie .

Roger - The Swiss electoral system has merit and should be further investigated. Perhaps we could incorporate some of the better features of their system to help improve ours

The chairman,

Exactly did you listen (impressive example) above what one of the "Bundesrat" (Minister) just said a few days ago to the greedy Bankers.

Selwyn , my " superior intellect and knowledge base " ? Kate was right , why be so patronizing ? However you are correct that I am not entering into the spirit of your article . Sorry . I shall return to the vinegar factory , and get pickled . Cheers !

( Walter : After that little yodelling link , I shall refrain from mentioning the subject again...........ever ! )

Rogie,
Ohh - most politicians are all the same making lots of "Sound Noises" and for the public they are "Stars in their eyes".

No, no you are right Switzerland would be a great model country without the greedy, too powerful banking system.

Selwyn,
I like the "100% Pure NZ Made" - solution.

John,
Do you know if any of our politician is in Singapore for the APEC summit this week?

Rogernomics 1984. A few changes since.
My only question is: "Ain't 25 years enough?"

One word which describes the attitude of the NZMEA "“ don't move from your position - Stubbornness.

No wonder they are struggling for changes.

Walter

Selwyn you point us to this:
"Just that they are No 9 in GDP / capita and we are No 42!"
Even Don Brash has admitted to me that GDP is recognised by many as nowhere near a perfect system with which to directly measure prosperity between nations.
If you have a look at the nations with high gdp per capita, you will in most cases find the nations with the highest net debt levels. GDP only measures economic activity without any consideration for equal opportunity to wealth.

Joseph Stiglitz has recently pushed for change:
"There's no single number that can capture anything as complex as our society," Stiglitz told AFP in an interview to launch the report.
"So what we argue for is the need for an array of carefully-chosen numbers, with a better understanding of the role of each of those numbers."
Currently, growth is measured as a percentage increase or decrease in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is a measure of the value of goods and services generated in a country and has long been seen by many as a crude benchmark.
As an example of how GDP could be misleading as a quality of life index, the report said an increase in fuel consumption would boost growth figures even if it only reflected more unproductive traffic jams and pollution.
"GDP was originally created as a measure of economic activity but has increasingly become used as a measure of societal well-being. It wasn't designed for that and it doesn't measure that," Stiglitz said.
http://www.france24.com/en/20090914-france-advocates-new-ways-measure-gr...

The trouble is that under the current neo-conservative privately owned, unfettered free-market, debt based monetary system seen as "generally accepted worldwide best practice", nothing can be done without the profit motive and no public infrastructure built without incurring crippling usurous levels of public debt.

This was made clear in 1935 election by Michael Joseph Savage as Labour vigourously campaigned for reform of the monetary system:
"Labour proposed a money system which would equate credit with the goods produced. The ideal was that the people should be able to utilise their own credit system and complete public works without incurring public debt."

I put it to you a concerted effort at reintroducing Labour grassroots to there founding ideals of reinstating a debt free public credit system might well be the only shot this nation has in the time remaining to regain economic independence for as many of its citizens as possible. Their founding ideals are as much needed today as they were then for the very same reasons.
The above MJS quote and a great article containing details of one of NZs greatest patriots John A Lee who was at the forefront of the last time NZ evoked its Public Credit Facilities to start our state housing project in 1936 with public credit borrowed fron noone, owed to noone. Lee left Labour when they backed down to the threat of sanctions made by the central bankers out of London in 1939. Labour has remained an infiltrated version of its original self since that day to this.
Read article on page 13 of volume 52 of Guardian Political Review
http://issuu.com/solutionsonline/docs/guardian52?mode=embed&layout=http%...

further irrefutable evidence from the horses mouths here:
http://publiccreditorbust.blog.com/2008/07/28/labours-original-ideals-we...

http://publiccreditorbust.blog.com/2009/10/05/excerpts-from-walter-nash-...

Walter - reflecting on our debate I have to say, just for the record, I've nothing against the idea of 'Green Light Industry'. In fact I don't care what colour or weight an industry has. The issue is, how to make such things happen and in trying to explain my thinking on that, I don't doubt my communication could have been more efficient and effective. However, I also am quite convinced that experience communicates more efficiently and effectively and it is experience that results in NZMEA holding the position it does and it is the main reason I support that position. I think it is the difference, but more importantly, the lack of experience, that is also one major reason certain people, institutions and politicians of various shades find the NZMEA position incongruent - notwithstanding agendas that are aimed at maintaining a no-change status quo.

I think this might be a convenient and gentle point to terminate our debate and simply agree to disagree, pending a change of experience. In that regard I await to be pleasantly surprised by a government institution ridden with the biases that have been widely discussed on these blogs, and the not so obvious benefits of either the 'central planning' approach or NZ's amusing interpretation of the neo.lib approach. I say amusing because I have been more so as I see people giving strong support for certain aspects, for example massive reduction of state and subsidies - but I see the same folk baulk, scuttle and run when we discuss how we might improve our taxation system based on their favoured economic cult's principle of broaden, flattening and lowering taxes. In fact if it weren't so damaging to the nation's future prospects it'd be bluming hilarious.

Here's to good experiences Walter, cheers, Les.

As Les has several times pointed out the nation, the economy, the society operates as a complex adaptive system so we should expect that something we do now may need change tomorrow etc.

A classic example is the post office and telecoms in this country. Can you all remeber the days when the post office owned the telephone system and the truly awful waste in labour that happened when they installed phone systems in new homes and generally ran the thing. As far as the public is concerned it gets far better service and a better bang for its buck now that it's privately owned. However if the state hadn't started it up there would have been no-one crazy enough to have run the 'phone system as a private enterprise in NZ in the '50s. Where is rail on the cycle?

Then there is the consideration that because power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely we should make sure that things our very lives depend on like water, sewage disposal and perhaps power distribution even, never fall into the hands of anyone with simply a profit motive. Inevitably they will rort the taxpayer and maybe eventually allow it to fall into ruin like the big banks in USA have right now.

So we must all be fearful of anyone with a fixed philosophy about what is best for us because as Mr Paulson found out there are times when the philosophy just has to be abandoned.

The crazy comment above about the NZMEA wanting to not change from its position misses the point. What the MEA is saying is that in this point in the cycle the economic policy settings will not deliver wealth for New Zealand. The nation needs wealth created from innovation and effort into new wealth creating activity. All the policy settings are stacked against that happening. High dollar, tax disincentive to invest in capital plant for improved output, tax disincentive to invest in intellectual property, and at the same time tax incentive to invest in non wealth creating assets like property and tax incentive to invest in domestic activity that is actually just churn in the movement of goods and services while the trading part of the economy needs export activity.

The NZMEA wouldn't be promoting this line if it was the CHINAMEA. It would be advocating higher wages for trades people and general workers so that they could buy more domestically and thus becaome less reliant on the USA for sales. Different economys need different stuff.

Where we are is plain for all to see. Our baby boom generation has fed itself from the activities of the previous two generations and now it has been so used to living that way it needs to feed off the income of the 'Y' and 'Z' generations. It has no other choice because we can't get the standard of living we want from our present levels of profit earned from our exports. Either the governmant acts to reduce the flow of milk through the feeding bottle now, or the world will do it to us later by turning the tap right off.

Selwyn's overall message is right but I think he fell into the trap of trying to argue about philosophy to illustrate it when actually he normally just talks common sense and that's a lot more understandable and difficult to argue against.

Brian W makes the point
"A classic example is the post office and telecoms in this country. Can you all remeber the days when the post office owned the telephone system and the truly awful waste in labour that happened when they installed phone systems in new homes and generally ran the thing. As far as the public is concerned it gets far better service and a better bang for its buck now that it's privately owned. However if the state hadn't started it up there would have been no-one crazy enough to have run the "˜phone system as a private enterprise in NZ in the '50s. Where is rail on the cycle?"

And I can recall that the Government of the day put millions into the telephone system in order to make it saleable. Then the buyers had the advantage of huge technological advances in telecommunications to follow on immediately. So did Telecom really do any better than the PO could have done? Who knows?
Compare to the Railways which had the similar asset rejuvenation from Government largesse to make that saleable. What happened there? We all know how we got ripped off in both cases.
Nuff said.

Logical Dave if you take the power cos today and say as a nation we have power generation as a strategic competitive advantage. We don't use that as we have re-priced our cost of electricity to the commercial cost of replacement of the assets that created them. Good neo-liberal stuff right?

Now to hell with the tax payers of old that slugged it out to build and pay for these infrastructure assets to have to pay again for the same thing even though its still the same original asset.

Well all that's bad enough but actually its just another form of taxation and the money stays in New Zealand so I can live with it. Now allow these power cos (in total) to be in private hands or worse foreign control and we have not only lost a strategic competitive advantage we have given over that advantage to an economic competitor to milk our economy. Just not smart if you are a shareholder of New Zealand

I'm more sceptical what those people involved understand of the term "Increasing productivity".

- Building more roads (Infrastructure) with machinery imported -.
- Extending Public transport with rolling stock imported -.
- Improving Power grid/ supply with equipment imported -.
- Improving education system with lecturer's /products/ etc. imported -.
- etc. -

Ha -Billions of $ are leaving the country.

http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/19/2025-productivi...

Walter

Sorry about that.

The folly of rewarding A and expecting B has long since been discussed in management theory. Incentive alignment in complex adaptive systems is the only way to aim at better outcomes, or each agent (person, firm, supply chain) seeks to optimise their bit of the system.

Sadly, the efficient bits, without incentive alignment, do not sum to an efficient system. Read Goldratt on Theory of Constraints to see where that came from.

So if we want growth we need incentive alignment aimed at growth.

If we prefer debt dissemination and wealth aggregation, and repressed growth as a result, we simply leave things as they are. Look at the differential growth rates between Singapore and NZ to give some truth to this statement.

We need to work out how to incentivise growth driving behaviours. Get an indication here:

http://www.mea.org.nz/documents/479-horses_for_courses_fixing_the_growth...