In this section
Offers for readers
Follow the news from interest
The comment stream
Recent comments
- 1 of 20720
- ››
Editors choice
- 1 of 294
- ››
Finance sector jobs
Western Union Business Solutions, a Global Fortune 500 Company, is seeking a highly experi...more
New Zealand
If you are motivated by the prospect of seeing the big picture, developing your team and m...more
New Zealand
If you are motivated by the prospect of seeing the big picture, developing your team and m...more
New Zealand
Reporting to the Senior Manager Operational Risk Effectiveness and Assurance, the key focu...more
New Zealand
The news stream
Latest news
Most commented
- Record exodus to Australia in last year 70
- 'Don't sell SOE shares; Borrow from Kiwis' 37
- 'Councils should look at asset sales' 34
- 90 seconds at 9 am: No G8 deal 20
- NZ to borrow more if crisis worsens-Key 19
- Beware of the creeping taxman 19
- Thousands get lower rates; what now? 16
- Monday's Top 10 with NZ Mint 12
- Euro-mess won't change Key on Super 8
- Pastoral Dairy Investments cans public offer 7
Most viewed
2025 Taskforce's Brash says political courage needed to close gap with Australia
Former Reserve Bank Governor and National Party Leader Don Brash has given his first speech since being appointed as the chairman of the Government's 2025 Taskforce to improve productivity and close the economic gap with Australia. Speaking to a group of around 100 people at the AUT Business School in Auckland, where he is Adjunct Professor of Banking, Brash said political courage would be needed for New Zealand to make the major changes in tax structures and investment policies to close the gap with Australia and improve our productivity. Brash steered clear of proposing solutions immediately, given the members of the taskforce have yet to be appointed. But he made some interesting points on the some of the 'myths' around the gaps between Australia and New Zealand. He said Australia's mining sector did not give it a natural advantage, given it produced only 5% of Australian GDP and 1% of employment. Brash pointed out that New Zealand's distance from its markets appeared a natural disadvantage, but was shared with Australia. Surprisingly, he said that New Zealand appeared not to have over-invested in property. He also said a higher savings rate did not necessarily lead to higher productivity, pointing to the experience in Japan over the last 20 years despite a high savings rate. He also suggested that one of New Zealand's problems is that capital is taxed too heavily, which might explain our relatively low investment in technology and infrastructure by the private sector. Brash said he had recommended one person from the Labour side of politics to be a member of the taskforce. The taskforce membership is due to be finalised next month. Here's the final section of the speech. The full speech is reproduced in full below that.
So finally we get back to the question: can we ever catch Australia? I've no doubt at all that we can, if there's the political will to do so. There's nothing inevitable about our relative decline: if it continues, it'll be because New Zealanders choose policies which give us that result. But note well: given the gap which emerged from the mid-seventies to the early nineties, it will not be sufficient to lift our growth rate to the average of other developed countries, or to Australia's growth rate. We will have to grow consistently faster than Australia for many years, and that means we will need to have better policies than Australia, and better institutions across a broad range of policy areas. This is arguably the biggest challenge New Zealand has faced since the Second World War. Small policy changes here and there won't cut the mustard. Substantial changes will be needed in government spending, in the regulatory framework, in investment, and in tax structures. As an aside, I hope that the tax advisory group which the Minister of Finance has set up with some of the best tax experts in the country will see one of its primary goals as advising how the tax system can help eliminate the gap in living standards between New Zealand and Australia. Some of the choices required to reach Australian living standards by 2025 won't be easy, and will require political courage of the highest order. But if we flunk those decisions, we have to accept that our grandchildren will grow up cheering for the Wallabies. I am greatly encouraged by the Prime Minister's personal commitment not to let that happen.
Can We Ever Catch Australia(Final)-Don Brash- AUT 30 July
68 Comments
Let's not burden our dear
Let's not burden our dear leaders too much and just aim to stay ahead of Mongolia. With any luck they might be able to achieve that.
Wally : Genghis Khan was
Wally : Genghis Khan was a Mongolian, pretty well known in his day, and a nippy wee varmint to his neighbours, so I am informed............let's not set our sights quite so high...........Tuvalu ! We'll aim to catch up with them.
Don - good luck, it'll need
Don - good luck, it'll need more than the kind of courage displayed by successive governments so far. Well done on the myths - it could be done:
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/opinion-why-catching-australia-will-defin...
And keep drilling....
Don Brash is such a
Don Brash is such a thoughtful fellow, I hope he can throw some light on this most serious issue.
Aussie 'pulled away in the
Aussie 'pulled away in the 70s when they started mining, and the ECC closed down our butter.
Im sure Brash will find all those mineral reserves under sky tower or the beehive, Aussie has out in the desert...
Or instead of sending more troops to help out the Yanks, do a Genghis Khan and send them , reinforced by our Boy Scouts .
Or does he know something Aussies dont know, they have already sold them to China and run out...
The comparison between Tazzy and NZ are very similar with similar such reserves.
Or is it just another excuse to create another politically correct toothless task force to keep the old school tie brigade in high paying jobs?
"Brash said political courage would be needed for New Zealand to make the major changes in tax structures and investment policies to close the gap"
We where all hopeful Key would be such a person to turn NZ around on its head, but as time goes on this is looking far more not to be the case....and it is going to take far more than changing a few tax structures for peter to pay paul, and investment policies.
It will just be shuffling paper unless radical social changes are made to support these.
Did anyone ask whether or
Did anyone ask whether or not government policy can actually increase productivity? I argue here that the evidence suggests the answer may be no.
Catch up with Aussie ?
Catch up with Aussie ?
We have a far better chance of catching swine flu.
NZ has an over-taxed working population and social policies which encourage and indulge beneficiaries who are continually complaining about the 'injustices and deprivations' visited on them.
What % of our working population earns LESS THAN THE AVERAGE WAGE ?
And they still have taxes docked from their pay packets.
Added to which, a Governor of the Reserve Bank who thinks a currency with less purchasing power is a national benefit.
Dear Mr Bollard, try putting food on the table on less than the average wage.
Take a moment to talk to people who are struggling in the community.
When was the last time you left your Ivory tower ?
Paul asks: Did anyone ask
Paul asks: Did anyone ask whether or not government policy can actually increase productivity? I argue here that the evidence suggests the answer may be no.
One can debate what productivity means. Most probably think people driving to work by 8:30 am with a full attaché case, wearing a blue tie and black polished shoes working in an office for 6 hours contribute the most.
Ask the question how many items we do need daily are not imported?
The cause of poor productivity
The cause of poor productivity in the realsector due to it being entrapped by the bullshit financial sector has been researched and noted long ago. Australia's advantages are superficial for the basically decent majority of businesses and citizens, as their bullshit sector due to forced compulsory superanuation exceeds that of most others and distorts their realsector figures beyond most others.
The form of productivity Don Brash supports will not bode well for the basically decent majority of businesses and citizens in this nation. Their are some people who are plain creedy, then there are some who by accident or who are canvassed discover the world of banker economic domination then choose to go a step further and join the ranks of the slaveminded mongrels whos idea of productivity and efficiency add up to no less than revenues - inputs = profits and if they could reduce the labour proportion of those inputs back to zero wages and only having to feed and house the slaves as has thus far dominated human history, they would tommorrow and they would then say that the slaves are very lucky that slavery existed or they would not have to even feed them.
The Business roundtable was formed out of the elites of England who fought every step of the way against the abolishment of slavery in the western world only 5 generations ago in 1830. They still actively persue the reinstatement of what they believe is the natural human order. Economic domination by the priveliged few over the many.
Excerpts from New Zealand In The Making, A Survey of Economic and Social Development, by Professor JB Condliffe 1930
Chapter 4 Borrowing For Development;
Page 291;
It is not possible to estimate to what extent this decline is traceable to inflation of values due to excessive borrowing. So many factors are at work in the economic structure of the Dominion that the mere coincidence of heavier borrowing and falling productivity is not necessarily proof that the one causes the other. Both may be due, or partly due, to a common cause, such as the rising price level reaching a point about 1910 where speculation was encouraged to an unprofitable point. The fact that a similar check to productivity appears to have taken place in Australia under somewhat different conditions should call for caution in attributing the New Zealand phenomenon to purely local causes.
The whole problem affords an interesting example of what Stamp* has called "economic stimulus". The fact that productivity declined heavily in the only similar period of heavy borrowing and active speculation in New Zealand's history, the period of the Vogel boom from 1879 to 1880, leads one to suspect that there is a point beyond which an undue amount of stimulant decreases instead of increasing productivity. Economists in Australia and New Zealand have developed the theory of an "absorption point" beyond which immigration causes a disturbance of economic equilibrium. It is fairly obvious that there is a similar absorption point at which the importation of borrowed capital sets in motion forces of speculation and unsettlement which more than counteract the extra productivity to be expected from improved equipment. New Zealand has ignored that absorption point with unfortunate results in her two periods of boom, the years following 1870 and the years following 1910.
http://socialcreditorbust.blog.co.nz/foreign%20debt%20destructive%20-%20...
I like reading articles, books,
I like reading articles, books, statements from a wide range of people, Paul Krugman, to Peter Schiff. I find DB's piece interesting and worth reading....hmmmm but no real lefties....interesting....
What I always enjoy is the analysis of the situation/problem by intelligent and thoughtful ppl....where many then fail is the solutions suggested are politialised....and some of the poor/dislikable parts of DBs speech is where the idelogy comes through.
I will look forward to DB's analysis of why we are not doing so well compared then to others analysis of his, rebuatls/agreements....hopefully once there are replies to DB's work we might actually be able to see why we have done "relatively" poorly....
The fact "relative" is used is interesting...we have not declined in real terms against others....
GTG
regards
Is this 'strategy week' or
Is this 'strategy week' or 'celebrate jobs for the boys Brash style week', I have trouble keeping up. Let's see if we can guess who Brash will invite to join him in the pig trough full of taxpayer money. No fun in wallowing around on your own is there. I bet he will discover a need for a team of oh at least six 'experienced' National rumpers just desperate for some cash from Brash. Then what? I mean what will they actually do apart from wallow in the trough? Nothing. It's not as though we have mountains of minerals waiting to be dug up. I guess silly Kiwi is once again going to be sidetracked with spin and humbug, conned into believing the earth is flat and the income gap can be closed. After oh at least two years of humming and harrrring what will be discover?
The answer is simple, appoint every adult to a civil service post on a salary of $300ooopa. Then input this crap into the nearest box of trix and there you have it, income gap closed. Thankyou Mr Brash and all the others taking the cash.
NZ is run so much
NZ is run so much better than Australia in so many different areas and not sure what the obsession is in emulating Australia. Wander how many votes you would garner in Australia by saying lets copy the kiwis.
You can play around on the fringes which they are doing with increasing flexibilty in the labour market, reforming the RMA etc. all which will help.
We are an exporting country yet the private sector get ankle tapped by the government sector. If Labour had shown a bit of fiscal restraint Bollard wouldnt have had to give us the highest interest rates in the world which pushed our currency to daft levels and hollowed out the productive sector. Masked by sky high dairy prices.
Bollard needs to use prudential measures which he has available but he needs to be supported by a finance minister who is not profligate then you might get stability in interest rates at a lower level, stable inflation and a less volatile exchenge rate.
I dont know how an exporter survived the US going fro 43 to 81 then back to 50 and now at 66 cents. Mental stuff.
David: "NZ is run so
David: "NZ is run so much better than Australia in so many different areas and not sure what the obsession is in emulating Australia" I agree, in some ways, I came here for quality of life and not for the $. If I wanted to earn the $ I would have stayed in London/UK and had a crap life style, somethings you cant put money on. The tradeoff is we have to be careful that we as a Nation can afford to pay for healthcare etc...
The biggest issue I have with the relative ranking is whats real and whats make believe....so for instance if 20% of the UK's GDP was financial and that's now gone, their GDP is going to take a huge hammer and they are going to drop in the OECD rankings...If that 20% was due to monopolistic practices eg "blood sucking vampire squid financial fiddling" then if NZ is exposed to competition for all its GDP then that would effectively screw up the relative data/rankings. Also the UK has had a huge natural advantage in its oil reserves, which are now depleted....there are so many reasons why....
So what I am hoping for is real info / justification on why NZ isnt doing that well...If its downright piracy, pillaging, fraud and fiddling by some sectors then the reality is we have no hope of competing/fixing the issues.
The rest of your comments start to get idealogical.....much of that I would consider not justified...or maybe I should say proven.
“Oh he’s a banker, the
"Oh he's a banker, the peasants will be sucked in to thinking he knows all about that economics stuff. Well it worked last time"¦"
Quite pathetic really. Referring to the source as "some observers" Brash rolls out the same old bla bla bla about tax, government spending, previous government's fault etc. etc. to explain our low productivity BUT as to be expected from an orthodox monetarist no mention of monetary policy and its effects on the productive sector. What are the terms of reference of this "taskforce" anyway?
"The Taskforce will provide an initial report in October 2009. Mr Hide said that report will identify the policy settings and changes that will deliver the productivity growth necessary for a stronger, more prosperous economy. Further progress reports will then be provided in 2010 and 2011."
http://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/2025+taskforce+be+established
Does that include a review of monetary policy? Bernard isn't it about time that interest.co.nz lobbied to have this discussion reopened, or are you still stuck in this mindset?
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2008/07/03/opinion-i-smell...
Interesting piece on Iceland and
Interesting piece on Iceland and how being forced to face its problems may get it into a good recovery position far faster....take your medicene and get on with it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/591268...
"Brash steered clear of proposing
"Brash steered clear of proposing solutions immediately, given the members of the taskforce have yet to be appointed" It's SO simple! Appoint everyone over the age of 18 to be on the task force with a fat $300ooo salary and problem solved. There you go John. What more do you want.
Hopefully Brash includes R Douglas
Hopefully Brash includes R Douglas in his group.
You never know: Presentation by
You never know:
Presentation by Dr Don Brash to the NZMEA - "Is There an Alternative to Present Monetary Policy", 20 Apr 2009, from here:
http://www.mea.org.nz/media/3rdparty.aspx
(He said yes.)
although:
English defies the evidence on monetary policy, 20 Feb 2009, from here:
http://www.mea.org.nz/media/pressreleases.aspx
and, just to be clear Don:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2612914/Brash-to-head-productiv...
"My understanding is the composition hasn't been finalised yet. It is going to be balanced. It just won't be from one political persuasion or one sort of approach to how we resolve these issues," Mr English said.
"If they come up with things that the Government finds politically unacceptable then they are not going to make progress."
So Don, you and the chosen few will indeed need to be courageous - or stun us with solutions that solve the problem - all while not impacting on the vested interests that continue to maintain the status quo.
Good luck - I think you will need every ounce of it.
I think in modern days
I think in modern days of worldwide competitive industrialism for a small country like NZ productivity/ manufacturing is a matter of clever planning/ strategy, which involves private sectors and the government working together - not against/ blaming each other.
Les - 2 questions: Firstly does "MEA" have a clear strategy what this country can produce? Secondly does the government have a clear strategy what this country should/ must produce?
I can't see any articles tackling this issue on your web-site.
Walter - am happy to
Walter - am happy to answer your questions, when you have answered the ones I asked you here:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/07/06/rbnz-says-fixed...
Maybe then you will be able to answer the question yourself that you have just asked me.
Cheers, Les.
Bill is learning to talk
Bill is learning to talk like JK (below). We will listen to all inputs and then do exactly what we were going to do in the first place.
Two issues have screwed this country
a fixation on price stability at the expense of the productive economy and biased investment tax policy (as per Les Rudd above).
The two have combined to destroy productivity, increase national debt (98%), remove economic sovereignty, deliver one of the lowest levels of housing affordability in the OECD and one of the worst levels of productivity while having one of the highest participation rates.
But Bill and John keep saying "its fine just try harder" People nothing will change unless we address monetary policy and remove the tax bias on housing. They have to be addressed together as they linked at the hip. If you dont understand why then you need to as that's whats at the core of this debate.
Hon BILL ENGLISH: I would not want to prejudge any position that the Government might take, other than to say we have indicated publicly that the advice from Treasury and the Inland Revenue Department is to go down that track.
We have said they would find it hard to win an argument with us about that. Nevertheless, the Tax Working Group that the Government has set up with Victoria University will be canvassing those issues, and we welcome further debate on them.
Les, you are right it
Les, you are right it doesn't work - we can't do it - it is far too difficult.
It is obvious to me your answer to my 2 questions has a lot to do with years of experiencing different culture.
Walter - given you are
Walter - given you are Swiss I understand the respect and empathy you have with good manufacturing. We do have some good manufacturers here in NZ, IMO some very good firms. However, to have more of them, expand them, to deepen and broaden our export mix and reduce (to a degree) reliance on imports we have to recognise manufacturing is a risk-based investment, as a business, as much as it is a discipline. Hence the need to level the investment playing field with appropriate policy, which is outlined on the NZMEA website, and by the likes of PEC, John Walley's, Selwyn's and my efforts here on this august, award winning, ever fizzing - Interest .co.nz Change policy and more productive enterprises would emerge and grow - whether they are in wool, wood, whey, washing-machines, widgets, websites, wirelesses or Wetas. The market and those understanding it's 'pull' would decide the product development strategies - all they need is ..... well you know I'm going to say.
I disagree, it's not too difficult - with the right policy settings it would happen. What is difficult, is persuading govt. to change policy appropriately in the face of the strong vested interest ranged against such change.
How do you think we could achieve that outcome?
Cheers, Les.
I like Iain Parker's articles
I like Iain Parker's articles in general = informed, intelligent and all well followed through.
Valuable points about NZ "productivity".
Thanks Walter, good to know
Thanks Walter, good to know from time to time that one is not just venting into a great big void.
Les - To answer your
Les - To answer your question I wrote many articles about ideas to increase productivity, especially in the primary sector in NZ on this blog.
Again for a small country like NZ competing in productivity/ manufacturing is a matter of clever & and long term planning/ strategy, which involves private sectors and the government working together - not against - blaming each other.
It all begins with some basic steps - Public Education.
1) Analysing, value what the public is confronted with by the media on a daily base.
2) Creation of a strategic plan what the public could/ should be educated/ inspired/ feed with by the media on a daily base.
We agree it is culture issues - manufacturing is not part of NZ's culture anymore. So, let us search for better, new solutions, which lead to changes the way we think in our society - a new spirit.
What first practical steps do you see to improve ?
Walter - "practical steps", of
Walter - "practical steps", of meaningful significance and effect:
1) Broad, flat, lower tax structure of uniform rate low to mid-20s, facilitated via inclusion of effective asset taxation.
2) Tax credit incentives for 'winning behaviours' that initiate and grow productive enterprise. (You know what they are.)
3) Modify monetary policy to include an effective credit volume control, leading to better inflation and exchange rate dynamics for the growth of productive enterprise - much better if that also led to development of national capital via a linked savings scheme.
4) Capitalise Kiwi bank as a facility for business development funding.
Much else is tinkering and wishful thinking.
Am being brief as I and others of similar ilk have fleshed out the detail, and reasoning here and elsewhere, as we have referred.
Cheers, must dash, Les.
Strewth even Infometrics have noticed
Strewth even Infometrics have noticed that monetary policy isn't working. This article published in this morning's Dompost under "Housing whoosh hurt economy"
http://www.infometrics.co.nz/article.asp?id=4814
Regulating capital reserve requirements of banks is such an obvious mechanism to control house price inflation one has to wonder how the vested interests exert their influence to stop this happening. The interests of banks are not aligned with those of the nation; sooner or later Bollard is going to have to decide which comes first. If he's not capable of making the right decision he should move on.
Les - Yes, your list
Les - Yes, your list of demands certainly make sense to me and a few others. I'm concerned and it is obvious that the public, but particularly the majority of politicians, bankers, economists etc. do not value and understand the importance of having a strong/ solid manufacturing national industry, which would lead to real wealth creation for NZ.
Les, as I wrote above we do need a completely new approach to initiate a culture change. Yes - I do say that as a SwissKIWI - sorry.
Les, .........The "Swiss Manufacturing of
Les,
.........The "Swiss Manufacturing of the Future" initiative is part of Europe-wide efforts to promote industry and not rely on the growing services sector.
"This initiative is important in so far as Switzerland will in the future remain an important place where we have industrial activities," Swiss Economics Minister Joseph Deiss told swissinfo.
The entire article here: http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/index.html?siteSect=107&sid=6240476&cKey=113...
W.Kunz : Get your people
W.Kunz : Get your people out of the European Union. Set them free. Then watch initiative flourish once more........never involve yourself in any undertaking that incorporates the term " union " , i.e. Trade union, Marriage union, etc. It will end in tears, every time.
Roger- A number of referendums
Roger- A number of referendums in the past showed there is a strong "Hedgehog Mentality" in Switzerland, so I'm not worried about that.
NZ is a tradeing nation
NZ is a tradeing nation with somewhere in the mid 30% of gdp from exports, exports break roughly into equal 4 segments, prosessed primary, unprocessed primary, manufactured goods and services. The export element of our gdp is higher than Australia, high income OECD average and much higher than the USA.
Given this you would think we would give some obvious policy focus to the needs of the export sector as outlined by Les. But what do we see? I wonder why?
Les, how much do you
Les, how much do you think the flat tax could be lowered to if we insisted upon taking up our sovereign right to issue our own debt free based money supply backed by our own resources and removed the impost of where much of our taxes go now, that is the $39 billion and fast rising that leaves this fading jem of a nation every year as debt servicing rent on our currently foreign borrowed/rented money supply. A foreign borrowed/rented money supply of created credit that is absurdly secured against our resources.
Extreme Socialism or extreme capitalism currently only favours the privately owned central bankers overseeing the debt based monetary system. Only reform of the conditions that currently surround credit on this earth will ever allow a civil system to be forged.
Lets tell the money pimps to bugger off.
Iain : 23 % is
Iain : 23 % is the figure Les quotes. It has been calculated out. You're not bothered that the peoples' socialist bank (KiwiBank) now loans up to 95 % on home loans, and no extra fees for risk premium ? Who are the money pimps there !
Les - some comments to
Les - some comments to my 2 articles 1st and 2nd of August ??
Hi Walter - apologies. You
Hi Walter - apologies. You posted these as I was travelling to UK to get some much needed hydration treatment, where I will be somewhat distracted at times and probably unable to operate machinery, even laptops. In fact just got a call to say it's nearly 11am and the treatment centres are open soon, so will have to dash. So apologies again for the apparent rudeness, I'll make a point of looking at those articles and replying to you, but am unlikely to be as regular blogging (or may not be able to at all sometimes) while in UK under this treatment programme, that also has ayurvedic elements. Cheers, Les.
Iain, Roger - that 23% is
Iain, Roger - that 23% is something Bernard got from IRD on that Tax Review Group thread Int.co had on here a while back.
Walter - I see over at:
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/nz-exporters-and-manufacturers-cut-jobs-1...
John Walley and Selwyn have been steadfastly answering the same kind of question that you asked me above. Let's try another way.
Suppose we attempt some centrally planned interventional strategy to initiate, develop and sustain more productive enterprises and so improve society's cultural response to the point where it is believed that investing time, effort, talent and funds in these extra and developing productive enterprises is worthwhile - just as, if not more worthwhile in some cases, than just investing in primaries, tourism, property inflation and land inflation. No doubt such a programme might well use countries like Switzerland as a useful reference point, also Finland say, Taiwan, Japan, even Europe in general. Such a programme might have components like:
a public R&D and private sector business development grant system focusing primarily on sectors 'picked as winners', that is, ICT, bio-tech and the creatives.
a sub-programme to develop clusters of companies specialising in certain sectors/niches.
a project to focus on 100 'hi-tech' growing firms and support them specifically to develop their turnover to $100mio each.
a project to help persuade NZ consumers to favour buying locally produced goods and to be supportive of NZ producers in terms of various investment.
a project that chooses a particular year to exhort firms to export more, backed by an, apparent, extra $33mio in business grants. (That is, $9Mio less than granted to the national sailing team.)
a project called Manufacturing Plus, to again exhort and encourage society to take manufacturing seriously as a career, business and investment choice, and push 'lean thinking' as a manufacturing business management practice.
the project above might also include a sub-project especially focused on the electronics sector and a key dimension might be national consolidated sourcing of components.
a project aimed at encouraging companies to compete more, and better by design. (Some good stuff, awkward start, but am always suspicious of podgy people wearing tight black turtle necks....)
a project aimed at developing the origin branding of the country itself as yielding experiences uniquely associated with its 'pure' environment and 'pure' produce.
projects run by training/education organisations to encourage young people to choose careers at various levels in science, technology and engineering.
expand EDAs - that even when reduced in staff complement by nearly 50% it appears have no discernible negative impact on the associated region. (What were the other half doing, for so long, with my rates and taxes?)
local trade-shows to raise profile of certain sectors, that because no serious offshore buyers would ever....oh, never mind, this is tiring to say the least.
waste
more waste
etc.
From the way you've presented your question to me it appears you might favour this kind of government with hands-on, interventional approach. Anyway, in my opinion this kind of approach would in general fail, and in some areas/projects yield nothing more than complete failure.
You might ask how I can be so arrogant with my assessment of such a programme. Well it's not arrogance, it's an assessment based on EVIDENCE, because this is exactly what NZ has tried in the last 10 years - and it has FAILED. However things are worse now, with the present government reversing some of the change NZMEA had advocated to improve the sorry mix of wonk outlined above, in particular repealing the R&D tax credit, etc. (Durrrrrrr!)
This approach failed Walter because it is largely based on principles of the 'command economy', central planning and of course 'picking winners', but more significantly the policy settings the likes of NZMEA and PEC advocate were not present. Policy settings that have been outlined to you before, summary in my comment here, August 1st, 2009 at 6:11 am Policies that would have allowed the micro-economics at the firm level to effect growth and development of productive enterprises and thence NZ's economy, as a whole. With such an experience of wealth generation, society's cultural response to more and broader productive enterprise would have become more positive. I'm sure of that - because when people are making $$$ they simply like to make more. It's who we are, let's not get all noble about it, it's a fact. If more people were EXPERIENCING making $$$ in a broader variety of productive enterprise than NZ is used to, hey presto - culture change. Walter, making $$$ is the reality in this, nothing else.
It's not chicken and egg this one, because of OUR CONTEXT, it's policy change first, then culture change will follow. It's as strong a relationship as implied by the good old adage, "Get them by the short and curlies, and their hearts and minds are sure to follow."
But Walter, we have a problem in terms of policy change, and the depth of the problem seems to have become clearer, in my opinion, only just lately:
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/have-your-say-housing-minister-others-ben...
As you can see, some may need the short and curly treatment and then NZ would follow and improve, because without the policy changes we have advocated, the only way NZ will close the gap with Australia - is by tectonic plate shift. Who knows, maybe that will actually be easier than resolving the issues raised in the thread linked above?
Sadly however, the policy change we and others advocate - that would be very beneficial to NINETY % of New Zealanders - would also be in direct conflict with the VESTED INTERESTS of approx.10% of our population. A grouping that seems to contain some very powerful and influential people and entities, oh, and it seems a fair proportion of our parliamentarians. Little wonder that those who advocate for effective change become so perplexed at the reactions to our suggestions - we had thought they were working in the interests of ALL New Zealanders - I think we may have been mistaken about that. Little wonder also that this should look like unnecessary conflict to you Walter, but there is no point nicely cozying up to government and their officials when they are doing stuff that so obviously wastes our taxes and the future of our country, eg. the kind of tinkering crap I've listed above, in place of effective taxation and monetary policy change - which it seems will also not happen under the present government.
Walter, the question you and others should be asking is, "Who or what has our government establishment by the short and curlies? And what will it take to let em' go?" (Look how short and curly those $$$ signs are....)
Anyway I'm getting too distracted at present to give more time to questions on this issue and given John and Selwyn have also explained the same answers, please forgive me if I don't respond to you on this thread and aspect again for some time.
Cheers, Les.
PS - Don, again, best of luck.
Thank you Les - a
Thank you Les - a great, positive start into a good debate, but I'm challenged- yes - and I need a few hours for a valuable response.
Tonight I will write about
Tonight I will write about my view of developing a NZ manufacturing culture.
In the meantime I think this link is a valuable guideline for media/ public, but especially decision makers such as our politicians/ bankers/ to learn about the importance of supporting manufacturing in NZ.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file25266.pdf
Les - and others, To make
Les - and others,
To make better sense please, read also comments on:
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/nz-exporters-and-manufacturers-cut-jobs-1...
The strong manufacturing culture in Switzerland didn't develop overnight, but consistently over decades. Different pillars of the industry helped to make the country less depended, in order to achieve a working manufacturing unity, well respected within the country, successfully competing in international markets. Of course under such conditions for government and industries it is much easier do work together for common targets.
As a young, rather isolated, rather under populated country like NZ, of course such results are far more difficult to achieve, especially now in modern times, where competition is far greater. So, the question is how to achieve success. Again it doesn't happen overnight.
Les your listing of actions is in fact very valuable, but one important fact is missing THE PUBLIC. It is a matter of how, when and in which sequence the actions are executed to be successful.
What does the general public know about manufacturing here in NZ ? Answer not much. The majority of the public knows more about Real estate markets, investments, leisure, is confronted with Coro Street, Crime programs, gossip, hunting/ fishing and of course with daily bombardments of advertisements about consumption of all sorts. So, why do you expect the public coming to a trade show ?
We all read News Papers, watch TV and listen to radio, I think the NZMEA needs to develop first a clever, long lasting PR campaign to initiate changes, working with the government/ industry and important media, especially national TV targeting/ brighten up THE PUBLIC. Readers of News Paper/ magazines need to be fed regularly by success stories from manufacturers. I suggest Coro Street should be replaced by programs like NZ Potters, NZ Printers, NZ Tool Makers etc. Crime programs should be replaced by exciting/ entertaining educational/ economic/ political programs.
During my education 60' and after working for my own business 70' 80' there was a proud feeling in the public eye and a high spirit to be involved in most manufacturing processes. The Swiss population regarded manufacturing as an asset which made the country wealthy and prospers.
I wouldn't be surprised more people are involved in the Real Estate industry then in Manufacturing industry.
What a prospect for our country ?
Below another link about principles of how the private sector and government should work together to develop a strategy to develop a manufacture culture:
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/viewKeyReadings.do;jsessionid=C62E...
Sounds great Walter. All all
Sounds great Walter.
All all seriousness and with all due respect, how far down the foodchain did the proceeds get from the anonymous swiss bank acount racket, before it was cracked open a little. Favour most of the nation or the usual 3 odd %? Switzerland still very synonomous with central banking today, being the home of the Bank of International Settlements, this advantage many or just the few?
What size would you say the financial sector is compared to realsector in Switzerland compared to elsewhere?
Walter - have read the above
Walter - have read the above and will comment in due course. Could you answer t question I asked you here:
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/nz-exporters-and-manufacturers-cut-jobs-1...
That is, reiterating:
"surrounded by losers." - would you have a greater or lesser risk of losing if you started an export focused productive enterprise in the present taxation, monetary policy environment, that is, retain the status quo, without the changes the likes of NZMEA and PEC advocate?
Cheers, Les.
Les, I'm not an expert
Les, I'm not an expert on your question, so a better not comment, but obviously the government should create better conditions for exporters (manufacturers) of course. I'm also concerned about parliamentarians not having the ability to represent the industry well enough here in NZ and overseas.
My article above 10.8. 10:28pm is also an answer to many of your concerns.
Look BH blog today - full of Real Estate stuff - juggling with figures around.
Les : All OK with
Les : All OK with you ? Missed your later blogs, had to do a trial run in our new printing facility, near Chch Airport. Increased productivity by importing smarter machinery. Impressive performance !
Re. food miles ; from the BBC radio : Do the English wish to limit themselves to a diet sourced from their own cool & damp climate ? Will they give up French wine, Dutch cheese, and Belgium chocolate, to subsist on a diet of turnips, rabbits, and barley ?
And as W.Kunz points out, our favourite web-site is yet again dominated by interest rates and property prices. Ain't that a shame...When will we learn !!!
Roger, ...Increased productivity by importing
Roger,
...Increased productivity by importing smarter machinery. Impressive performance !
In most developed countries what you are saying could be "The joke of the Day". Here in NZ sadly it is daily practice.
W.Kunz : I must be
W.Kunz : I must be careful of what I say.......But you are on the right wave-length !
...and to make the nation
...and to make the nation aware of a strong and proud manufacturing spirit.
...and it will change our nation into wealth and prosperity, without killing the next generation and our environment - a future for NZ - it is all here !
Sorry Iain for my late
Sorry Iain for my late response I overlooked your article:
http://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/portal/en/index/themen/04/02/02/key/nach_bra...
It not only sounds good- it is real. Not like many other nations Switzerland does not have natural resources - except water. As you can see with the link manufacturing is very strong - also traditional with a long history behind and of course therefore strongly supported by banks/ government.
By the way corrupt Bankers are currently damaging the good image of the Swiss economy.
Walter - thanks for your
Walter - thanks for your answer,
"Les, I'm not an expert on your question, so a better not comment, but obviously the government should create better conditions for exporters (manufacturers) of course. I'm also concerned about parliamentarians not having the ability to represent the industry well enough here in NZ and overseas." Which was in reply to my earlier question:
"surrounded by losers." - would you have a greater or lesser risk of losing if you started an export focused productive enterprise in the present taxation, monetary policy environment, that is, retain the status quo, without the changes the likes of NZMEA and PEC advocate?
I am now beginning to reconcile your enthusiasm and empathy with manufacturing, with what I discern as as your misunderstanding of what it takes, and would take to allow more and stronger, growing productive enterprises to emerge in the context of New Zealand's economic environment.
I too am also concerned about the ability of some of our parliamentarians, and their officials, because it was them and people like them that promoted and presided over the sorry list of centrally planned wonk I listed out in my comment above at August 10th, 2009 at 9:37 am Those interventions were mainly failures Walter - and they did seek to address - more by wishful thinking than any real effective policy logic - the issue of changing the perception of the "THE PUBLIC" toward productive activity. As I've explained above, that will only happen when people see a quid in it, usually because they have made a quid in it, which then leads to a change their 'hearts and minds' - our culture. Exhorting people to change their perception, mind-sets and behaviour, with nothing more than exhortations of, "It's a wonderful idea, it has worked in X, Y, Z countries," without due regard for historical and policy differences, is bollocks, sorry, wishful thinking. What is required, is appropriate policy change, as I and others have outlined.
And you say, "Look at BH's blog today - full of Real Estate stuff - juggling with figures around." Firstly I do think the one your refer to is a very useful thread and illustrates one of our major problems - derivation of wealth via property/land investment and speculation, and the issue isn't lost on the folk contributing there, in particular Bernard, see:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/11/nz-house-prices...
Sure it'd be great if people pointed their funds away from property more toward productive enterprise, but can we blame them if they don't? I don't think so. The policy framework leans against that change and direction, and then there is the problems associated with legitimacy and trust of some of our institutions, see, and drill through to comments by Kevin M and Kin, here:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/05/20/have-your-say-m...
Walter, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and your honesty, with, "I'm not an expert on your question, so a better not comment." However the people who govern, support and lead NZMEA, and our oppos and affiliates at PEC, are indeed experts, in actually creating and running productive enterprises, in New Zealand, and around the globe. Hence our approach to advocating effective policy change that allows improved micro-economic outcomes at the firm level, in preference to exhortations of, "Love what we do, we'll hug you back. We'll all feel good." (That approach is about as much good as t*ts on a bull.)
The flawed huggy type thinking seems to be manifest here in a comment by David (no disrespect David just making a point) at:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/11/opinion-govts-e...
"We grow protein here exceptionally well and the resources need to start in the schools to encourage the kids into science not training waiters and communications specialists."
Again, I very much respect the intent, but why would parents want their children channelled in directions where they and their peers do not seem to have realised the kind of financial benefits afforded by other career avenues/sectors - that enjoy the kind of tax treatment, subsidies (nil effective asset taxation) and the collateral effect of inappropriate monetary policy ("Greed is good - but more so asset inflation!"), that those alternative career avenues/sectors actually exhibit? Besides, the children are smart enough to work it out for themselves, it's just a blying shame our parliamentarians and their officials seem so unable to. Or are they not that smart? I don't really think so, some of them seem quite smart and SHARP to me:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/05/have-your-say-h...
I wish I could respect the enthusiasm and intent of those people. (Not likely, any time soon.) Anyway, go Selwyn, go John, go Jacko, go Michael Laws - I wonder if we will ever see the kinds of change that are becoming more and more obvious by the day, by the business failure, by the farm failure, by the mio of extra structural debt in the cad, by the job, by the loss of another Kiwi to Auz, by the disillusionment of another X or Y'er?
Don,.... you know what I'm going to say,...... don't let the NATION down.
Walter - thanks for your
Walter - thanks for your answer,
"Les, I'm not an expert on your question, so a better not comment, but obviously the government should create better conditions for exporters (manufacturers) of course. I'm also concerned about parliamentarians not having the ability to represent the industry well enough here in NZ and overseas." Which was in answer to my earlier question:
"surrounded by losers." - would you have a greater or lesser risk of losing if you started an export focused productive enterprise in the present taxation, monetary policy environment, that is, retain the status quo, without the changes the likes of NZMEA and PEC advocate?
I am now beginning to reconcile your enthusiasm and empathy with manufacturing with what I discern as a misunderstanding of what it takes, and would take to allow more and stronger, growing productive enterprises to emerge in the context of New Zealand's economic environment.
I too am also concerned about the ability of some of our parliamentarians, and their officials, because it was them and people like them that promoted and presided over the sorry list of centrally planned wonk I listed out in my comment above at August 10th, 2009 at 9:37 am Those interventions were mainly failures Walter - and they did seek to address - more by wishful thinking than any real effective policy logic - the issue of changing the perception of the "THE PUBLIC" toward productive activity. As I've explained above, that will only happen when people see a quid in it, usually because they have made a quid in it, which then leads to a change their 'hearts and minds' - our culture. Exhorting people to change their perception, mind-sets and behaviour, with nothing more than exhortations of, "It's a wonderful idea, it has worked in X, Y, Z countries," without due regard for historical and policy differences, is bollocks, sorry, wishful thinking. What is required, is appropriate policy change, as I and others have outlined.
And you say, "Look at BH's blog today - full of Real Estate stuff - juggling with figures around." Firstly I do think the one your refer to is a very useful thread and illustrates one of our major problems - derivation of wealth via property/land investment and speculation, and the issue isn't lost on the folk contributing there, in particular Bernard, see:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/11/nz-house-prices...
Sure it'd be great if people pointed their funds away from property more toward productive enterprise, but can we blame them if they don't? I don't think so. The policy framework leans against that change and direction, and then there is the problems associated with legitimacy and trust of some of our institutions, see, and drill through to comments by Kevin M and Kin, here:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/05/20/have-your-say-m...
Walter, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and your honesty, with, "I'm not an expert on your question, so a better not comment." However the people who govern, support and lead NZMEA, and our oppos and affiliates at PEC, are indeed experts, in actually creating and running productive enterprises, in New Zealand, and around the globe. Hence our approach to advocating effective policy change that allows improved micro-economic outcomes at the firm level, in preference to exhortations of, "Love what we do, we'll hug you back. We'll all feel good." (That approach is about as much good as t*ts on a bull.)
The flawed huggy type thinking seems to be manifest here in a comment by David (no disrespect David just making a point) at:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/11/opinion-govts-e...
"We grow protein here exceptionally well and the resources need to start in the schools to encourage the kids into science not training waiters and communications specialists."
Again, I very much respect the intent, but why would parents want their children channelled in directions where they and their peers do not seem to have realised the kind of financial benefits afforded by other career avenues/sectors - that enjoy the kind of tax treatment, subsidies (nil effective asset taxation) and the collateral effect of inappropriate monetary policy ("Greed is good - but more so asset inflation!"), that those alternative career avenues/sectors actually exhibit? Besides, the children are smart enough to work it out for themselves, it's just a blying shame our parliamentarians and their officials seem so unable to. Or are they not that smart? I don't really think so, some of them seem quite smart and SHARP to me:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/05/have-your-say-h...
I wish I could respect the enthusiasm and intent of those people. (Not likely, any time soon.) Anyway, go Selwyn, go John, go Jacko, go Michael Laws - I wonder if we will ever see the kinds of change that are becoming more and more obvious by the day, by the business failure, by the farm failure, by the mio of extra structural debt in the cad, by the job, by the loss of another Kiwi to Auz, by the disillusionment of another X or Y'er?
Don,.... you know what I'm going to say,...... don't let our NATION down
Walter - thanks for your
Walter - thanks for your answer,
"Les, I'm not an expert on your question, so a better not comment, but obviously the government should create better conditions for exporters (manufacturers) of course. I'm also concerned about parliamentarians not having the ability to represent the industry well enough here in NZ and overseas." Which was in answer to my earlier question:
"surrounded by losers." - would you have a greater or lesser risk of losing if you started an export focused productive enterprise in the present taxation, monetary policy environment, that is, retain the status quo, without the changes the likes of NZMEA and PEC advocate?
I am now beginning to reconcile your enthusiasm and empathy with manufacturing with what I discern as a misunderstanding of what it takes, and would take to allow more and stronger, growing productive enterprises to emerge in the context of New Zealand's economic environment.
I too am also concerned about the ability of some of our parliamentarians, and their officials, because it was them and people like them that promoted and presided over the sorry list of centrally planned wonk I listed out in my comment above at August 10th, 2009 at 9:37 am Those interventions were mainly failures Walter - and they did seek to address - more by wishful thinking than any real effective policy logic - the issue of changing the perception of the "THE PUBLIC" toward productive activity. As I've explained above, that will only happen when people see a quid in it, usually because they have made a quid in it, which then leads to a change their 'hearts and minds' - our culture. Exhorting people to change their perception, mind-sets and behaviour, with nothing more than exhortations of, "It's a wonderful idea, it has worked in X, Y, Z countries," without due regard for historical and policy differences, is rubbish, sorry, wishful thinking. What is required, is appropriate policy change, as I and others have outlined.
And you say, "Look at BH's blog today - full of Real Estate stuff - juggling with figures around." Firstly I do think the one your refer to is a very useful thread and illustrates one of our major problems - derivation of wealth via property/land investment and speculation, and the issue isn't lost on the folk contributing there, in particular Bernard, see:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/11/nz-house-prices...
Sure it'd be great if people pointed their funds away from property more toward productive enterprise, but can we blame them if they don't? I don't think so. The policy framework leans against that change and direction, and then there is the problems associated with legitimacy and trust of some of our institutions, see, and drill through to comments by Kevin M and Kin, here:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/05/20/have-your-say-m...
Walter, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and your honesty, with, "I'm not an expert on your question, so a better not comment." However the people who govern, support and lead NZMEA, and our oppos and affiliates at PEC, are indeed experts, in actually creating and running productive enterprises, in New Zealand, and around the globe. Hence our approach to advocating effective policy change that allows improved micro-economic outcomes at the firm level, in preference to exhortations of, "Love what we do, we'll hug you back. We'll all feel good." (That approach is about as much good as t*ts on a bull.)
The flawed huggy type thinking seems to be manifest here in a comment by David (no disrespect David just making a point) at:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/11/opinion-govts-e...
"We grow protein here exceptionally well and the resources need to start in the schools to encourage the kids into science not training waiters and communications specialists."
Again, I very much respect the intent, but why would parents want their children channelled in directions where they and their peers do not seem to have realised the kind of financial benefits afforded by other career avenues/sectors - that enjoy the kind of tax treatment, subsidies (nil effective asset taxation) and the collateral effect of inappropriate monetary policy ("Greed is good - but more so asset inflation!"), that those alternative career avenues/sectors actually exhibit? Besides, the children are smart enough to work it out for themselves, it's just a blying shame our parliamentarians and their officials seem so unable to. Or are they not that smart? I don't really think so, some of them seem quite smart and SHARP to me:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/05/have-your-say-h...
I wish I could respect the enthusiasm and intent of those people. (Not likely, any time soon.) Anyway, go Selwyn, go John, go Jacko, go Michael Laws - I wonder if we will ever see the kinds of change that are becoming more and more obvious by the day, by the business failure, by the farm failure, by the mio of extra structural debt in the cad, by the job, by the loss of another Kiwi to Auz, by the disillusionment of another X or Y'er?
Don,.... you know what I'm going to say,...... don't let our NATION down
Roger, Walter - investment in
Roger, Walter - investment in plant, see Number 3* here:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/04/15/opinion-how-tou...
A 'winning behaviour' to be encourgaged. See the discussion on depreciation in this NZMEA paper:
Asset Tax and Productivity - updated, 26 Nov 2006, here:
http://www.mea.org.nz/media/outlook.aspx
I remember when John Key was in opposition he spoke favourably of first year full rate depreciation of plant at one of the MEA annual President's Functions. Anyone heard anything from him on this topic since being in power?
Roger - "Re. food miles ; from the BBC radio : Do the English wish to limit themselves to a diet sourced from their own cool & damp climate ? Will they give up French wine, Dutch cheese, and Belgium chocolate, to subsist on a diet of turnips, rabbits, and barley?" I guess you saw my comment on the NZMEA Business Survey thread about 12 food miles, rabbits and carrots?
Anyway to answer to your point, don't forget this is the country that put sheep remains including spinal material contaminated with a dodgy virus, into cattle feed - the rest is history. English ale is great, but have you ever had Engish fish and chips? So, basically anything is possible here. NZ should NOT live in denial about the potential risks to our main exports, to ANY market, and even getting as dependent on, and shipping to any market much less than 12,000 miles away.
Cheers, Les.
Walter - thanks for your
Walter - thanks for your answer,
"Les, I'm not an expert on your question, so a better not comment, but obviously the government should create better conditions for exporters (manufacturers) of course. I'm also concerned about parliamentarians not having the ability to represent the industry well enough here in NZ and overseas." Which was in answer to my earlier question:
"surrounded by losers." - would you have a greater or lesser risk of losing if you started an export focused productive enterprise in the present taxation, monetary policy environment, that is, retain the status quo, without the changes the likes of NZMEA and PEC advocate?
I am now beginning to reconcile your enthusiasm and empathy with manufacturing with what I discern as a misunderstanding of what it takes, and would take to allow more and stronger, growing productive enterprises to emerge in the context of New Zealand's economic environment.
I too am also concerned about the ability of some of our parliamentarians, and their officials, because it was them and people like them that promoted and presided over the sorry list of centrally planned wonk I listed out in my comment above at August 10th, 2009 at 9:37 am Those interventions were mainly failures Walter - and they did seek to address - more by wishful thinking than any real effective policy logic - the issue of changing the perception of the "THE PUBLIC" toward productive activity. As I've explained above, that will only happen when people see a quid in it, usually because they have made a quid in it, which then leads to a change their 'hearts and minds' - our culture. Exhorting people to change their perception, mind-sets and behaviour, with nothing more than exhortations of, "It's a wonderful idea, it has worked in X, Y, Z countries," without due regard for historical and policy differences, is rubbish, sorry, wishful thinking. What is required, is appropriate policy change, as I and others have outlined.
And you say, "Look at BH's blog today - full of Real Estate stuff - juggling with figures around." Firstly I do think the one your refer to is a very useful thread and illustrates one of our major problems - derivation of wealth via property/land investment and speculation, and the issue isn't lost on the folk contributing there, in particular Bernard, see:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/11/nz-house-prices...
Sure it'd be great if people pointed their funds away from property more toward productive enterprise, but can we blame them if they don't? I don't think so. The policy framework leans against that change and direction, and then there is the problems associated with legitimacy and trust of some of our institutions, see, and drill through to comments by Kevin M and Kin, here:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/05/20/have-your-say-m...
Walter, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and your honesty, with, "I'm not an expert on your question, so a better not comment." However the people who govern, support and lead NZMEA, and our oppos and affiliates at PEC, are indeed experts, in actually creating and running productive enterprises, in New Zealand, and around the globe. Hence our approach to advocating effective policy change that allows improved micro-economic outcomes at the firm level, in preference to exhortations of, "Love what we do, we'll hug you back. We'll all feel good."
The flawed huggy type thinking seems to be manifest here in a comment by David (no disrespect David just making a point) at:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/11/opinion-govts-e...
"We grow protein here exceptionally well and the resources need to start in the schools to encourage the kids into science not training waiters and communications specialists."
Again, I very much respect the intent, but why would parents want their children channelled in directions where they and their peers do not seem to have realised the kind of financial benefits afforded by other career avenues/sectors - that enjoy the kind of tax treatment, subsidies (nil effective asset taxation) and the collateral effect of inappropriate monetary policy ("Greed is good - but more so asset inflation!"), that those alternative career avenues/sectors actually exhibit? Besides, the children are smart enough to work it out for themselves, it's just a blying shame our parliamentarians and their officials seem so unable to. Or are they not that smart? I don't really think so, some of them seem quite smart and SHARP to me:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/05/have-your-say-h...
I wish I could respect the enthusiasm and intent of those people. (Not likely, any time soon.) Anyway, go Selwyn, go John, go Jacko, go Michael Laws - I wonder if we will ever see the kinds of change that are becoming more and more obvious by the day, by the business failure, by the farm failure, by the mio of extra structural debt in the cad, by the job, by the loss of another Kiwi to Auz, by the disillusionment of another X or Y'er?
Don,.... you know what I'm going to say,...... don't let our NATION down
Walter - thanks for your
Walter - thanks for your answer,
"Les, I'm not an expert on your question, so a better not comment, but obviously the government should create better conditions for exporters (manufacturers) of course. I'm also concerned about parliamentarians not having the ability to represent the industry well enough here in NZ and overseas." Which was in answer to my earlier question:
"surrounded by losers." - would you have a greater or lesser risk of losing if you started an export focused productive enterprise in the present taxation, monetary policy environment, that is, retain the status quo, without the changes the likes of NZMEA and PEC advocate?
I am now beginning to reconcile your enthusiasm and empathy with manufacturing with what I discern as a misunderstanding of what it takes, and would take to allow more and stronger, growing productive enterprises to emerge in the context of New Zealand's economic environment.
I too am also concerned about the ability of some of our parliamentarians, and their officials, because it was them and people like them that promoted and presided over the sorry list of centrally planned wonk I listed out in my comment above at August 10th, 2009 at 9:37 am Those interventions were mainly failures Walter - and they did seek to address - more by wishful thinking than any real effective policy logic - the issue of changing the perception of the "THE PUBLIC" toward productive activity. As I've explained above, that will only happen when people see a quid in it, usually because they have made a quid in it, which then leads to a change their 'hearts and minds' - our culture. Exhorting people to change their perception, mind-sets and behaviour, with nothing more than exhortations of, "It's a wonderful idea, it has worked in X, Y, Z countries," without due regard for historical and policy differences, is rubbish, sorry, wishful thinking. What is required, is appropriate policy change, as I and others have outlined.
And you say, "Look at BH's blog today - full of Real Estate stuff - juggling with figures around." Firstly I do think the one your refer to is a very useful thread and illustrates one of our major problems - derivation of wealth via property/land investment and speculation, and the issue isn't lost on the folk contributing there, in particular Bernard, see:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/11/nz-house-prices...
Sure it'd be great if people pointed their funds away from property more toward productive enterprise, but can we blame them if they don't? I don't think so. The policy framework leans against that change and direction, and then there is the problems associated with legitimacy and trust of some of our institutions, see, and drill through to comments by Kevin M and Kin, here:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/05/20/have-your-say-m...
Walter, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and your honesty, with, "I'm not an expert on your question, so a better not comment." However the people who govern, support and lead NZMEA, and our oppos and affiliates at PEC, are indeed experts, in actually creating and running productive enterprises, in New Zealand, and around the globe. Hence our approach to advocating effective policy change that allows improved micro-economic outcomes at the firm level, in preference to exhortations of, "Love what we do, we'll hug you back. We'll all feel good."
The flawed huggy type thinking seems to be manifest here in a comment by David (no disrespect David just making a point) at:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/11/opinion-govts-e...
"We grow protein here exceptionally well and the resources need to start in the schools to encourage the kids into science not training waiters and communications specialists."
Again, I very much respect the intent, but why would parents want their children channelled in directions where they and their peers do not seem to have realised the kind of financial benefits afforded by other career avenues/sectors - that enjoy the kind of tax treatment, subsidies (nil effective asset taxation) and the collateral effect of inappropriate monetary policy ("Greed is good - but more so asset inflation!"), that those alternative career avenues/sectors actually exhibit? Besides, the children are smart enough to work it out for themselves, it's just a blying shame our parliamentarians and their officials seem so unable to. Or are they not that smart? I don't really think so, some of them seem quite smart and SHARP to me:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/05/have-your-say-h...
I wish I could respect the enthusiasm and intent of those people. (Not likely, any time soon.) Anyway, go Selwyn, go John, go Jacko, go Michael Laws - I wonder if we will ever see the kinds of change that are becoming more and more obvious by the day, by the business failure, by the farm failure, by the mio of extra structural debt in the cad, by the job, by the loss of another Kiwi to Auz, by the disillusionment of another X or Y'er?
Don,.... you know what I'm going to say,...... don't let our NATION down
Walter - thanks for your
Walter - thanks for your answer,
"Les, I'm not an expert on your question, so a better not comment, but obviously the government should create better conditions for exporters (manufacturers) of course. I'm also concerned about parliamentarians not having the ability to represent the industry well enough here in NZ and overseas." Which was in answer to my earlier question:
"surrounded by losers." - would you have a greater or lesser risk of losing if you started an export focused productive enterprise in the present taxation, monetary policy environment, that is, retain the status quo, without the changes the likes of NZMEA and PEC advocate?
I am now beginning to reconcile your enthusiasm and empathy with manufacturing with what I discern as a misunderstanding of what it takes, and would take to allow more and stronger, growing productive enterprises to emerge in the context of New Zealand's economic environment.
I too am also concerned about the ability of some of our parliamentarians, and their officials, because it was them and people like them that promoted and presided over the sorry list of centrally planned wonk I listed out in my comment above at August 10th, 2009 at 9:37 am Those interventions were mainly failures Walter - and they did seek to address - more by wishful thinking than any real effective policy logic - the issue of changing the perception of the "THE PUBLIC" toward productive activity. As I've explained above, that will only happen when people see a quid in it, usually because they have made a quid in it, which then leads to a change their 'hearts and minds' - our culture. Exhorting people to change their perception, mind-sets and behaviour, with nothing more than exhortations of, "It's a wonderful idea, it has worked in X, Y, Z countries," without due regard for historical and policy differences, is rubbish, sorry, wishful thinking. What is required, is appropriate policy change, as I and others have outlined.
And you say, "Look at BH's blog today - full of Real Estate stuff - juggling with figures around." Firstly I do think the one your refer to is a very useful thread and illustrates one of our major problems - derivation of wealth via property/land investment and speculation, and the issue isn't lost on the folk contributing there, in particular Bernard, see:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/11/nz-house-prices...
Sure it'd be great if people pointed their funds away from property more toward productive enterprise, but can we blame them if they don't? I don't think so. The policy framework leans against that change and direction, and then there is the problems associated with legitimacy and trust of some of our institutions, see, and drill through to comments by Kevin M and Kin, here:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/05/20/have-your-say-m...
Walter, I appreciate your enthusiasm, and your honesty, with, "I'm not an expert on your question, so a better not comment." However the people who govern, support and lead NZMEA, and our oppos and affiliates at PEC, are indeed experts, in actually creating and running productive enterprises, in New Zealand, and around the globe. Hence our approach to advocating effective policy change that allows improved micro-economic outcomes at the firm level, in preference to exhortations of, "Love what we do, we'll hug you back. We'll all feel good."
The flawed huggy type thinking seems to be manifest here in a comment by David (no disrespect David just making a point) at:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/11/opinion-govts-e...
"We grow protein here exceptionally well and the resources need to start in the schools to encourage the kids into science not training waiters and communications specialists."
Again, I very much respect the intent, but why would parents want their children channelled in directions where they and their peers do not seem to have realised the kind of financial benefits afforded by other career avenues/sectors - that enjoy the kind of tax treatment, subsidies (nil effective asset taxation) and the collateral effect of inappropriate monetary policy ("Greed is good - but more so asset inflation!"), that those alternative career avenues/sectors actually exhibit? Besides, the children are smart enough to work it out for themselves, it's just a blying shame our parliamentarians and their officials seem so unable to. Or are they not that smart? I don't really think so, some of them seem quite smart and SHARP to me:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/08/05/have-your-say-h...
I wish I could respect the enthusiasm and intent of those people. (Not likely, any time soon.) Anyway, go Selwyn, go John, go Jacko, go Michael Laws - I wonder if we will ever see the kinds of change that are becoming more and more obvious by the day, by the business failure, by the farm failure, by the mio of extra structural debt in the cad, by the job, by the loss of another Kiwi to Auz, by the disillusionment of another X or Y'er?
Don,.... you know what I'm going to say,...... don't let our NATION down
Hey Les : Cool and
Hey Les : Cool and cloudy here in Canterbury ; English weather ! Did you see Wild Bill English's comments on tax. He realises the need to change the mix between consumption and production, but doesn't feel we have a pressing need to make those changes now.........If not now, when ? Is he waiting for an Icelandic capitulation, before he acts ?
Good ale, huh ! How is it that the home of F&C can't do them to your taste. Victoria Seafood do the best F&C here in Rangiora........Post some over ???
Roger - have you seen
Roger - have you seen that comedy film, 'Johnny English', starring Rowan Atkinson? Nuff said. In the classic F&C shops here they do not usually cook to individual order, so fish sits a in hot-cabinet above the frier and chips are piled into a side compartment and orders put together on request. They don't crumb stuff and the outcome is generally greasier than Kiwi F&C. Shame really. Strange you should mention NZ's comparison with Iceland when we are talking about the quality of British F&C. Can't beat their ale though - only another 4 hours to go before another 'treatment session' starts!
Les - why is your
Les - why is your thrust just about a change of government policy, which we agreed on ?
I think, to make manufacturing respected and part of our culture many more hurdles need to be taken.
Les, interesting, I still believe your listing of actions is in fact very valuable, but not before a wider NZpopulation is approached with changes involving media. Therefore it is a matter of when, how and in which sequence the actions of your listing are executed -and only then they can be successful - and not a failure.
I have not had contact to any positive, inspiring actions taken by the NZMEA in the media - then complaints. To you really think to achieve any sympathy by the public?
What do you think about approaching the media for major changes as I proposed?
Hopefully that link helps:
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/bregman/2009/06/the-best-way-to-change-...
Often more attention to details can make a huge difference.
Les ...and looking into the
Les
...and looking into the media landscape, where most everything is about a consumption mentality etc. the question is certainly not wrong: Does the industry have professional advice how to deal within the relationship: Manufacturing - Media - Public ?
Increasing political and financial awareness
Increasing political and financial awareness and creating a strong manufacturing culture
Walter "“ I strongly concur; you've hit the nail on the head. The media have a large role to play in achieving this goal.
The media have a strong influencing effect on the public and it's how people keep informed. When we look at all the housing related programs it's no wonder why New Zealander's are so in love with property. Indeed, the culture needs to change.
Interest .co TV?
Due to the lack of primetime economic and political coverage, and to expand on its brand name and its current audience base, there is an opportunity for Interest.co to widen its coverage. If there is one thing about the recession, the worse it becomes the more people take an interest in political and financial affairs.
Debates initiated on the show (to the wider TV audience) could be continued on the online forum, where the politicians and other guests themselves could participate.
It would be an efficient and effective way for the nation and its politicians to keep in touch, widening the political debate, increasing the public interest and understanding, and producing a better end result. Perhaps this is something for the team at Interest.co to ponder.
@ The Chairman - good
@ The Chairman - good idea and worth thinking about.
Thanks
Bryan Spondre
Brilliant idea, Chairman. BH and
Brilliant idea, Chairman. BH and the team can give the bobble heads on CNBC a run for their money !!! I'm chugging thru Gareth Morgan's latest book, " After the Panic ". He shows how amazingly gullible Kiwis are to smooth talkers, with abysmal investment products. You up for it , Bernard , start educating the great unwashed out there ?
Bryan – No worries, I’ve
Bryan "“ No worries, I've heard TV3 are considering putting something together to compete against TVNZs Q&A, perhaps there can be scope for negotiations there.
Whatever the case, there is definitely a lack of televised robust political and financial debate and it would be good to see this forum grow and expand it's coverage.
Thanks Roger – lets hope
Thanks Roger "“ lets hope the team decide to run with it.
By the way, did you happen to catch this piece? http://tinyurl.com/pndbj2
Hmmm- finally - thanks The
Hmmm- finally - thanks The Cairman for your support - GREAT!.
The media must take more responsibility about our society and we need definitely more valuable programs (see above 10.8. 10:28pm) on our national channels otherwise we risk stagnation.
Chairman : Good article. One
Chairman : Good article. One lone voice, in the commission, protesting its capabilties, and a plethora of seasoned economists/advisors tearing it down. I know where my money is ! Since 2003 , just what did Diplock do to protect investors from the shonky finance companies. Did not the refusal by ASIC ( Australia Securities Investment Commission ) to allow Bridgecorp to lodge a prospectus in Australia, did that not raise any eye-brows on this side of the Tasman ?............Damn !!!!
...and most educated Kiwis are
...and most educated Kiwis are asking what our politicians and other leaders are doing against shocking & poor broadcasting.