NZ First's Winston Peters warns of global risks facing the NZ economy; Says something will go wrong at some point, and we had better be prepared; Are there any clues as to which way he might go?

By Alex Tarrant

He may not be holding any more press conferences until 7 October, but Winston Peters is certainly keeping the PR machine ticking over in the meantime.

Thursday's Official Cash Rate decision by the Reserve Bank - on hold at 1.75% - provided the backdrop for a warning on New Zealand's economic vulnerabilities. Peters later used coverage of the tax paid by the Super Fund (which he doesn't want it to pay) to highlight his views on where the Fund should be targeting its investments more: New Zealand infrastructure projects.

Economic risks

"Today’s announcement that the Official Cash Rate (OCR) will be left unchanged at 1.75 per cent maintains the tone of complacency on New Zealand’s economic outlook," Peters' release on potential economic risks began on Thursday morning.

“Beneath the veneer of stability large risks are lurking in the global economy,” he said. “The prolonged era of ultra-cheap money has created expectations that this unprecedented period will continue forever."

“Fed by cheap money, share and property markets are at record levels and have a long way to fall. In particular, the US share market has had an amazing run with barely a hiccup. In China, debt levels are staggering.

“Irrational exuberance rules. It is impossible to predict when, but something will go wrong and New Zealand should be prepared,” he finished.

Any clues?

Regarding which way he'll turn? No. That Peters is a fan of economic nationalism? Well that goes without saying, really.

While the comment that "irrational exuberance rules" might be read as an attack on National's economic management, it could equally be argued that National has merely carried on with the status quo from the previous Labour government. Peters has been rounding on the two major parties as being in one bloc when it comes to economic management.

"New Zealand should be prepared," is clearly a reference that New Zealand First's economic influence is required - no matter which major party is in charge of a coalition, or minority government. Warnings about the US and Chinese markets are a call out for a return to the economic nationalism that Peters favours which we had in New Zealand before the 'neo-liberal experiment' of the 1980s and 1990s.

Interestingly, in a release which touches on monetary policy, there is no mention of New Zealand First's preferred change to a Singapore-style model, where the exchange rate is the tool for influencing inflation outcomes, rather than a base interest rate.

Could this be an acknowledgement that Peters is coming around to Labour's position where unemployment is added to inflation as a Reserve Bank target, while keeping the OCR? We know that Peters favours that the Bank should be required to take into account unemployment, exporters, the exchange rate and growth, more explicitly in the Finance Minister's policy targets agreement (PTA) with the RBNZ Governor. 

Could it be a hint to National that Peters will drop his call for a Singapore-style model in favour for policies or PTA wordings which lean towards greater economic nationalism?

Could it be a call for greater impetus on local funding of New Zealand banks?

Is it a cry for New Zealand First's deposit insurance scheme to be offered up in negotiations ("something will go wrong and New Zealand should be prepared"). (A quick aside on this - National's Steven Joyce has signalled that he would look at allowing for a 'de minimus' exemption of $10,000 under the RBNZ's open bank resolution scheme. Could something like this hold Peters over while deposit insurance is studied?)

Any thoughts that this release favours one side, could equally be applied to the other. Remember, while NZ First appears to have a better policy fit with Labour, the flip side of this means it could be seen to force greater policy concessions from National.

As I wrote earlier this week, the decision could come down to whether Peters feels comfortable and independent enough effectively helping Labour's policy platform through, against being seen to make National change direction in the way it manages the economy. And as we know from Wednesday, sitting on the cross-benches and taking an issue-by-issue approach is also part of his thinking.

Expect these kind of press releases to continue to trickle out over the next week or so from the NZ First machine.

'Super Fund should put more money into NZ infrastructure'

On Thursday afternoon, Peters then called for the Superannuation Fund - or Cullen Fund - to put more of its money into funding New Zealand infrastructure projects. His press release is below:

National should apologise to New Zealanders for robbing their NZ Super nest egg.

“Taxing the NZ Superannuation Fund, and not making taxpayer contributions for 10 years is a serious economic loser,” says New Zealand First Leader Rt Hon Winston Peters.

The magnificent 20.7 per cent return achieved by the fund in the year to June 30 will help meet future demand for NZ Super, but the nest egg could have been so much bigger if the National government had kept its hands off it.

“In 2015, then Finance Minister Bill English said: ‘Over time, along with the other funds, it will become a more and more significant part of the economy’.

“That’s ironic given he started taxing it in 2014.

“New Zealand First would encourage the fund’s managers to invest in infrastructure in New Zealand so it works for New Zealand’s long term interests,” says Mr Peters.

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment or click on the "Register" link below a comment.

Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current Comment policy is here.

89 Comments

Could it be trying too hard to read the tea leaves?

Chinese tea leaves?

up
28

Peters says a lot of very sensible things.

I am not so sure. What is the exact point in saying "be prepared", and why now?

Does he think this is news?
Does he think we need to hear it now?

It's about as useful as saying, 'We could have done more".

up
17

I am not so sure. What is the exact point in saying "be prepared", and why now? Does he think this is news? Does he think we need to hear it now? It's about as useful as saying, 'We could have done more".

It's also a matter of perceptions. The world's economic woes can also be dressed up as success, much like the incumbent ruling party claims. Remember, asset price inflation has largely been explained as a result of our success, not from the result of massive monetary printing, private debt, and market distortions.

Take away asset price inflation, where do you think we would be right now? Winston might be better off raising this question, but if it were to be constructively debated in the public arena, the sheeple would probably be surprised. It's fair to say that most of us have no idea of what's going on and the future implications. Everything is explained and reduced away by people such as the Hosk.

JC - I haven't heard anyone says asset price appreciation is some sign of success, but rather the bad consequences of the "solutions" to the GFC, money printing, and even more so, ultra low (now too low) interest rates. Peter's comments are no more than what everyone should already know, and the better way to prepare for the next set of consequences (much lower asset prices) is having low debt, or getting it lower eitherway - fortunately we have a Govt that has managed to have survived the GFC and earthquakes with minimal impact upon its citizens, and has maintained debt levels at one of the lowest (debt-income) in the developed world, and has achieved surplus to reduce it still - well thats the current position anyway.

Maybe it's simply a case of the fact that every one is paying more attention to what he says at this stage, so he is taking the opportunity to highlight the issues of most significance?

Because when the global s&%T hits the fan sometime during the next term (which it will), the Govt of the day will be blamed.
But of course, the lack of preparation for it has really been put in place for the last 20 + years when we have dined on debt growth for consumption. The clueless Nats ignored the warning sign 08 provided and put their foot to the floor. There's no way out now.

At least the banks have tightened and we have a good LVRS setting. Exactly why these things need to stay in place

I would guess he wants to take the credit for warning the nation as opposed to being slammed for causing it. He has been around long enough to know the signs. A warning from Winston goes hand in hand with his taking issue with the absence of a deposit guarantee scheme. In the not to far distant future we are going to need it to sure up confidence in distressed banks over exposed to toxic property loans!

So Ralph, can we take it your plan is. "...be unprepared .."

Given the advice was of such a general nature as to be useless I decided a change of underpants would improve general preparedness.

He is exactly right. A year ago many leading economists were saying the same thing. All the same factors (even worse) are at play but because it has not happened in the time window expected there is a misconception it won't happen. We will all be "wise" after the event!

Of course he is.

He'd also be right if he were to predict that next week Wednesday will follow Tuesday. Would we all be falling over ourselves in amazement at his sagacity then?

Who exactly is supposed to be thinking that nothing will go wrong and there's no need for New Zealand to be prepared?

"Who exactly is supposed to be thinking that nothing will go wrong and there's no need for New Zealand to be prepared?" .........I would assume the watermelons!........

I would have assumed the party that has been insisting as long as they've been in power that everything's fine, nothing to see here.

Only somebody watching through watermelon-tinted glasses could possibly think that that is what National have been saying, or that that is what they have been doing.

Peters is 100% correct in his assessment of the global financial situation
GFC2 is yet to come and with world debt over 40% higher than at December 2007 levels the drop will be severe in the financial markets
This is when cash will be king and assets of all kinds cheap to purchase.
It’s been amazing to see how many have been lulled into the Status quo continuing onward.
Peters like him or not is just stating fact

Maybe we can ask the economists who signed off Labours policies to tell us when it's coming..

The chattering classes are hanging on every word uttered by Winston Peters as if he is the Prime Minister, a guru , the fountain of all knowledge, and now an economist too .

He is none of the above.

But he is loving the attention

He could be right , things could go wrong , but they could also go quite well for some time .

He is not the reincarnation of Moses, he will not lead us to some promised land of milk and honey , and we should be careful of placing him on a pedestal

up
14

Unlike Sir John Key

Today if he sneezes both national and labour will be ready with tissue. Real shame. Why be so obsessed with power. Try to form government, if ideas and policies could be matched with understanding.

National is totally opposite to what WP stands, but power...........and ultimately WP will go with Labour and national will look stupid, specially after the victory party.

No they will not look stupid, people will start to question MMP

Or perhaps we will question if we are adult enough to deserve it.

Or why so many didn't bother to vote, or clearly wasted their vote on minor parties.

Our system is MMP, it is perfectly legitimate to vote for smaller parties. If the govt (Judith Collins) had not arrogantly binned the recommendations of 2012 after the review, the threshold would be lower. MMP is far, far superior to FPP which was often subject gerrymandering the electorate boundaries so as to up the chances of a particular candidate. We so often ended up with minority govts with the popular vote going to to the opposition.
Get with the program we don't vote like that anymore. As for non voters, they are completely disengaged regardless of what system is used.

people did not waste votes on minor parties, they sent messages example you have 6000 people feel more strongly that cannabis should be legal, and some of the bigger parties have taken notice hence they have soften there stance.
take ban 1080 party 2.5 k, and Winston listened and now wants to ban it,
these single issue parties have no way of getting in but if they get enough support one of the major parties will move on the issue abet it very very slowly

The crusade has begun

In the days immediately after the election it was predicted National supporters will begin a crusade against MMP - and here it is - it doesn't suit the Nat's but it sure gives voice to a lot of people who would otherwise be drowned out

NATs were happy to enjoy power courtesy of 3 minor parties in 2008, 2011 and 2014 - nary a whisper

Now they're not happy

Nice fishing Boatman
Of course Peters is enjoying the position he’s in again
However we never heard strategy like what Peters is saying from Mr Ponytail except let’s add another fuel tax
Or let’s change the flag
NatNil useless

He says'''something will go wrong and NZ should be prepared''''
Whats new there.

Once things are out of the way and the dust has settled, on the very first day, at the very first meeting we will re-energise the Baden-Powell movement and re-affirm the motto

up
27

What Winston has got wrong - is the tense. "Something HAS gone wrong with New Zealand". Bring out all the comparative stats. you like ("But compared to the rest of the OECD, we're doing fine!") but in absolute per capita terms?....we are worse off than we were 10/20/30 years ago - ask any parent watching their offspring struggle in a way they never had to.......

up
21

The constant comparisons to other OECD countries since the GFC is a great irritation to me. Europe and the USA were hugely affected and still are. NZ was largely shielded and indeed, in some ways benefitted from the GFC (in comparison to the aforementioned) because of its geographical location, trade relationships and not having to have bailed out a collapsing financial system. The way NZ keeps tooting its horn as if it did something special since the GFC while others did not is delusional.
In real terms, NZ could have capitalised on the aftermath of the GFC and become more financially robust. Instead all that happened was NZD became highly traded (and therefore will be very vulnerable later) and rather than take the opportunity to deleverage, promptly began eating up debt and inflating asset prices.

whilst I would agree NZ was not as affected as some other countries by the GFC, some sectors here took a real hit, especially design, development and construction.

Not compared to other OECD countries, is my point. I'm not saying NZ wasn't affected, just that it was nowhere near as affected as Europe and the USA.

up
10

NZ "escaped" the GFC courtesy of a debt binge by China post 08 which meant we traded our rivers for milk powder dough. Likewise Aussie with mining ores.
Chinas credit card is now kinda full.

The constant comparisons to other OECD countries since the GFC is a great irritation to me. Europe and the USA were hugely affected and still are. NZ was largely shielded and indeed, in some ways benefitted from the GFC (in comparison to the aforementioned) because of its geographical location, trade relationships and not having to have bailed out a collapsing financial system. The way NZ keeps tooting its horn as if it did something special since the GFC while others did not is delusional.,

The financial system was "bailed out".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-26/banks-receive-almost-4-billion-dol...

In real terms, NZ could have capitalised on the aftermath of the GFC and become more financially robust. Instead all that happened was NZD became highly traded (and therefore will be very vulnerable later) and rather than take the opportunity to deleverage, promptly began eating up debt and inflating asset prices.

NZD was heavily traded prior to the GFC as well. It collapsed more than any other currency during the crisis, particularly against JPY, which was a key source currency for the carry trade (NZD and AUD and target currencies).

J.C. Are you honestly trying to suggest that NZ was anywhere near as affected by the GFC as Europe and the USA? Seriously? And Australian government bailed out its banks not NZ government so what is your point here exactly? China, our major trading partner had growth upgrade, after growth upgrade after the GFC, whereas USA and Europe are only just seeing growth returning.
And how quickly did NZD bounce back after the GFC? How strong has NZD been against other OECD countries since the GFC?

J.C. Are you honestly trying to suggest that NZ was anywhere near as affected by the GFC as Europe and the USA? Seriously? And Australian government bailed out its banks not NZ government so what is your point here exactly? China, our major trading partner had growth upgrade, after growth upgrade after the GFC, whereas USA and Europe are only just seeing growth returning.

Not quite. Aussie banks also borrowed from the Federal Reserve during the GFC.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/nab-westpac-tapped-into-us-feds-emergency...

China embarked on massive stimulus post-GFC, which Australia directly benefited from and NZ indirectly.

Every speculative instrument has bounced back since the GFC. However, the point is that NZD and AUD crashed spectacularly for the reason I explained. It's likely to happen again at some point in the future.

J.C. I wouldn't disagree, although I fail to see why any of that poses a contradiction to my first comment? I fear I have missed the point you are trying to make.

NZ government did NOT bail out banks. And consequently (along with higher rates of growth than most other countries in the OECD since the GFC) has much lower government debt compared to others in the OECD.

Whatever NZ's main trading partners did post GFC benefitted NZ economically and NZ was therefore much less adversely affected than most other OECD countries. But this was nothing that NZ did specifically. No skill, or talent that NZ had.

Which is my point. There is no cause for NZ to toot its horn as if it achieved something specific to be able to benefit from this success (comparative to other OECD countries). The comparative success NZ has experienced since the GFC is mostly circumstantial.

As for NZD. I have no doubt that at some point there will be a reset, but it might be less short lived than after the GFC.

They did, the government backed the banks and it cost a fortune in the SCF case

J.C. I wouldn't disagree, although I fail to see why any of that poses a contradiction to my first comment? I fear I have missed the point you are trying to make.

No you can't disagree because I am correct.

The only thing I disagree with in this, is that it was National tooting its own horn, not NZ. They toot there own horn when they bring in more service station attendents and fruit pickers.

swapacrate, yah, National and National voters have certainly done the most tooting, although MSM has also has their brass instruments out. But there are those of us, who look at rising inequality, homelessness, under resourced public services, escalating house hold debt, a mental health crisis, state asset sell offs etc and think, nah. We're fucked.

Ginerninga - what rising inequality ? Stats please or are you talking the 1980's yrs of the Labour Govt (when I did vote for them) ?

up
16

Oh well, it's a nice change from the dominant neo-liberal discourse of the last 20-30 years

Oh yeah baby it certainly is, global buy in of this neo-liberal junk really makes me sick. The issue is that the majority of the population are naive to it and only really care about what happens in their own little bubble. The media have a lot to answer for in this case but it's up to the individual to educate themselves.

Neo-liberlism is really great....for those with money. I just read this that made me think:

It is the often-concealed reality of the power of capital which constitutes the fraud of liberal progressive politics, for liberalism as an ideology is increasingly understood as an ideology of the well-to-do.

All prejudices are combated except one: the prejudice of fiscal power. That is to say, nobody should face any barrier other than the barrier of money; and nobody should be excluded from any club, from buying any house, from doing anything he or she wants to do, so long as they have the financial means to do it. If they do not have the financial means to join the club, then their entitlement is withdrawn. Money is everything.

Fritz - there is no perfect economic model but "neo-Liberalism" was certainly sadly lacking in Southern Europe you've to agree for the previous 20-30yrs, so maybe they're the guiding light for us to emulate in the future ?

What's your point Grant? Where is the possible similarity between NZ and Southern Europe?

No the exact opposite Brendon, it was sarcasm. Southern Europe ran out of other peoples money and buried themselves in a massive hole with 50% plus youth unemployment etc that will take decades for them to dig themselves out of. Meanwhile the so called "neo-liberals" (who were a large party to the GFC) recover to some modest level but survive all the same, until the next crisis

up
11

Global economy at risk a decade on from financial crisis, says WEF
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/26/global-economy-risk-fin...

Might be time for interest.co to have a talk with Iain Parker at http://publiccreditorbust.blogspot.co.nz.

Iain has cultivated relationships with some political figures, might be interesting to know which ones. I get the impression from following Iain that Labour might have the edge.

Personally I think the first step is to develop energy independence in building a resiliant economy.

up
16

I couldn't agree more with this statement......."“Fed by cheap money, share and property markets are at record levels and have a long way to fall. In particular, the US share market has had an amazing run with barely a hiccup. In China, debt levels are staggering."

Good one Winnie very clever you never know if one day you can remind people of what you said today why’ll national was still running the ship. WINNIE FROM ME. Remind everyone how the housing market is dropping and the Chinese have stopped the flow of money before the 7th . You could need that to fall back on one day as well. Cover ya ass you know what people are like

I cant believe how gullible the press, and nz public are. Winnie is behaving as if he IS the PM, our savour, the great redeemer.

I can think of a few other unsavoury words that are more fitting.

Remind me. Didn't Winston First get around 7% of the vote?

Crazy

Doesn’t mean he’s stupid. If Joyce came up with the same thing because it’s his job doesn’t mean he would have got 7% of the vote. There’s many areas of government and we vote on a hole. Peters has a wright to comment on something like anyone else. Remember too he is very clever so maybe take it in, not bad mouth him

nothing to do with bad mouthing him. Just pointing out facts

He and his party have yet to be democratically elected.

And I don't share your view that he is very clever. I am entitled to my opinion.

Winston didn't win his seat, and as far as I'm aware they have yet to form a government.

Its all smoke and mirrors

This is MMP, proportional representation mate, what part of the process confuses you?

MMP is like handing out gold medal participation awards at the Olympics!

MMP participants forget they have responsiblilites to the 1688 Bill of Rights!!

The checks and balances on proper democracy should allow all policies to be judged on their alignment with the articles in the 1688 Bill of Rights and not this populist nonsense where no consideration at all is given.
The real confusion is when our journalists fail to make the policy comparisons against constitutional rights!

You are spewing nonsense.

Its a good read that doc http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/imperial/1688/0002/latest/whole.html

But may be a little biased against non-Protestants (Bill English take note):

Subjects’ arms
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions, and as allowed by law:

This one carries a bit of weight!!

Subjects’ liberties to be allowed
Now, in pursuance of the premisses, the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming, and establishing the said declaration, and the articles, clauses, matters, and things therein contained, by the force of a law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient, and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed, and taken to be, and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly held and observed, as they are expressed in the said declaration; and all officers and Ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all times to come:

"English then said it was good New Zealand lacked a written constitution as it gave governments flexibility." https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/96456807/bill-english-says-eve...

Depending on Winnie's demands both labour, and national may well walk away fluid36. Winston should stick to the task at hand instead of spouting off about all and sundry. And doing a spot of fishing. Frankly both Jacinda, and Bill may refuse to work with him. Then what, grand coalition?

Problems in Germany
Upstairs on the sixth floor, where there are no cameras present or any need to play things down, a different atmosphere was palpable. By 5 p.m., Merkel and her fellow party members knew that the election result would be catastrophic. Up to that point, pollsters had been predicting the party would garner between 34 and 37 percent of the vote. That wouldn't have been thrilling, but it would have been a result the party could explain to voters. And then came the shock: 33 percent or possibly less -- nobody had predicted such a lousy showin
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-election-changes-poli...

"Refugee" "Refugee" "Refugee". No! They are economic migrants and opportunistic criminals.

I agree with you but they also contain the majority of Syrian graduates - Germany was quick to act and has picked up the Syrians with education and skills. OK and the criminals too. Most refugees are in the camps and only want to return home when it is safe.

Perhaps it's the future
Alexander Hensel, an expert on the AfD, told me this resurgence of smaller parties was partly fueled by losses within the major parties. “In the case of the SPD, the party lost a lot of voters to the Greens, to Die Linke, FDP, and AfD as well,” he said. CDU/CSU suffered similar losses, losing an estimated 1 million voters to the AfD, as well as 1.4 million voters to FDP.

This hemorrhaging of voters among mainstream political parties—to the benefit of smaller ones—isn’t exclusive to Germany. The Dutch elections witnessed a similar outcome earlier this year, with its 150 parliamentary seats divided between the center-right VVD and the far-right PVV, as well as nearly a dozen others. Though the results were partly due to the nature of the Netherlands’ proportional system, Mudde said it’s a trend that European leaders should start accepting as a new political reality.

“The discourse after the election is that this is a glitch—that we failed on immigration, so we will adjust and go back to the good old days of the 70s and 80s … but it’s not going back to that,” he said. “These changes are structural and German politics, as with most European countries, are going to be much more fragmented, which means that there will be broader coalitions. If we don’t accept that as the new normal, we’re going to be frustrated by it.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/09/the-dealignmen...

Some of those smaller parties might become not so small. The irony is that by voting for an alternative party who can 'fix' things, it is an acknowledgement that something is wrong, or broken. But voting elsewhere isn't the correct pathway to solving the problems, and won't resolve the cognitive dissonance most people are feeling.

up
15

Pretty much confirms that Nat clearly has quite a bit of work here around its policy. But we already knew that.

Consider a left govt. No overseas ownership, immigration right down, dollar weakens and those hiding money here start to loose money...quickly. At what point do they dump and run?

Add in an audit of what National let get sold off (because thats is def going to happen) and all the chinese money might have to perform a please explain at home.

NZ will be quite a different place is that is indeed the future.

The best time to sell Auckland property was about 6 months ago.

...the best time to buy is when (not if) Winston's prediction comes true!

I think he's saying that he doesn't have a clue which party he will support so he's going to probably pick the wrong one ... so be prepared.

Another one just out - on the Super Fund. Wants it to invest more into NZ infrastructure projects.

Let the Super fund be. Working well as it is. Don't tie it to millstone infrastructure. But yes, payments into it should resume.

the super fund is a blight on national, even though they tried to hobble it, tax it, it still out preforms there own management of the country.
one builds wealth for the future of the country
the other borrows and sells and spends for yesterday ideas

National will try to sabotage anything that works well that Labour introduced. If they can't sabotage they will try to take the kudos knowing that there are plenty of ill informed people around who will believe them.

The sly fox is subtly signalling he supports debt pay down faster rather than slower. I have a vague memory that one of the main parties intends to reduce the debt to GDP ratio faster than the other.

The oldies support Winston, therefore Winston supports the SuperFund. Simple as that. He's looking after his voter base.

As for choosing a party it could be Winston saying "Eeenie meeny miny moe..."

up
14

The media continually disrespect Winston just like they continually pumped up John Key.
The media line that JK saved NZ from the ravages of the GFC is a joke,
JK sold 49% of our electricity generation. Borrowed tens of billions of dollars. Filled the country up with low skilled immigrants for which we now have to spend tens of billions to upgrade and increase our infrastructure.
The tragedy is that Winston didn't have influence 10 yrs earlier.
To clean up the financial mess created by John Key and Helen Clark is going to take years of recession.
Any clown can have a rock star economy by borrowing money.
Joe public house owner thinks soaring house values was a success story. It was if you were a property investor but otherwise its a mirage
NZ used to have a Ministry of Works that built dams and motorways and all our major infrastructure (except the Auckland Harbor Bridge).. We now talk about getting China to build a road from Auckland to Whangarei. We haven't grown up as a Nation, we have become a bunch of beneficiaries living off borrowed money and asset sales.
If Winston can turn our demise around then I salute him. If our economy is already to far gone and sold out then I thank him for at least trying.

Excellent comments NH.
I guess, sadly, many people would rather believe a lie.

Our media have forgotten that they are the eyes and ears of democracy. Our media are all tangled up in their own egos.
Our media have their pet economists who they repeatedly interview to keep the same narrative.

Our media like Hosking are national supporter high house prices bulls that don’t mind selling the country out for there own greed

Totally agree - sir chon kee just went back to what he knew best ... trading out the future & peddling debt

NH. Totally agree. Very good. It’s so stupid. So many seems to think a bubble will never burst or if it does nothing much will happen and what do they say “it’s back to the races”. The hole nature of borrowing money for property is if you can afford to pay it back. It’s normally over a 20 or 30 year time period. Everyone goes mad in boom over a very short period and everyone Max’s out dept but doesn’t pay anything off. It actually worse than that because people don’t only get one loan. Because everyone rushes in so fast there’s capital gains so they tap up even more money. How can everyone borrow to the max over 3 or 4 years with mortgages that take 20 to 30 years to pay off and expect it to carry on. So we have to correct to catch up. Normally leaving FHBERS and that can take years. It’s finding that balance is hard. Boom bust is to hard on the average person. A DTI restriction would help

Next to your article is the Curia poll average PRIOR to election. Notice that it shows labour and Green on 46% and they finished on election night on 41%. National is also shown as on 43.3 by Curia and Greens and NZF level. Special votes will in all likelihood amend these figures. Conservatively, take 2% off National and add it to the other side and hat you see is that Labour side, with Greens are then on 43% and National on 44%, so English crowed too early....

Winston makes very valid points in most areas, one being the OBR. Why should the banks be allowed to make such huge profits which end up overseas, then, should there be a failure, depositors in NZ experience what they call a haircut, I much prefer to call it theft. I am sure the OBR can be structured, in such a way that a proportion of the massive profits, should be allocated to an independent fund, should a failure occur. The whole monetary system is nothing short of a distorted Ponzi scheme.

Labour greens NZF, you have to spend money to make money. National party spend every to the country gets piss of and votes them out