Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

To post in this sub-forum you must have made 100 posts or have Trust status or have completed our ID Verification

Forums › Politics › Jacinda Ardern - our new PM

1 | ... | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | ... | 268

517 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 157
Inactive user

#2076156 20-Aug-2018 12:24

tdgeek:
I read an article on this last week, two economists commenting. There is a downturn, as Labour won the election, so the default practice is to lose confidence. Stats dont back that up, BUT they commented that due to their belief and bias that things will go downhill, they act on that, and things go downhill. As compared to seeing hardcore stats that the economy is sliding, THEN reducing investment and employment.

That is exactly what happens. It is the default reaction to a labour government. Is it rational? Probably not, but does it translate into negative performance? Yes. So is a labour government good for business? No. But is strong business performance good for the economy and the country as a whole? Yes.

So therefore the less labour governments the better right? So we would generally be better off with a national government that partners with a socially responsible party that looks after welfare. Rather than an extreme labour government that has detrimental effects on the whole country.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2076168 20-Aug-2018 12:34

networkn:

tdgeek:

I read an article on this last week, two economists commenting. There is a downturn, as Labour won the election, so the default practice is to lose confidence. Stats dont back that up, BUT they commented that due to their belief and bias that things will go downhill, they act on that, and things go downhill. As compared to seeing hardcore stats that the economy is sliding, THEN reducing investment and employment.

So they, and Labour are saying it's a self professing prophecy? Do they intend to do nothing as a result?

Why do you think Businesses feel pessemestic under Labour? Perhaps because Labour has lumped businesses with extra costs, and extra compliance done little or nothing to compensate in any way?

Do you see any pro business legislation?

One thing that people don't often take into account, is that, even if it's not directly and or entirely Labours fault if the economy goes south, do they have the power and knowledge to do something about it? I don't think they do. Plenty of others doubt it too.

Where did I say Labour said that? Don't make things up for effect

Businesses percieve more costs. less favour as the insulation under National has gone. Thats normal. You are concerned about the effect on businesses now that evil is in power. What about the effect on individuals? Or just ignore them? Why did teachers and nurses strike? because National under fed them for 9 years. The false rockstar economy is due to underfunding, there is always a catchup, whether its Govt or you underfunding your home and larger assets. Look at US infrastructure

The lack of funding is being spent now, it should have been spent incrementally. Unless teachers and nurses are fine as they are. While its fine that this thread is not really about JA or Labour, its merely a lost the election bashing thread, a dose of reality needs to be taken.

Employers need compensating? Why? The man in the street struggles for that, aka, nurses, teachers. That really indicates the point.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2076184 20-Aug-2018 12:53

tdgeek:

Where did I say Labour said that? Don't make things up for effect

I didn't make that up for effect. Read a newspaper or listen to Jacinda and Grant being interviewed on business confidence. They ARE saying the right thing.

Businesses percieve more costs. less favour as the insulation under National has gone. Thats normal. You are concerned about the effect on businesses now that evil is in power. What about the effect on individuals? Or just ignore them? Why did teachers and nurses strike? because National under fed them for 9 years. The false rockstar economy is due to underfunding, there is always a catchup, whether its Govt or you underfunding your home and larger assets. Look at US infrastructure

No I am not concerned about evil. I think Labour has good intentions but are basically clueless. It's indicated by the number of promises they have made and gone back on and the fact that if you take what they actually will deliver and compare it to what National promised, then I think it comes out positively on the side of National.

Companies aren't "percieving" anything. It's reality. Labour has legislated extra costs for business, and more to come. Examples, getting rid of the 90 day trial for companies over 20 people, huge spike in minimum wage over a very short period of time (most businesses support an increase, but slightly lower overall and over a longer period of time. Dumping 10 extra days of costs on employers for sufferers of domestic abuse, and the list goes on and on.

The lack of funding is being spent now, it should have been spent incrementally. Unless teachers and nurses are fine as they are. While its fine that this thread is not really about JA or Labour, its merely a lost the election bashing thread, a dose of reality needs to be taken.

Employers need compensating? Why? The man in the street struggles for that, aka, nurses, teachers. That really indicates the point.

It's not an election got lost thing, I have heard you say it over and over, and it was wrong the first time, and wrong every time since. If you actually read what is being written, people are complaining that Labour is not delivering on many of the things it promised. Surely you aren't going to argue that point?

Do you understand that without healthy businesses, there is no tax? No tax, no social spending, at all, ever?

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2076191 20-Aug-2018 13:04

Percieved isn't lining up with the stats.

It was for effect as I stated economists, you include Labour.

If you want a party that solely looks after businesses thats fine, vote National. If they had not annually underfunded core functions and turned that into an artificial rockstar economy that now has to be faced with the costs that they chose to forego, then I would have continued to vote for them. Conservatism is better then liberalism, but no lies thanks. There is no housing crisis still bangs away on my head, BE in the third debate. We can all have a rockstar economy or bank balance, but you cant run away from underfunding. 1 year after 9 to fix that? off course not.

Perhaps a 5 year wage freeze and reduction in leave might be an option?? We all live here. There needs to be a balance, and the last 9 years was not balanced. Will these 3 years be balanced? No idea. We will see, although this thread wont as its just a bashing thread. What will happen is the next National Govt won't be run by the old school. And on that I hope Bridges works to be part of that. He is going downhill which is a pity

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2076192 20-Aug-2018 13:07

networkn:

It's not an election got lost thing, I have heard you say it over and over, and it was wrong the first time, and wrong every time since.

Yes I read this thread, and unless people start discussing matters without a 110% builtin bias, it shall continue. Its a shocker. Doesn't parallel the Trump though. Yet

6FIEND

774 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 589
Inactive user

#2076195 20-Aug-2018 13:15

tdgeek:

Furthermore, having skimmed your article, it points to a large number of factors, whereas your post pointed to one

Actually, I was implying the opposite. Ardern and Robertson have made plenty of commentary about the Business Confidence issue being "all in their heads"
(If you'll excuse me paraphrasing) and that it's really all ok...

Whereas the problem, as is so often the case, is complex with many interrelated factors.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2076200 20-Aug-2018 13:19

Businesses are correct to have less confidence under a labour led government. Labour govts have historically made decisions that favour employees over owners, tenants over landlords; they have historically increased the costs and compliance burden of businesses; they have historically made investment and development harder. All of that has added up to a tougher environment for businesses under labour.

All of those were legitimate decisions for labour when you consider their constituency. But also plenty of reasons for businesses to be sceptical about labour led govt and to be more conservative when making business decisions. That does have real effects on the economy.

Labour should really just admit to that and own the trade off.

[Edit At the moment Ardern and Robertson are effectively telling businesses while they might think labour is bad for them, that isn't really the case. It's ridiculous because business confidence is literally a measurement of perceptions. So they are trying to convince people that they don't think, what they think, they think.

Neither Ardern or Robertson have worked in a real business, so they are totally lacking in credibility.]

Mike

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2076204 20-Aug-2018 13:21

6FIEND:

tdgeek:

Furthermore, having skimmed your article, it points to a large number of factors, whereas your post pointed to one

Actually, I was implying the opposite. Ardern and Robertson have made plenty of commentary about the Business Confidence issue being "all in their heads"
(If you'll excuse me paraphrasing) and that it's really all ok...

Whereas the problem, as is so often the case, is complex with many interrelated factors.

Ok. I didn't really take their comments seriously, after all they have to say the right things as do most politicians. Economists I do value

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2076208 20-Aug-2018 13:23

MikeAqua:

Businesses are correct to have less confidence under a labour led government. Labour govts have historically made decisions that favour employees over owners, tenants over landlords; they have historically increased the costs and compliance burden of businesses; they have historically made investment and development harder. All of that has added up to a tougher environment for businesses under labour.

All of those were legitimate decisions for labour when you consider their constituency. But also plenty of reasons for businesses to be sceptical about labour led govt and to be more conservative when making business decisions. That does have real effects on the economy.

Labour should really just admit to that and own the trade off.

You are right. Be sceptical, but also look at the economy. Belief is belief, its not a fact. It may come to pass, but don;t will it to happen, as it will.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2076214 20-Aug-2018 13:34

tdgeek:

Percieved isn't lining up with the stats.

It was for effect as I stated economists, you include Labour.

If you want a party that solely looks after businesses thats fine, vote National. If they had not annually underfunded core functions and turned that into an artificial rockstar economy that now has to be faced with the costs that they chose to forego, then I would have continued to vote for them. Conservatism is better then liberalism, but no lies thanks. There is no housing crisis still bangs away on my head, BE in the third debate. We can all have a rockstar economy or bank balance, but you cant run away from underfunding. 1 year after 9 to fix that? off course not.

Perhaps a 5 year wage freeze and reduction in leave might be an option?? We all live here. There needs to be a balance, and the last 9 years was not balanced. Will these 3 years be balanced? No idea. We will see, although this thread wont as its just a bashing thread. What will happen is the next National Govt won't be run by the old school. And on that I hope Bridges works to be part of that. He is going downhill which is a pity

I included Labour, because Labour have been harping that line since economists said it first (some agree and some disagree strongly) but because it favours their position, Labour has chosen to "listen" to the economists that says it's "all in their heads". The problem is it's not all in their heads. Businesses are now faced with managing an incredible increase in minimum wage in an eye wateringly short time. The business that operates under mine who employs a fair number of minimum wage workers, said he will not be able to afford the third increase and will lay staff off accordingly. Most of his work is with the people Labour claim to be "protecting", being low income earners, and when he inevitably increases his prices and lays off staff so he can survive with his other 30 staff, then those people will end up worse than before. A sensible Government would have taken a smaller increase over a slightly longer timeframe.

I do NOT want a Government who looks after soley Business, and it's exceptionallly disengenius to suggest I do, when time after time after time I have stated middle ground is the sensible option. National would have upped social spending this term after securing a surplus in it's first three terms, whilst dealing with the GFC and 3 Major natural disasters. It deferred some spending, to achieve this, as Labour has already indicated it will do, but to different areas.

Labour has been given credit by me, for the few policies I think it has implemented that are beneficial to NZ in my view, and critisized for the many that were implemented without proper thought (free for all student loans, housing promises they have no hope of achieving and with implementation to 81% of NZ, not the ones who need it the most and many many other areas). I have defended Labour when others have unfairly blamed them for things that happened under Nationals watch.

I supply evidence or supporting articles with most of my claims.

Do you honestly believe the "housing crisis" is getting better under Labour, in a way that wouldn't have happened under National?

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2076216 20-Aug-2018 13:36

tdgeek:

You are right. Be sceptical, but also look at the economy. Belief is belief, its not a fact. It may come to pass, but don;t will it to happen, as it will.

But confidence is a reasonable predictor of future capacity building (investment and recruitment) so a fall in confidence is a real concern.

Looking at the sector I operate in, I am seeing a sizeable downturn in appetite for investment since the election and planning accordingly. People are still considering investments, but they are in a wait-and-see holding pattern, rather than actually investing.

I've responded to what I see as rough year or two coming up by cutting expenditure, delaying capital purchases and repaying debt faster.

Mike

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2076231 20-Aug-2018 14:00

networkn:

tdgeek:

Percieved isn't lining up with the stats.

It was for effect as I stated economists, you include Labour.

If you want a party that solely looks after businesses thats fine, vote National. If they had not annually underfunded core functions and turned that into an artificial rockstar economy that now has to be faced with the costs that they chose to forego, then I would have continued to vote for them. Conservatism is better then liberalism, but no lies thanks. There is no housing crisis still bangs away on my head, BE in the third debate. We can all have a rockstar economy or bank balance, but you cant run away from underfunding. 1 year after 9 to fix that? off course not.

Perhaps a 5 year wage freeze and reduction in leave might be an option?? We all live here. There needs to be a balance, and the last 9 years was not balanced. Will these 3 years be balanced? No idea. We will see, although this thread wont as its just a bashing thread. What will happen is the next National Govt won't be run by the old school. And on that I hope Bridges works to be part of that. He is going downhill which is a pity

I included Labour, because Labour have been harping that line since economists said it first (some agree and some disagree strongly) but because it favours their position, Labour has chosen to "listen" to the economists that says it's "all in their heads". The problem is it's not all in their heads. Businesses are now faced with managing an incredible increase in minimum wage in an eye wateringly short time. The business that operates under mine who employs a fair number of minimum wage workers, said he will not be able to afford the third increase and will lay staff off accordingly. Most of his work is with the people Labour claim to be "protecting", being low income earners, and when he inevitably increases his prices and lays off staff so he can survive with his other 30 staff, then those people will end up worse than before. A sensible Government would have taken a smaller increase over a slightly longer timeframe.

I do NOT want a Government who looks after soley Business, and it's exceptionallly disengenius to suggest I do, when time after time after time I have stated middle ground is the sensible option. National would have upped social spending this term after securing a surplus in it's first three terms, whilst dealing with the GFC and 3 Major natural disasters. It deferred some spending, to achieve this, as Labour has already indicated it will do, but to different areas.

Labour has been given credit by me, for the few policies I think it has implemented that are beneficial to NZ in my view, and critisized for the many that were implemented without proper thought (free for all student loans, housing promises they have no hope of achieving and with implementation to 81% of NZ, not the ones who need it the most and many many other areas). I have defended Labour when others have unfairly blamed them for things that happened under Nationals watch.

I supply evidence or supporting articles with most of my claims.

Do you honestly believe the "housing crisis" is getting better under Labour, in a way that wouldn't have happened under National?

I stated that BE stated that there was no housing crisis. Thats typical of old school national. There was and is, as houses are just as unaffordable on his third debate. He was off course referring that they have peaked, an out and out campaign lie.

All I can say as I again unsubscribe from this "thread" is read it. Read the comments made. More so the manner in which they are made by some. And while you continue to refer to Labour and the Economists I have no interest in what Labour or National say, both are biased, but also I don't automatically favour what is inbuilt. If Labour is clueless, then old school National, not being clueless, were just too far right and arrogant. Only one regard, they had no middle ground whatsoever

MikeAqua

8031 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3820

#2076272 20-Aug-2018 15:06

tdgeek:

I stated that BE stated that there was no housing crisis. Thats typical of old school national. There was and is, as houses are just as unaffordable on his third debate.

I think there is an over-urbanisation crisis. There isn't an overall shortage of houses in NZ, just too many people contending for them in a small number of urban centres.

Mike

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2076275 20-Aug-2018 15:08

I've been here since the start, I've read every post.

Plenty of Bias to go around, but you are kidding yourself if you think you are excluded from that. You critisize what others have contributed, but you have rejoined up, stated the thread is as bad as the Trump one, accused everyone of bias and that anyone critising Labour has no valid point and must be biased or unable to see what the enlightened ones can and are leaving again. Where is YOUR technical analysis of what this Government has done since it's taken power?

If you want policy discussion, then surely it's just as much your responsibility to participate in the manner you expect as anyone else? The problem is, the moment a discussion starts pointing out where there are flaws in Labours policy or handling of an issue, it's "bias" and disregarded.

networkn

Networkn
32871 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15469

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2076277 20-Aug-2018 15:10

MikeAqua:

tdgeek:

I stated that BE stated that there was no housing crisis. Thats typical of old school national. There was and is, as houses are just as unaffordable on his third debate.

I think there is an over-urbanisation crisis. There isn't an overall shortage of houses in NZ, just too many people contending for them in a small number of urban centres.

Agreed. People only want to live in the cities. I can't blame them, I don't have any desire to move out of my city, unless it's to another. I like the idea of somewhere like Nelson, but whilst I have no proof absoloutely that I wouldn't be able to live the same lifestyle and have access to the same resources, I think in reality it probably would.

I also think that Foreign buyers are a factor. I thought it was reasonable for Labour to block the sale of NZ land to foreign buyers. I have said it many times.

1 | ... | 247 | 248 | 249 | 250 | 251 | 252 | 253 | 254 | 255 | 256 | 257 | ... | 268