Posts by sagenz
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Time again to throw in a few thoughts. I completely disagree with your rosy assessment of Clark legacy. She is the most poisonous politician since Muldoon and arguably rivals him.
You dont see a ringing endorsement of state assistance when the state house bred kid made good beats the boarding schooled child of a rich landowner?
National & Winnie introduced a super scheme in the nineties and Labour opposed it for political reasons. It kept the money in individual accounts rather than the states. So they win now brownie points from history.
Gould identifies productivity growth as being the most important thing to aim for. It trumps working longer as it raises per capita income. And this government has broken the positive trend in productivity growth that started in 1993 after the National government solved the last financial crisis they were left with by a Clark government.Gould is right that the high interest rates and over valued exchange rates have held NZ back. Both major parties bear responsibility for that poor strategy. They should fear inflation less now and reduce interest rates to US/UK levels.
Key is a pragmatist. Ideology does not win in currency markets. decisiveness and practicality does. he is not going to be blinded by any ideological model but is going to do what works. Which is why you see investment in New Zealand and a willingness to spend money on infrastructure.
Nothing Cullen did broke New Zealand. It was just the slow decline brought about by the owner stripping too much cash out of a business over the long term.
The failure to rein in LAQC was part of the cause of the real estate boom. National will deal with the bust and cretins will be accusing them in future of hard right policies rather than dealing with the mess Clark and ilk created. Just like the last time National took over from Labour.
-
Key has just done a marvellous thing.
As i said over 2 years agoThe logic of diversifying investment by the NZ Super Fund internationally is intellectually impeccable. However New Zealands biggest problem is local equity investment. A policy of allocating say 50% of the funds to New Zealand would provide a vastly larger local pool. This would have the impact of increasing prices for NZ equities and would also make it a more attractive place to raise capital. The risk is that New Zealand will underperform. But that seems a circular argument. The following table shows less than 9% of investment is in New Zealand. Investment within New Zealand will have a multiplier effect on GDP. Thus the threshold rate for an investment in New Zealand should be substantially lower than for an equivalent overseas investment that will not have the GDP multiplier.
It should be noted that the guardians can simply hold their battered foriegn investments and use new funds to invest in NZ. Despite the currency gain the equity loss and prospective foriegn gains make that sensible.
I have never seen any economic analysis of the multiplier effect of GDP investment but it is real.
-
And Russell since you are still up I am really looking forward to your spin of the Palin Biden debate outcome. Obama was nice and won the people, McCain was right but lost. Palin-Biden seems to be reversed.
-
bummer. I prefer the conspiracy :^)
-
joke that went too far
I jumped on the outrage wagon at first reading that headline.
Now I wonder whether Russell has subtly but deliberately outed Clinton Smith as the initiator. If so, ups to you sir. It was a nasty attempt to scam Slater, hoping he would post the email verbatim without validation then flipping it back to Key after taking screen shots etc of the offending post. Slater obviously more intelligent than given credit for. That was a long way from a joke.
But this coffee thread just makes me feel....inadequate. I am as big a caffeine addict as any, but with my shop grind and ikea metal bodum its like turning up to a wine tasting with Marque Vue.
-
actually craig what got me on the original comparison was mccains we against obama's you.
and just to make the point. mccain is a senator. Passing the law did require votes from the senate as well as congress. so him being there was doing his job
-
Stephen -
You ought to be disapproving his attempts to interfere in the end of the business cycle.
I admit there is a big part of me thinking the market should rule. From the people calling their politicians to complain getting the result they seem to want to the bankers wanting to socialise losses.
On the subject of greedy insurers I am with you 100%. But AIG was underwriting European bank loans rather than US. so it is a little difficult to link that to the current US crisis.
Congress forced the issue and sowed some of the seeds. Bankers simply did not know when to stop. That should mean neither of them get off the hook. Borrowers believed the bubble would never burst.
I think the Republican congressmen calling bullshit on Paulson's plan was the right thing. But I think a bailout package is on balance a sensible thing.
Call that conflicted opinions. Well, there is no absolute right or wrong answer. Personally I have a large mortgage and have benefited from easy credit in the UK. Is it right for me to cry foul now? I think not.
John - Banks have enough liabilities (deposits) - what they dont have enough of is equity. It is a solvency crisis not a liquidity crisis. Unwinding the CDO/credit default swap money chain will take time and requires more equity. The revised proposals being discussed here and here among other places seem better than simply buying toxic debt.
Bad loans are weighing down the financial system precisely because private-sector experts can't determine their worth. The government would have no better handle on the problem.
-
McCain is denying he blamed the Democrats for the bailout failure
When asked whether he blamed Dems and Obama for the bailout collapse yesterday, McCain said "no."But yesterday McCain said: "Senator Obama and his allies in Congress infused unnecessary partisanship into the process."
That is a slightly different statement russell. But you want to twist meanings, crack on. Given Pelosi closing statement ( no craig i dont think they changed wimpy republican minds) mcCain made a reasonable point without blaming them for the repub anti vote.
-
john - $100k - I meant relative small time compared to the problems the banks have. but fair point, loose wording
don - raising the $100 FDIC limit to $250k is almost an irrelevance imho. it seems to be suggested that will make the difference to bank solvency. It might make the difference between some dems voting for it or not.mccain may deserve your slaps now for not delivering a yes vote. But it was a pretty crapulent proposal. The banks need equity to deliver solvency. taking their toxic debt simply creates moral hazard. Some kind of deal is needed but one that provides more upside for the american taxpayer would be better.
The point I was making is that mccain is spending his personal political capital on leading. Obama is sitting back. They are both members of the Senate. They should be involved. Be honest you would have slapped mcCain if he had attended the debate or in a different way if he had not.
McCain is tanking in the polls this week cos he is doing what he thinks is right. There is still a month for people to realise who is leading and who is incapable of making a leadership decision.
-
you call this leadership?
The Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama urged Congress to get back to work today and renegotiate a massive Wall Street bailout package.
The White House hopeful also suggested raising the limit on bank deposits guaranteed by the Federal Government to $250,000 from its current level of $100,000, to help shore up confidence in the financial sector.
The problem is banks not lending to each other. not small time investors holding 100k under the mattress.
It is an interesting comment on the respective character of each candidate that McCain goes and gets involved in a crisis whilst Obama stands back and offers platitudes