Not a policy?

The Greens are trying to weasel out of their batshit crazy printing money policy by pretending it wasn’t really a policy.

O RLY?

SHANE: So just so we’ve got it clear – you want the Reserve Bank to go out and print some new money to buy some earthquake bonds off the government. The government then would use that money to help with the Christchurch rebuild – help build the sewers and the streets and that type of thing – and also to go towards saving for our next disaster.

DR NORMAN: That’s right.

SHANE: In a nutshell.

DR NORMAN: In a nutshell, and those earthquake— Because the government wouldn’t be borrowing for those earthquake bonds from overseas, that reduces the pressure on the New Zealand dollar. 

Then there is this on their website:

The Green Party’s proposals for addressing the high dollar include the following measures:

  1. A broader mandate for the Reserve Bank to enable a lower Official Cash Rate (OCR) and new tools for managing asset bubbles;
  2. A comprehensive capital gains tax (excluding the family home); and
  3. Quantitative Easing (QE) in the form of the Reserve Bank purchasing Government earthquake recovery bonds to pay for the government’s costs in the rebuild of Christchurch and, separately, refilling the Natural Disaster Fund.

“We’re proposing a suite of measures which, in combination, will work to lower our high exchange rate and help restore our productive sector,” Dr Norman said.”

Then there is this:

“We can reduce the pressure on the exchange rate and the tradable sector by empowering the Reserve Bank with a mandate beyond inflation control to include managing exchange rate levels and volatility.

“There are a range of tools that work, which we can choose from.

“New Zealanders deserve a monetary policy that works for them. They deserve politicians that are willing to have a mature debate on the issue and put New Zealand’s interest first, rather than those of the currency traders,” concluded Dr Norman.

  • Pete George

    The key thing is that it is now not a proposal, or a policy, or whatever it was.That’s progress.

    If Greens want to get anywhere near influential Government they have to adjust their proposals/policies to be credible and realistic.

    • JeffDaRef

      Pete, save your fingers, you could have said:

      “If the Greens want to get anywhere near Government they have to be credible and realistic”

      ..at which point you’d wonder why we were all rolling hysterically on the floor!!

    • cows4me

      Shit Pete you are starting to sound like Sir Cullen, you’re not running a temperature by any chance?

  • Bob

    Green party co-leader Russel Norman is an utter cunt!

    • Peej

      But an important enough one to rate three separate posts already today!

      • rockape

        Yes about as important as folding a shirt in 2 seconds. PS Whale, I tried it and it works!

        • Bunswalla

          Best post of the week, that shirt one. Going to save my missus hours, it will.

      • rockape

        Thats the job of bloggers, to show up lies and deception werever. Right now the green party are masters of both and need the light of this blogg to show them up for what they are.

    • parorchestia

      No he’s not. They are attractive and productive – and he isn’t either.

  • GazzW

    OK, so that’s QE all done and dusted – a relatively minor issue in the overall scheme of things but the backdown is indicative of Norman’s ambitions. Let’s see how flexible he is on issues that really matter such as oil & mineral exploration, forestry, carbon taxes, access to Fiordland National Park, Auckland Convention Centre, transport etc, etc. A leopard doesn’t change its spots.

    A vote for Shearer is a vote for Norman.

    • AnonWgtn

      I would not believe a word Norman says.
      He is an inveterate communist liar.
      He will change his mind tomorrow if it suits.

  • ozbob68

    OK, so all our trading partners are doing it? (China isn’t) That’s because they have no money supply left to circulate and “too big to fail” banks are about to go bust. A solution for a problem we don’t currently face! Jeez louise!

    • Polish Pride

      So let me get this straight we keep borrowing from private banking with interest who create the money out of thin air. Actually just exactly like Russel is proposing to have the reserve bank do…..except without the interest on top. Yeah that makes sense.

      • Plue

        Not sure recycled social credit policies are any less crazy than green policies.

        • Polish Pride

          You (as in anyone) only need to take the politics out of it and apply common sense on this argument.
          Option 1: additional money as debt + interest that needs to be repaid by us as tax payers.
          Option 2: print some money and use it to pay for the things needed. No debt and no interest on the debt.

          • In Vino Veritas

            Option 2: And the consequent destruction of savings. The devaluation of our currency to third world status. The increase in cost of everything we import (which is a lot), try fuel for a start. The increase in inflation, further fueling house price appreciation. Yep, that’d work Polish.

          • Polish Pride

            So now lay out the upsides IVV
            And if done very cunningly it is possible none of those downsides need apply ;)
            devaluation of the currency to third world status wouldn’t happen unless you dump a massive amount in all at once, same goes for the increase in inflation.

          • In Vino Veritas

            Polish, I think you know as well as I do that printing money, is historically inflationary, in fact, a near certainty. Please don’t go using Japan or the US as examples as they have interest rates of close or at, zero. Japan has been deflationary since 1990, and growth in their economy has been near zero since 1999. The velocity of money in the US is at its lowest for 50 years, and should spending not be cut back, and debt bought under control, crippling deflation will chop America’s economy to shreds.
            And given that NZ interest rates are not close to zero, there is no current need to print money. Only the most zany nutjob would countenance such a move in NZ’s current economic situation (which by the way, is not bad at all!) Norman is trying to make out that things are bad, since he has no other option to make himself and his party of loons relevant.

          • Polish Pride

            Yes the NZ Economy is doing relatively well by comparison to other countries. Have you considered that without currency speculation that would probably all but disappear if the govt came out and said it was going to print money (not the approach I would support btw) The dollar would drop and our exporters would be able to export more, sell more, earn more and pump that money back into our economy causing it to grow even faster than it is.
            Then there is option 2: what would happen if the govt didn’t signal in anyway shape or for that it was going to print money but did so anyway. Didn’t put it into the economy and just used it to pay off our overseas debt.
            Option 3: Put a power company or power buying company into public ownership under the guise of lower power prices for everyone. Created a large number of fictitious customers on a fixed rate power plan and used printed money to pay fictitious customers power bill, resulting into the printed money flowing nice and clean into the government coffers and then using that money to pay off overseas debt. A further option is to use that money on any needed infrastructure.
            This is of course money laundering if anyone else does this, but what about if the govt did it. Of course if the money never goes into our economy and it is not known to have been produced then you don’t get inflation nor do you get a drop in the value of the dollar.

          • rockape

            You forgot option 3. Earn enough to pay your way. The left always forget that option in their politics as well as their private lives.

          • Polish Pride

            It depends on money should be simply a mechanism for exchange or a barrier to obtaining needs and wants.

          • GazzW

            How about the billions that we owe? Assuming the effect of QE was a 20% devaluation of the NZD we get to pay back US dollars borrowed for NZ$1.25 per US$ when the loan was initiated with US$ now costing NZ$1.60?

            Yeah, that’s great economics PD.

          • Polish Pride

            Like I said. if done cunningly NONE of the downsides need apply.
            That’s a massive strawman you’ve built yourself their Gazz
            I am sure you realise new money is being pumped in everyday through the fractional reserve banking system and NONE of those things have happened. The fractional reserve must be using magic and fairy dust to ensure it doesn’t though eh Gazz :)

          • GazzW

            How so?

            I would suggest (as has been done elsewhere) that even a sniff of Norman having anything to do with the Treasury Benches would lead to an immediate defacto devaluation. You say ‘cunningly done’ – I would venture to suggest that the gnomes of Zurich are a lot more wily than Dr Norman.

            The damage has been done now – Norman can retract all he wants but it will achieve little. As Goofy kept telling us prior to the last elections ‘it’s all about the perception’.

          • Polish Pride

            Alright perhaps that was a little unfair on my part as you would have (fairly) based your scenario on how it has been done in the past, even in this country. The trick is either do it without the country or the world realizing (in much the same way as the reserve bank plays in the currency markets without letting anyone know they have until well after the fact).

            You are also probably right in that if Norman was made finance minister speculators would possibly exit the market very quickly causing an immediate devaluation of the dollar. Some might consider that a good thing as it would then reflect its true value.

            Don’t get me wrong when I come on here and post in support of this policy. If you (the politicians) are stupid enough to dump in a large amount of newly printed money, then everything that IVV said earlier does hold true to the letter. This is not what I would advocate at all. I would only advocate printing of money covertly and cleverly and using that money to pay off our overseas debt. In short it would not even go into the economy.

            As for the gnomes in Zurich it could be argued that they have some responsibility for the rest of the world being in the state it is in.

          • dyannt

            Frankly PP, I would prefer that the Govt didn’t do things “covertly and cleverly”. It could become too much of a habit.

          • Polish Pride

            I agree with that sentiment 364 days of the year. The only exception being if they did this to eliminate the countries debt. So given the current state of NZ politics (and most other politics around the world for that matter) we are talking about a fantasy world where politicians actually work for the collective good of all New Zealanders.

      • Concerned

        How about going George Foreman on the budget so we don’t have to increase borrowing at all.

        • Polish Pride

          I’d be happy with that however we need to be aware that reducing govt spending in the wrong areas can have an adverse effect on the economy and business as a flow on effect so you need to ensure the right things get cut.

  • Ronnie Chow

    The Greens are very busy making daily changes to their website , to keep up with the evolving political machinations of the sinister , cynical liar Norman .

    Grass roots members are reportedly bewildered at the new direction of the Greens , wondering if the loss of Global Warming has caused a breakout of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in their leadership . However they are still reeling from being knee-capped at the conference , then being slapped in the head again as their feckless leader changes his tune on printing money , then changes it again .

    Meanwhile Norman’s pet frog Turei is set to call for an inquiry on high Marijuana prices following the recent drought .

    • Nellie

      ‘Grass roots members’. Hahahaha very good…

  • DangerousE

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10891744

    Looks like Shearer is putting his foot down! haha

  • Liberty

    It doesn’t really matter if Labour supports Russel printing
    money. As labour won’t have a choice who would be the Minister of finance under
    Green/labour/NZF Fortunately for New Zealand. The coalition of Losers will implode
    will before the election. Any
    takers on which party walks out first?

    • AnonWgtn

      The Winston still registered party -I bet.

  • Ronnie Chow

    The Green’s website is largely devoted to implementing the Kyoto Protocol . About that..

    What the conference ultimately foundered on was the 37 industrialized states balking at handing over a cool $100 billion to the non-industrialised states. At the same time, polls in the democratic states increasingly reflected growing scepticism at pouring billions of dollars into an anti-carbon campaign to help keep an ‘anticipated’ global temperature rise to below 2 degrees (ah yes, the age-old yearning to control the weather). Why, wondered an increasing number, should the price be so high when the cost of keeping the temperature rise at nil for 15 years had cost us precisely nothing?

    • parorchestia

      Dear Wussel, I wish someone would control the weather. The current global warming we are experiencing is resulting in a hell of a lot of b… cold down here in the SI.

  • GregM

    It all boils down to one thing. Do we want “popular” policy, or do we want policy that is good for NZ Inc. This was a Green cornerstone, and they have back flipped. How many more of their batshit ideas will be dropped when they work out they aren’t popular and may cost them votes? They don’t give a shit about doing the right thing, all they want is power.
    EDIT and IF they get in, it will be policy again.
    Lying, useless c**ts.

  • Patrick

    As was said previously – it is a Clinton moment, “I did not inhale” “I did not have sex with that woman”

  • Sir Cullen’s Sidekick

    “The next Labour-led government will have a Labour minister of finance and that will be David Parker,” – David The Sheep Messiah Shearer, PM NZ Nov 2014 – Sep 2023

  • Clever Harry

    Let us not forget how batshit crazy the left is at times. History has brought forward all manner of left-ism from fascist socialism to communism. Every single left socialist country has fallen over because the ideas don’t work and the people who run them are plainly wrong.
    Communist Russia went broke whilst free market America boomed.
    Whether the right of centre is perfect or not is irrelevant. The proof is in the pudding and right of centre policies across the world have resulted in sound and reliable societies.
    Dr Norman is proving that he is a complete dickhead.

    • Polish Pride

      The free market isn’t booming anymore. Given that and your logic a move to a highly automated Resource Based Economy would be a very good move.
      Hell we could even Automatically manufacture much of what child labor is being used for in many countries overseas….for a percentage of the product itself of course.

      • parorchestia

        It isn’t booming because most countries didn’t allow free market mechanisms to take effect. Governments interfered and propped up rotten systems that would have been cleaned out in a free market. NZ and Iceland are probably the only countries that took sensible actions, and so we are benefiting.

        • Polish Pride

          The free market was what caused the GFC in the first place. The big banks were given free reign. I guess the question is what would have happened had the banks been allowed to fail as they should have been and those involved in any criminal activity been held to account. I guess we will never know.
          The last part of post about NZ and Iceland I completely agree with.

          • parorchestia

            Not really. I do believe that “enabling” regulations are needed (as Adam Smith did to) that enable free markets to function freely without bullies, frauds etc. So I have no problem with good laws.

            The problem in the US economy was caused by President Clinton (yes, Teflon Bill!) who in one of his last acts passed a law that the two big mortgage lenders had to lend provided the equity covered the loan. No account was to be taken of the ability to pay. The result was disaster – overbuilding and then defaults. This sucked up so much equity that the place was nearly stuffed. Banks went silly and so did everyone else and the normal market forces which would have corrected all this mess were not allowed to work.

            Many regulations can stuff up markets and have unforeseen results. Tricky Dicky Nixon nearly ruined the world economy when he destroyed the Bretton Woods arrangements. Governments generally do more harm than good when they pass “directing” regulations, such as printing money or changing market support mechanisms.

          • Polish Pride

            Yep that is a pretty good argument. A bloody good one in fact. the question becomes where do you draw the line. When do you implement regulations putting a check on Capitalism and when do you give it free reign. If you leave it pretty much unchecked do you end up with the Monopoly scenario in the end where everything is owned by one player or more likely group of players in the real world. If so is that an acceptable scenario to head towards.. I suspect that if that was the case you would have to move toward totalitarianism in order to maintain control. Many would argue we are already heading there.
            In the example you put forward with Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac it does however defy all logic and common sense (lending and not being allowed to factor in the ability to pay).

            There are however still things/problems in the world that I don’t believe capitalism has the ability to resolve in a timely fashion. These are the big ticket items though, things like war and poverty. As a system it has served its purpose and pretty well but it is certainly not the most ‘natural’ system for mankind and in the most natural system these things are easily fixable.

          • BR

            You believe that without government interference in the freedom of exchange, (theft, fraud and dishonesty laws notwithstanding), the rich would get richer and the poor would get poorer, until the majority of the population ended up starving and destitute, with a small minority living in palatial luxury.

            Have I got that about right?

            Bill.

          • Polish Pride

            What I believe is that we should be looking at a new more natural system as Capitalism like all systems before it still fails to solve the big problems.
            As you are pro Capitalism BR you tell me what you believe the end goal under Capitalism would look like.
            The rich getting richer and fewer and the underclass getting more and more in number is the natural conclusion of Capitalism. That is with no checks and balances. What I mean by this is no one in a Commerce commission type role. Remember that breaking up of corporations that get to big is govt interference as are fair trading laws etc. Any true Capitalist would seek to destroy any competition before it becomes a threat.
            Freedom of exchange as you have put it, does not require money to occur and without money and a profit motive there would be no need for govt interference at all in any form whatsoever.
            But then ‘exchange’ isn’t required either.
            Add in money and a profit motive with no checks at all and you do end up with Monopoly.
            I have a business If I could eliminate my competition, I would, having done that I would control supply in order to obtain the maximum price that I can and I would use my size and profits to ensure that no one else is able to enter the market and survive. What capitalist wouldn’t. Having achieved that I would acquire similar businesses, perhaps with a different product and repeat the process. I would buy politicians to slant the legislative playing field in my favor if I needed to and I would buy media so I controlled the message to consumers as early as I could. I would then repeat the same process until I owned all of the media……..I would Automate left right and center, Machines don’t strike and they run 24/7. Where I couldn’t automate I would find the cheapest Labor I could and either shift my operations to that location or ship them to my current location to force wages down by having an influx of people prepared to work for less. I would have already got into banking and made maximum use of the fractional reserve system and its ability to let me create money out of thin air. I would lend to anyone that had the ability to repay or had assets that could be used as collateral including govts. When they couldn’t pay I would take their assets. Alternately I would ensure that they squeezed everything they could out of their tax payers so that they could pay me. Any of this sound familiar yet or are you still asleep. The natural end game of Capitalism is in my view shown exceptionally well in monopoly. At the end you own and control everything. Under Capitalism what more is there?

          • BR

            “The rich getting richer and fewer and the underclass getting more and more in number is the natural conclusion of Capitalism.”

            You’ve answered the question. That is what you believe and is a fundamental belief of all leftists.

            There is one thing wrong with this idea.

            A BROKE AND DESTITUTE POPULATION IS BAD FOR BUSINESS!

            A business can’t sell high priced goods and services to a poverty stricken population that has little in the way of money to spend. Prices would be forced down to a level where goods are affordable and a sustainable equilibrium is reached. Legislation is not necessary. The relationship between prices and wages depends on many things,
            advances in technology, availability of resources, natural disasters, that sort of thing. Legislation, however, is not one of them.

            Widespread poverty is the result of shortages of goods and services. These shortages do not occur in a free market economy. They are exclusively the result of socialist/communist fiscal policy; which is defined by the suppression of market forces by legislation.

            Bill.

          • Polish Pride

            As a Capitalist in an end game scenario I don’t care if you can’t afford to buy luxury goods I already own plenty of other things businesses that you Must spend your money on in order to survive. Food and Petroleum are good examples. You have to continue to work in order to support your families and you have to continue to pay your taxes which are of course being paid to me by your heavily indebted govt. Sure there will be jobs and people need to earn money to keep the system going. Mechanics, Electricians, Plumbers, Builders, Politicians, Police, Health workers – after all I need you healthy in order to continue working and earning don’t I. I even ensure that my media keep the focus on a two party system for a number of reasons one of them being the constant push pull of capitalism vs socialism so that your attention is diverted. I ensure that there is welfare so that all people can continue to buy the necessities (food, petrol owned by me of course) but do I pay for their welfare? Haha No fool, you do again from your taxes.

            It’s not all just about me though, nope as nice as that would be it’s too risky. You might realize what I have done and have me hung drawn and quatered. No its far safer to have several of us and yes some people we will pay very well, These are the ones that we want to keep control in various forms be they CEOs of companies we own, Politicians we control, media personalities that you like and listen to who give you the message I want them to.

            I do need to keep the masses happy though, don’t want them getting to upset and revolting (they are revolting enough already :) so well have entertainment which I will also have ownership of. Again this helps me influence the message you receive and helps shape your opinions. We will have celebrities and the colleseum worked well for keeping the Romans happy so we’ll have sports and lots of it. Lots of celebrities and lots of sports. We need to give you people to look up to. Everybody needs a hero. And with my control of movies I have already locked in the message that good heroes work hard and help others. I, through our politicians, also control the education curriculum so your children learn what I want them to. You know things like the system is the system. We can’t change it. Go to school, study hard, get a good education, get a job, get married, have kids, pay your taxes – always pay your taxes. Oh and vote, always remember to vote.
            But I don’t want you to lose faith. I need you to keep believing that anyone can make it. Because at this stage your version of being rich and my version are so far apart they might as well be totally different concepts. Now where were we? Oh yes keeping the faith. That’s why you have Lotto. Then when 1.3 million didn’t seem like that much to you, you got Power Ball. Keeping the faith and giving them hope and it works so well.
            Sure it’s Capitalism and there’s always the chance that some lucky punter will come up with a new product that is so popular he will make billions (still just lunch money from where I sit) but I am sure we can bring such a person into the fold. After all greed is a powerful motivator. And if he or she is that successful he will be well known and respected by the unruly masses so I can have my people get him to invest in certain areas. Key areas, maybe food and health perhaps? yeah that’ll work. Then we can even have this highly respected individual champion causes in those areas.

            I do see one problem at the moment though, The world population is getting harder and harder to control as it grows and wars are very unpopular with the masses and harder and harder to manufacture consent for so we might have to look at other options, more subtle options for population control

            So you are correct its not about having everyone as paupers. If that were the case everyone would revolt. But there are many countries where people could still be making a lot less.
            There are also too many variables with Capitalism so we might have to use the political system to slowly take away some freedoms and move towards totalitarianism. It would make life far easier….. well for me and my friends at least. :)

          • BR

            You’re getting into the weeds. No long winded explanation should be necessary. Short and sweet gets the message across. I will reply to just a few points.

            “….and you have to continue to pay your taxes which are of course being paid to me by your heavily indebted govt.”

            Government economic mismanagement is the antithesis of a free market economy.

            “The world population is getting harder and harder to control as it grows and wars are very unpopular with the masses…”

            Whenever there is a war, a dictator is always involved.

            “So you are correct its not about having everyone as paupers. If that were the case everyone would revolt.”

            So how’s that revolt going in North Korea? Zimbabwe?

            Bill.

      • dyannt

        If the free market isn’t booming any more, then imagine how deep the hole of shit we would be in in a socialist society.

        • Polish Pride

          Perhaps but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t nearing time to change to a new system one that hasn’t been tried before.

          • BR

            They’ve all been tried before. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, the free market is the worst system there is, except for all the others that have been tried.

            Bill

          • Polish Pride

            No actually they haven’t all been tried before a market based Resource Based Economy has never been tried and would in fact be the most natural system for mankind.

          • BR

            The “Resource Based Economy” you have been promoting seems to be nothing more than a barter system.

            Bill.

          • Polish Pride

            No barter required i.e. the need to ‘exchange’ is not necessary. It is the only system ever put forward that has the ability to truly make a man free. A man is not free if he MUST work in order to simply survive.
            Libertarianism frees man so the choices that he makes are his but he still must work within the system.
            RBE provides the first part also but changes the system and sets it up so that it now works for man and has a continuous goal of freeing man from it wherever possible.

            I’m not sure how deeply you’ve looked into RBE as to whether or not you could make a call on this next question or not BR

            What about a market based RBE would you personally not be happy about?

            I did this with Libertarianism and the two things I came up against are
            1. There’s a lot of places I like to go and use in NZ for free. The beach, the lake, the parks
            2. I would never be free of the system.

          • BR

            “A man is not free if he MUST work in order to simply survive.”

            You use the examples of food and petroleum as necessities for survival. For either of these things to be available, work is required. Unless you want to go back to hunting-gathering (which in itself is work), then somebody MUST work, or neither of these necessities would be forthcoming.

            Bill

  • Mediaan

    “Politicians that are willing to have a mature debate on the issue” are what we deserve, says Wussel Norman.

    Like him? Going in with policies that he might flick over completely tomorrow?

    One would hope any policies of “mature debating” politicians are developed expertly, amended after discussion with possible coalition partners, and well-tested, before putting them out.

    NZ has many reasons to be careful about witless money-printing.

    • Polish Pride

      Witless money printing yes. But not all money printing need be witless.
      We have witless money printing right now. It is called Fractional Reserve Banking.
      As for Politicians having a mature debate. This is what I would like to and expect to see on every issue as should everyone.

      • Mediaan

        I wonder if you are thinking about the early “green dollars” of – was it Lincoln? Because these are wholly different from what simpering Wussel called for. They were differently backed, state-owned, not in the hands of greedy black-hearted bankers using multiplication of credit to do what they liked as in particular periods of USA history.

        Whinging disgusting NZ-sabotaging Wussel seems to want more just like the ones we have.

    • Kopua Cowboy

      What the fuck would those clowns in Parliament know about a mature debate? No cunt sits down and listens, they’re all up and yelling over each other. The “debates” our MPs hold are cringeworthy, even if they can be good value with the sledging sometimes.

  • Ronnie Chow

    John Key . October 2012….

    What Green members are arguing is that everything contains some risk, so they do not want to do anything, except that they want to give lots and lots of money away, which is why they come up with the only solution that that person could come up with—print it!

19%