A growth rate of 4% coming out of recession isn’t high by historical standards and it’s roughly in the middle of predictions by bank economists.
That hasn’t stopped people questioning how realistic Budget predictions for this rate of growth are.
At the National Party’s Mainland Conference Prime Minister John Key and Finance Minister Bill English gave some of the reasoning behind the figure.
This included the bright outlook for primary produce and the impact from the rebuild in Canterbury, not just on that region but throughout the rest of the country.
Then there is a less scientific measure – Bill was talking to a farmer last week and he was happy.
Advertisement
Ele, try some simple arithmetic.
1. Take the total kilos of milk solids and multiply by three dollars. That’s the additional pay out being enjoyed since Labour reckoned you were paying only $1,500 tax. That’s ‘extra GDP’ – the real sort, not PSA wages.
2 Take the total annual kill of fat lambs and multiply by say $70.
Add the two together and see what the sum is as a percentage of GDP.
More realistic than the great white hope’s assertion that his devastating plan to arbitrarily raise all wages by over 12% in his first year if he manages to bribe enough financial dumbarses with his voodoo economics come November 26th wont create youth unemployment we aint ever seen to date. The current 25% will look like a howling success.
So John’s promising a Brighter Future.
Everything will be hunky-dory then, ’cause that’s what John was saying before the last election!
In the meantime, it’s been shite under National.
Well actually, Robert, it hasn’t been for most Kiwis. It probably has though, for fat lazy good for nothings who want more money for less work.
Did we close the gap some with Australia?
I was offered a contract in NZ last week but decided to turn the offer down because the rate was unprofitable. I understood the person purchasing can’t afford a competitive rate, but the reality is that doing the same work in Australia, I get 150% per hour of what the offer was in NZ. The real telling factor was that the organisation expected me to take a rate cut of 25% on what they paid me for a contract 4 years ago.
That growth thing ain’t getting through
You’ve swallowed Key’s Brighter Future line, hook and sinker Adolf. Bill and John know as well as you do, that the situation is grim, but hey! John sees bright shiny lightness and it’s not far ahead!
Can you see it Adolf? Can you see it?
Of course you can.
RG – I dont quite have Adolf’s loyal devotion to what National has done to date and what they propose into the next 6 years. As far as the future is concerned a strong ACT presence after 26 November will help the cause mightily.
Having said that whatever happens we are still all a bloody sight better off than we would be if the Clark/Cullen regime and it’s merry hangers on the Greens had been running the cutter.
Well none of you have stated the obvious, yet.
What has history to do with projections of growth?
Fill your tank, and start driving. As you go, accelerate a few kph each hour.The little warning light comes on.. You haven’t stopped yet – who’s the idiot suggesting we can go on, because we have thus far?
Then there’s the little matter of that (physically-based, remember) growth. 4% doubles in 17 years. The ‘wealth’ may be held as binary code in a bank compter for a while, but sooner or later it is proxy for the purchase of real goods and services.
Peak energy (yep, nothing happens without it) meant peak wealth-creation, give or take efficiencies. To prove 4% growth, they have to point to 4% growth in energy available, and I’ll willingly concede them any efficiencies they can prove.
Otherwise, HP, it’s porkies. Bullshit. I suggest you get a copy of the Limits to Growth, 30 year update.
Note that it projected the peak this century. Then get a copy of Overshoot (Catton, 1980, there should be some around, it was written here.
Each year we go on, makes it more and more likely that global growth won’t kick-start. Ever again. Sure, off each trough, you will climb, and if you’re stupid enough to call that ‘growth’. Sure, if you think the rebuild of Chch (to what it already was)is ‘growth’.
But real growth, in the physical sense – no, at the top of the gaussian, you’re a bit hamstrung just maintaining, and it’s odds-on you’d cherry-picked the first half, so the quality to come will be worse. Deep water, shale, tar sands, lignite.
Tell Key and English to learn some physics – ask Peter Gluckman, read the Parliamentary Report into Peak Oil
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/ParlSupport/ResearchPapers/4/6/a/00PLEco10041-The-next-oil-shock.htm
Or get them to refute it!
Now that would be worth keeping filed…..
lol, i hope he had a box of tissues at the ready, cos you can tell he spelunked writing that drivel
that’s about the level I expected. What did I say about dogs, HP?