Labour / NZ First Government

[dobby41]

Australia's COVID 19 death rate is a bit higher (2.7 ppm vs 2.3 ppm in NZ), but fair enough - both countries did amazingly well compared to the rest of the world.

I do agree that the government seems to be so far rather blind towards the pain of SME's vs. increasing the welfare for beneficiaries and wage earners. This is in my view a fair criticism - and it well might be something which will kill them at the next election if they don't change their attitude.

I am however not sure whether National did show in the previous crisis less bias towards their perceived clientel. Labour is now looking after the beneficiaries and basically increasing the number of them, while in the last crisis National bailed out their buddies running banks and finance companies. National used the opportunity after the GFC as well to dismantle work safety standards and labour laws resulting in increased fatality rates in all high risk occupations (e.g. forestry) and culminating in disasters like Pike River. You could argue that while Labour is killing business, National was killing people - but obviously both is highly undesirable.

Clearly - National had a different focus, but I very much doubt that their bias is any better for the country than Labour's bias. Would be nice though to have a government which is economically competent as well as looking after their people. Not sure, though I see who would run this government.

I would have thought that it is still far to early to tell if the Govt has failed.
Plans for business have hardly started and it is a moving target.

[fungus pudding]

I would have thought that it is still far to early to tell if the Govt has failed.
Plans for business have hardly started and it is a moving target.

You are right. It will take years of hypothetical country comparisons, collecting statistics on many aspects of society, and modelling to know anything at all. Even then they won't really know.

[westerly]

Sadly, this is what happens when you have economic inexperienced and incompetent leaders/ministers in charge.

To date, outside of the wage subsidy, there has been bugger all help for SMEs, especially in the tourism & accommodation, airline, hospitality and leisure sectors.

This government’s pre-occupation seems to be to expand the welfare state rather than help SMEs to survive and provide long term employment, especially for youth workers.

Takes at least 5 years to grow a lovely strong fruit tree but takes an idiot with an axe or chainsaw 1 hour or less to cut & destroy the tree. All the future fruits to come from the tree - gone.

Given the large numbers of SMEs that fail each year in NZ perhaps it would be difficult to decide who should be supported ? https://nzbusiness.co.nz/article/fail-expos%C3%A9

westerly

[Balance]

Given the large numbers of SMEs that fail each year in NZ perhaps it would be difficult to decide who should be supported ? https://nzbusiness.co.nz/article/fail-expos%C3%A9

westerly

Fair comment but how about starting with SMEs which have been around and been profitable for the last 3 years?

[Balance]

Australia's COVID 19 death rate is a bit higher (2.7 ppm vs 2.3 ppm in NZ), but fair enough - both countries did amazingly well compared to the rest of the world.

I do agree that the government seems to be so far rather blind towards the pain of SME's vs. increasing the welfare for beneficiaries and wage earners. This is in my view a fair criticism - and it well might be something which will kill them at the next election if they don't change their attitude.

As of this afternoon, NZ's infection rate was 293 ppm vs Australia's 264 ppm - both very good figures when you compare with say, Germany's 1731 ppm or 54.7 ppm death rate, with Germany now easing out of their lockdown.

As for how Labour is not helping the SMEs, that's actually the point make by Bob Jones - that Labour will not survive the horrendous economic fallout, irrespective go how popular the PM is.

[Sir Ten]

In a climate where it has become very challenging to predict what the world might look like, I appreciate the various views and opinions of those on this forum which is helping to inform my own.

Time will shortly tell which pathway this Government will take in terms of the lockdown and its duration. Regardless of that decision, I see Level 3 as only having a mildly positive impact on the economy.

I'd be happy to extend Level 4 by two weeks, thus providing us with more data and hopefully more certainty regarding our attempts to eradicate the virus. However, following that, I think the Government should implement a more tailored approach to balancing the health and economic impacts of their response:

- The fatality rate is clearly significantly higher in those over 65. Extend the lockdown for those over 65 and set up the required infrastructure and systems to accommodate this (for example, tax-payer funded food delivery schemes and other such measures to provide them with the necessities of life... sign them all up for Netflix if we have to). The cost of such measures would be materially lower than the economic costs being shouldered by the population as a whole - not to mention those over 65 still receive their superannuation cheque (and winter energy kicker) regardless of whether businesses are open

- Move those under 65 to level 2. What worries me most is the future cost of the lockdown. We can all joke about millennials and their tendency to prioritise smashed avo over home ownership but things are about to get significantly harder for this demographic: (a) lack of jobs, many of which are also being progressively disintermediated by technology and cheaper global labour (albeit the latter may not have as much impact in the short-to-medium term); (b) the aging population that continues to age... and the superannuation payments that will need to fund it; (c) impending increased taxes and/or inflation from printing money; (d) limited ability for them to undertake an OE and secure the fruits of doing so (i.e. global experience) for at least the next 12 months (if not longer)

Will be interesting to see how the above comments age... not an immaterial risk they lead to some embarrassment on my part. Regardless, I'm happy to own them.

[fungus pudding]

In a climate where it has become very challenging to predict what the world might look like, I appreciate the various views and opinions of those on this forum which is helping to inform my own.

Time will shortly tell which pathway this Government will take in terms of the lockdown and its duration. Regardless of that decision, I see Level 3 as only having a mildly positive impact on the economy.

I'd be happy to extend Level 4 by two weeks, thus providing us with more data and hopefully more certainty regarding our attempts to eradicate the virus. However, following that, I think the Government should implement a more tailored approach to balancing the health and economic impacts of their response:

- The fatality rate is clearly significantly higher in those over 65. Extend the lockdown for those over 65 and set up the required infrastructure and systems to accommodate this (for example, tax-payer funded food delivery schemes and other such measures to provide them with the necessities of life... sign them all up for Netflix if we have to). The cost of such measures would be materially lower than the economic costs being shouldered by the population as a whole - not to mention those over 65 still receive their superannuation cheque (and winter energy kicker) regardless of whether businesses are open

- Move those under 65 to level 2. What worries me most is the future cost of the lockdown. We can all joke about millennials and their tendency to prioritise smashed avo over home ownership but things are about to get significantly harder for this demographic: (a) lack of jobs, many of which are also being progressively disintermediated by technology and cheaper global labour (albeit the latter may not have as much impact in the short-to-medium term); (b) the aging population that continues to age... and the superannuation payments that will need to fund it; (c) impending increased taxes and/or inflation from printing money; (d) limited ability for them to undertake an OE and secure the fruits of doing so (i.e. global experience) for at least the next 12 months (if not longer)

Will be interesting to see how the above comments age... not an immaterial risk they lead to some embarrassment on my part. Regardless, I'm happy to own them.

The lock-down has nothing whatsoever to do with age. It's a restriction on movement and activity.

[zacman]

The lock-down has nothing whatsoever to do with age. It's a restriction on movement and activity.

Of course it is based on a restriction of movement and activity, but such restrictions are themselves based on a risk assessment and what is best for the country and in that regard Sir Ten is correct that there is a significantly higher mortality rate the older you are. All our deaths are of people over 70. I believe his suggestion of restrictions being greater if you are older is of much merit and from memory has been implemented in some countries.

I applaud the government's response so far. What is announced tomorrow will have risk attached to any decision. Despite what some may imply, it will not be a decision of only 1 person and will be one in which science, health and economic advisors will have provided opinions.

zacman

[nztx]

Given the large numbers of SMEs that fail each year in NZ perhaps it would be difficult to decide who should be supported ? https://nzbusiness.co.nz/article/fail-expos%C3%A9

westerly

How about all of them ?

There couldn't be a stronger case than Govt's orchestrated close down would have
adversely affected all of those affected, even those just sitting on edge immediately prior to
lock down

The Govt Wages Subsidy didn't differentiate between them, so there would appear to be no
valid reason that any badly needed wider support package should either..

[Sir Ten]

The lock-down has nothing whatsoever to do with age. It's a restriction on movement and activity.

Hypothetically, if NZ's population was entirely made up of people under the age of 65 do you think the restrictions on movement and activity would be different?