Re: [Fwd: NZ and OZ currency meltdown. Why]
The old joke that leftists has predicted 20 of the last 2 recessions has probably gone stale -- from pure accuracy. However it is even truer that they have predicted 200 of the last 2 crashes. Eugene Coyle wrote: Part 1.2Type: Microsoft MHTML Document 5.0 (message/rfc822) Encoding: 7bit
[Fwd: NZ and OZ currency meltdown. Why]
G'day Gene, I'm not subscribed from work - so would you mind passing on this attempt at a response to your question? You ask: What are the recent developments that have contributed to the currency meltdown in New Zealand and Australia? They are two commodity-dependent states selling into markets with weak prices. But that has been known -- is anything new happen to explain the dollar values melting like an ice-cream cone in July. (Northern Hemisphere.) Well, everyone has a pet explanation. The appallingly glamorous David Hale made a big splash when he smugly informed us we were a recalcitrantly 'old economy'. No-one quite new what that meant, but they sold the Ozzie down a whole cent over the next two days. That was the cent from 56 to 55 (three weeks ago). The cent from 53.5 to 52.5 (the last two days) has is generally explained with reference to the Europeans's determination that US support for the Euro wouldn't be enough. They raised the rates; apparently read by the young suits who run our world via their cross-currency terminals as a vote of no self-confidence. It also puts pressure on European investment and growth, I'd reckon. They're the main blips. But blips is just blips. Something bigger is afoot. We ARE decisively a commodity exporter, we DO boast singularly pathetic RD numbers (a real victim of this government's radical scaling down of funding and subsidies over the last four years), and our listed companies are not offering the returns on capital boasted on Wall St (13% as opposed to 21% - Germany is hovering around 12.5%). Our stock market is also very dependent on relatively few companies (of which one is 'old economy' [BHP], one is in the languishing telco sector [Telstra] and a third is the unpredictably fluctuating NewsCorp). So it's the US basically - sucking investment capital from everybody else on the strength of fragile but, hitherto, enduring numbers. Our CAD is a big problem for the Ozzie, but, as yet, the equally persistent and growing CAD that characterises the US economy is not a problem there. So, for the moment, we're stuck in a vicious circle: structural CAD (inevitable for a commodity exporter/technology importer) - lower currency - fear of inflation (especially in transport, communications, and machine tools) - lower currency - lower currency etc etc. It'd have to be basically the same across the Tasman. But I agree with you that US trends hint at some important numbers peaking there, and then that CAD and all that fragile debt might suddenly come home to roost. So, whilst we might come off another couple of cents yet, I reckon a rapid readjustment might be in the breeze (I'm still not sure it won't be a gale). Cheers, Rob.
Re: [Fwd: NZ and OZ currency meltdown. Why]
Rob Schaap wrote: Well, everyone has a pet explanation. The appallingly glamorous David Hale made a big splash when he smugly informed us we were a recalcitrantly 'old economy'. No-one quite new what that meant, but they sold the Ozzie down a whole cent over the next two days. That was the cent from 56 to 55 (three Even if we really are "old economy", what other than irrational exuberance would cause it to drop a currency *this* quickly?! Bill -- The content of this message, unless otherwise stated, is provided in my private capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
NZ and OZ currency meltdown. Why
What are the recent developments that have contributed to the currency meltdown in New Zealand and Australia? They are two commodity-dependent states selling into markets with weak prices. But that has been known -- is anything new happen to explain the dollar values melting like an ice-cream cone in July. (Northern Hemisphere.) Gene Coyle
Re: NZ and OZ currency meltdown. Why
Eugene Coyle wrote: What are the recent developments that have contributed to the currency meltdown in New Zealand and Australia? They are two commodity-dependent states selling into markets with weak prices. But that has been known -- is anything new happen to explain the dollar values melting like an ice-cream cone in July. (Northern Hemisphere.) The first answer is that I'm not sure that there is a meltdown, at least in recent months, unless you call the Euro's fall (for example) a meltdown too. Certainly the value of both currencies have dropped considerably. You might like to read a recent speech by the Governor of the Reserve Bank of NZ, Donald Brash (http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/speeches/0097094.html) which, apart from showing some bewilderment at the movement of the New Zealand dollar, makes some interesting observations, including: "Between the beginning of 1999 and the end of September this year, for example, the Australian dollar and British pound depreciated by about 12 per cent against the US dollar, the Swedish and Norwegian currencies by about 16 per cent, the Swiss franc by about 21 per cent, the New Zealand dollar by about 23 per cent, and the euro by almost 25 per cent. Clearly, the fall in our currency is not just the result of the New Zealand dollar being the currency of a small economy: the currencies of much larger economies have also fallen significantly against the US dollar in recent times." So the largest part of the "fall" is simply the strength of the US dollar. But there definitely has been a fall in the medium term, a fall which began with the financial crisis in Asia. Brash again: "Between its peak of more than 71 US cents in November 1996 and its trough of just over 40 US cents at present, the New Zealand dollar depreciated by some 44 per cent against the US dollar, a substantial depreciation over less than four years in anybody's language. Measured against the Reserve Bank's trade-weighted index (TWI), which measures the New Zealand dollar against a basket of five currencies, the fall was somewhat less dramatic, from 69 in late April 1997 to around 47 at present, but that still represented a depreciation of 32 per cent. Whether measured against the US dollar or against the TWI, the New Zealand dollar is currently close to its lowest level in history." It would be convenient to attribute the fall to the election of the centre-left Labour/Alliance government in Nov 1999, but as you can see, the fall began well before that - though perhaps the growing political senility of the previous government and the inevitability of a change could have caused pre-emptive capital flight, and there is evidance of that. Though capital flight is occurring, it is mostly not yet a massive movement. Rather, it is taking the form of moving investment to more liquid forms (debt securities to deposits etc), and in withdrawal of large foreign portfolio investors from the share market. Short term foreign debt (private plus official) has risen from 43% of the total in March 1999 to 50% in March 2000. I'd attribute the fall so far mainly to the huge current account deficit (7% of GDP, 22% of GS exports) and debt (105% of GDP and 329% of GS exports). It would have happened eventually whatever government was in power. But it is undoubtedly reinforced by the furious reaction by most business leaders here to the mild reforms the new government is putting in place. They of course pretend the dollar's fall to be a sign of the inadequate financial management of the new government. In fact, without it, there was no hope that the economy would reduce its import addiction and increase its exports sufficiently ever to bring the current account into balance. It is unlikely even at the current exchange rate, because the current account deficit is almost entirely due to a deficit on investment income ($6.6b of the March 2000 $7.3b deficit), and the destruction of many potential import substitution industries after 15 years of trade and investment "liberalisation". But capital flight could happen at any time. The Labour majority of the government is currently forcing through Parliament (in alliance with the right-wing parties just ousted from government, because its coalition partners oppose it) a free trade agreement with Singapore, which it wants to be the forerunner of a much wider free trade area. This is a political statement as much as a real change, given New Zealand's almost tariff-free and unrestricted investment regime. It says to the "markets" - don't be scared, don't run away, underneath all our social democrat veneer, we're still with you. Bill
Re: Murray Dobbin on the NZ Miracle
Larry Ball's interpretation of New Zealand is that it is a victim of intensive monetarism: that as you look across the OECD, the more aggressive the fight against inflation was, the longer it was pursued, the the feebler were the stimulative policies of the late 1980s, the greater was the damage done to the employment system and the worse was subsequent macroeconomic performance. He tends to arrange the OECD countries along a spectrum from the United States (where the Volcker disinflation was--in OECD-wide context--not that bad, and was followed by rapid interest rate reductions from 1982 on and by the enormous short-run fiscal stimulus of the Reagan deficits) which has managed to reap nearly all the potential gains from central-bank credibility without suffering the permanent rises in unemployment seen elsewhere) to Britain, Germany, and France, with New Zealand on the other end. I know less than he does about it, so I tend to defer to him... Brad DeLong
Re: Murray Dobbin on the NZ Miracle
Shows the advantages to be gained from not practicing what you preach, if what you preach is a load of BS. Is there any evidence to suggest that the "Washington Consensus" was NOT a deliberate ploy by the U.S. to gain macroeconomic advantage by sabotaging the performance of its acolytes? Brad DeLong wrote, Larry Ball's interpretation of New Zealand is that it is a victim of intensive monetarism: that as you look across the OECD, the more aggressive the fight against inflation was, the longer it was pursued, the the feebler were the stimulative policies of the late 1980s, the greater was the damage done to the employment system and the worse was subsequent macroeconomic performance. He tends to arrange the OECD countries along a spectrum from the United States (where the Volcker disinflation was--in OECD-wide context--not that bad, and was followed by rapid interest rate reductions from 1982 on and by the enormous short-run fiscal stimulus of the Reagan deficits) which has managed to reap nearly all the potential gains from central-bank credibility without suffering the permanent rises in unemployment seen elsewhere) to Britain, Germany, and France, with New Zealand on the other end. Temps Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant
Re: Re: Murray Dobbin on the NZ Miracle
Shows the advantages to be gained from not practicing what you preach, if what you preach is a load of BS. Is there any evidence to suggest that the "Washington Consensus" was NOT a deliberate ploy by the U.S. to gain macroeconomic advantage by sabotaging the performance of its acolytes? Brad DeLong wrote, Good God! Ever since the start of the Clinton Administration the line has been that if the U.S. needs to be more "classical" that Japan and Europe and the rest of the OECD need to be more "Keynesian." The inflation rate needs to be low so that it doesn't really mess up the resource allocation process, but once inflation gets below 4 percent per year only fundamentalist ideologues worry about pushing it down further... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Murray Dobbin on the NZ Miracle
New Zealand has made a habit of practicing what others preach, and then getting
naively offended when others don't. That applies not just to monetarism but to
trade liberalisation, privatisation, marketising society, and so on.
I only skimmed Murray Dobbin's article (if I'm thinking about the same one as
Ken), but he has generally got the right idea and is reasonably well informed on
New Zealand. Apart from a couple of years in the early 90's, New Zealand's
growth has been below OECD average, and so the shrinkage of the 80's has never
been regained.
I quote from an article I wrote for Canadian Dimension (May issue from memory):
Meanwhile economic successes were few and far between. Economist Paul Dalziel
summed up the position in a 1999 analysis ("New Zealand's economic reforms
failed to achieve their ultimate objectives", by Dr Paul Dalziel, Senior
Lecturer in Economics, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand,
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]). He compared New Zealand to its most
similar economy, Australia. Though it also instituted many neo-liberal reforms,
Australia carried them out at a much more measured pace, and retained many more
social underpinnings including a national award system and protection for
collective bargaining.
Rather than exceptional growth, Dalziel found that over the period 1987 to 1998,
New Zealand had "sacrificed a large volume of real per capita GDP". In 1998, per
capital GDP was $25,980. Dalziel estimated that "every New Zealander could have
received an extra $4,806" if growth had been kept up with Australia. Over the
period, $30,000 had been lost per person.
Rather than reduced unemployment, he found that "New Zealand's average
unemployment rate moved from well below that of Australia before 1988 to
comparable values thereafter". New Zealand had had an exceptionally low
unemployment rate since the Second World War: near to zero until the
mid-seventies, and never much above 4% until 1984. It is now above 6% - at least
50% higher than at the beginning of the experiment - with a peak of 10.9% in
1991.
The deregulated labour market, under the 1991 Employment Contracts Act, was
supposed to increase labour productivity. It replaced a system of national
awards with a regime of individual contracts. Membership of trade unions has
declined from 41.5% of the employed workforce in May 1991, to 19.9% in 1996.
Dalziel found that instead of increasing productivity, "since 1992 labour
productivity growth in New Zealand has been considerably below that of that of
Australia", despite similar growth rates in the past.
Lastly, Dalziel documents the increase in inequality and poverty. Half of the
population had lower real incomes in 1995/96 than before the start of the
experiment, and for 40% the loss of income was greater than 3%. The top 10% of
incomes increased during that period by 26%.
Signs of real poverty are everywhere: rapid increases in numbers of food-banks,
reappearance of diseases of poverty such as tuberculosis, children coming to
school hungry, homelessness and overcrowded housing. Other studies have shown
that New Zealand had probably the fastest growing inequality in the OECD during
this period, and that the real incomes of New Zealand's indigenous Maori
population actually fell by one quarter (25%) between 1982 and 1996.
Dalziel might have added that achievement of perhaps the primary stated economic
objective, increased international competitiveness, has also failed. The current
account deficit has now been at crisis levels of about 5% of GDP - rising to 7%
- for almost five years. It is largely fuelled by the high levels of foreign
debt and investment. Foreign debt rose from $16 billion in 1984 (47% of GDP,
almost all government debt) to $102 billion in 1999 (104% of GDP, mainly private
debt). Probably half to two-thirds of the commercial economy is foreign-owned,
and the deficit on investment income exceeds the current account deficit. In
1999 even the balance on goods and services was in deficit.
Bill Rosenberg
Brad De Long wrote:
Shows the advantages to be gained from not practicing what you preach, if
what you preach is a load of BS. Is there any evidence to suggest that the
"Washington Consensus" was NOT a deliberate ploy by the U.S. to gain
macroeconomic advantage by sabotaging the performance of its acolytes?
Brad DeLong wrote,
Good God! Ever since the start of the Clinton Administration the line
has been that if the U.S. needs to be more "classical" that Japan and
Europe and the rest of the OECD need to be more "Keynesian." The
inflation rate needs to be low so that it doesn't really mess up the
resource allocation process, but once inflation gets below 4 percent
per year only fundamentalist ideologues worry about pushing it down
further...
Brad DeLong
--
The content of this message, unless otherwise stated, is provided in my private
capacity and does not purport to represent the University of Canterbury.
Re: Murray Dobbin on the NZ Miracle
Brad De Long wrote, Good God! Ever since the start of the Clinton Administration the line has been that if the U.S. needs to be more "classical" that Japan and Europe and the rest of the OECD need to be more "Keynesian." The inflation rate needs to be low so that it doesn't really mess up the resource allocation process, but once inflation gets below 4 percent per year only fundamentalist ideologues worry about pushing it down further... The fundamentalist ideologues at the Bank of Canada and the Canadian Ministry of Finance didn't hear the line. Perhaps they were too busy reading about their "debt wall" in the Wall Street Journal and in "secret" memos from the IMF. Temps Walker Sandwichman and Deconsultant
Re: Murray Dobbin on the NZ Miracle
Bill, if NZ growth is slow, how far down the income distribution do you have to go before you find stagnating incomes? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Murray Dobbin on the NZ Miracle
Bill, if NZ growth is slow, how far down the income distribution do you have to go before you find stagnating incomes? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not very far at all. My belief was that every labor-market slot before the 90th percentile according to official statistics, and below the 50th if you believe in the Boskin Commission... Of course, "stagnating incomes" is a property of *slots* in the income distribution and not of real people, who tend to advance to higher percentiles over time until they hit 50 or so. (In fact, I trace our conducting this discussion in this particular rhetorical mode--that of tracing the change in income associated with a particular percentile slot in the income distribution--to Paul Krugman's decision at the end of 1991 to do so. He found that this rhetorical mode allowed him to say that some large fraction of all the income gains during the Reagan Bush era had gone to the very small fraction at the top. I think it was Krugman (but it may have been Larry Katz or Claudia Goldin) who characterized this as "an accurate but also the most inflammatory way of presenting the data".)
Re: Re: Re: Murray Dobbin on the NZ Miracle
Brad, you do have a nice style of presenting your material. I have never used the concept of "slot." As a result, my typical explanation of that phenomenon is pretty clunky. The first I saw of Krugman's discussion was: Krugman, Paul. 1992. "The Right, The Rich, and the Facts: Deconstructing the Income Distribution Debate." American Prospect (Fall): pp. 19-31. My question concerned New Zealand. I was wondering how much it differed from the U.S. in terms of the distribution of the growth of the pie. Maybe Doug's studies of the Luxembourg work indicates how other countries have fared in this respect. Brad De Long wrote: Bill, if NZ growth is slow, how far down the income distribution do you have to go before you find stagnating incomes? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Not very far at all. My belief was that every labor-market slot before the 90th percentile according to official statistics, and below the 50th if you believe in the Boskin Commission... Of course, "stagnating incomes" is a property of *slots* in the income distribution and not of real people, who tend to advance to higher percentiles over time until they hit 50 or so. (In fact, I trace our conducting this discussion in this particular rhetorical mode--that of tracing the change in income associated with a particular percentile slot in the income distribution--to Paul Krugman's decision at the end of 1991 to do so. He found that this rhetorical mode allowed him to say that some large fraction of all the income gains during the Reagan Bush era had gone to the very small fraction at the top. I think it was Krugman (but it may have been Larry Katz or Claudia Goldin) who characterized this as "an accurate but also the most inflammatory way of presenting the data".) -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Murray Dobbin on the NZ Miracle
Michael Perelman wrote: My question concerned New Zealand. I was wondering how much it differed from the U.S. in terms of the distribution of the growth of the pie. Maybe Doug's studies of the Luxembourg work indicates how other countries have fared in this respect. NZ isn't in the LIS. Branko Milanovic of the World Bank estimates NZ's 1993 gini at .430, up from .384 in 1998. NZ comes in #25 - Brazil, of course, is #1, at .590 in 1993 - ahead of the U.S. (.370 in 1988, .394 in 1993), which usually comes in #2 in LIS rankings, just behind Russia, and more unequal than the Philippines (.405/.426). Japan came in #83 in 1993, at .243. This isn't what you asked, but if you wrote to the LIS folks, they'd probably be happy to run the kind of calculation you're looking for. Doug
Murray Dobbin on the NZ Miracle
Perhaps BIll Rosenberg might comment on this, or Brad de Long :) Cheers, Ken Hanly http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/fpcomment/story.html?f=/stories/2815/370328.html Financial Post August 15, 2000 By Murray Dobbin The real lessons from New Zealand Vaunted privatization push devastated the country, rather than saving it. It has been so long since anyone in the business press has praised the New Zealand miracle it is almost as if we imagined the whole thing. But, of course, the current silence is really no mystery. The fifteen year free market experiment has been an unmitigated disaster. The suffering caused amongst ordinary New Zealanders is well known: the highest youth suicide rate in the developed world, the proliferation of food banks, huge increases in violent and other crime, the bankruptcy of half the farms in the country, the economic disruption of hundreds of thousands of lives and health care, education and other social services devastated by the mad marketplace scientists. But, of course, neo-liberal ideologues dont hold much truck with the human consequences of their experiments. So lets examine those things they do care about. The revolutionaries promised to tear down the debt wall, unleash spectacular economic growth, spur foreign investment and productivity, create enormous new wealth and new and better jobs. They failed on every count. Instead of a brave new economy they delivered an economic Frankensteins monster. The initial wave of changes - deregulation, privatization, tariff elimination - was justified by the infamous debt crisis. This was a ruse all along. Even Sir Roger Douglas admitted this when I interviewed him in 1992. The crisis New Zealand faced post-election in 1984 was a currency crisis brought on by Douglas himself. As for the debt in 1984 it was NZ$22 billion but after ten years of experimenting it had doubled to NZ$45 billion - in spite of the sell off of NZ$16 billion in state enterprises. Today it has finally returned to 1984 levels but only through more crown assets sales. And economic growth? In the years 1985 - 92 average economic growth in the OECD countries totalled 20% while in New Zealand it was negative: -1%. The promised creation of enormous new wealth went into reverse with real GDP in 1992 at 5% below the 85-86 level. A burst of growth from1993 to 1995 petered out and steadily declined until it dipped into negative territory in 1998, posting the fourth worst growth in the OECD. The transformation of the economy was supposed to spur foreign investment but it mostly meant a feeding frenzy on domestic corporate assets. In 1993 the proportion of GDP in investments was just 70% of what it was in 1984. The restructuring of the economy failed most dramatically on the unemployment front and the country has never managed to get back to any where near the 1984 level of 4%. The workless and wanting work figure peaked at over 18% in 1993. In 1999 that figure had only been reduced to 11.2%. The radicals also promised increases in productivity but again they failed to deliver. After eight years of restructuring and massive labour deregulation New Zealands productivity began a steady decline compared to its neighbour, Australia. From 1978 to 1990 the rates had been similar. The gap steadily increased between1990 and 1998 with Australia posting a 21.9 % increase and New Zealand just 5.2%. Only the wealthy in New Zealand could see any success in this destructive exercise in social engineering. Between 1984 and 1996 only the top 10% of income earners measurably increased their share of total income. The lowest 10% lost 21.6% of their 1984 income. Over 50% of the total working population had lower real income in 1996 than in 1984. There are lessons from New Zealand, but they do not involve adopting that tortured country as a model. The first lesson is that the unfettered application of ideology is inevitably destructive -- not just of democracy, social peace and equality but of the economy. Even as the revolution continued to deliver disastrous results its promoters claimed it was because it had not gone far enough. The second lesson is that parliamentary democracy Anglo- Saxon style has proven extremely vulnerable to the ravages of ideology. A virtual executive dictatorship can implement policies that are never even debated during elections - as happened in New Zealand in 1984. The only thing that stopped the zealots from going even further was the introduction of proportional representation in the early 90s and the subsequent election of minority governments. And that leads to the last lesson. Globalization is not inevitable nor irreversible. The current New Zealand government (a coalition of a chastened Labour Party and the left-wing Alliance) is unfortunately still committed to signing free trade and investment agreements. But it is reversing many of the most destructive policies. Included in this re
bounced from Mat F. re Bill's NZ Money Question
Charles Goodhart, "The Two Concepts of Money", European Journal of Political Economy, 1998, 407-32. Symposium on the European EMU, Eastern Economic Journal, Winter 1999, Vol. 25, No. 1 (papers by Parguez, Kregel, Smithin, Lemmen and Goodhart). Kregel has some papers at the Levy website I think: www.levy.org -Original Message- From: Bill Rosenberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Progressive Economics list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Friday, April 14, 2000 10:40 PM Subject: [PEN-L:18137] Help please: Currency union Pressure here in New Zealand to abandon the NZ$ in favour of either the Australian or US dollar is increasing. A Parliamentary select committee will in the next few months hold an inquiry into the "Closer Economic Relations" free trade/investment area with Australia, with a view to expanding it (either in its coverage or geographically). One of the issues on the agenda is the currency. Could anyone refer me to worthwhile papers that analysed the potential effects of the single European currency? Thanks Bill Rosenberg -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Fwd: TRANSALTA OF CANADA WINNER OF ROGER AWARD FOR THE WORSTTRANSNATIONALCORPORATION IN NZ IN 1999]
If anyone would like a copy of the full judges report, let me know. Bill Rosenberg CAFCA 18 February 2000 TRANSALTA OF CANADA WINNER OF ROGER AWARD FOR THE WORST TRANSNATIONAL CORPORATION IN NZ IN 1999 TRANZ RAIL MONSANTO GET DISHONOURABLE MENTION Canadian power company, TransAlta, which owns energy retailers in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch, has the dubious honour of being the winner of the Roger Award for the Worst Transnational Corporation in New Zealand in 1999. The annual Award was announced in Christchurch today. The Award is named after Sir Roger Douglas, notorious Minister of Finance in NZ's 1984-90 Labour government; the man who gave the world Rogernomics. The judges were: Maxine Gay, president of the Trade Union Federation, Wellington; Moana Jackson, Maori Legal Service, Wellington; and Professor Jane Kelsey, Auckland. To quote from their report: TransAltas brief foray into New Zealand is a warning to the world of what can happen when basic infrastructural services such as electricity are privatised and deregulated . Having made its money, TransAlta has this year agreed to sell its NZ assets to an Australian company for a tax-free capital gain of almost $NZ300 million. During its seven years here, TransAlta: * Raised prices for domestic consumers and for small and medium businesses, while cutting prices for big businesses. * Sacked workers to an extent which is causing those left to fear for their safety. * Was a partner in building two gas-fired power stations which produced about half of the total increase in NZ carbon dioxide emissions from 1990-98. * Blatantly attempted to blackmail the NZ Government into abandoning a proposal to force energy companies to split their lines and retailing businesses by threatening to leave the country if the change went through. * Campaigned to wind up the Hutt-Mana Energy Trust (Wellington) which was elected democratically in local body elections, because its minority stake in TransAlta NZ was an obstacle to the Canadians plans to sell out at an even greater profit. The criteria for judging were by assessing the transnational that has the most negative impact in New Zealand in each or all of the following fields: unemployment, monopoly, profiteering, abuse of workers/conditions, political interference, environmental damage, cultural imperialism, impact on tangata whenua (ie Maori), running an ideological crusade, impact on women, health and safety of workers and the public. TransAlta contravened acceptable standard across virtually all the criteria. American-owned Tranz Rail (1997 winner; 1998 Continuity Award) was given another Continuity Award because its persistent failure to maintain the safety of its rolling stock has continued to put its customers and workers at risk of crippling injury and death. Monsanto (1998 winner) was put on the Roger Watchlist because it is trying to make New Zealand a site in the international development of genetic engineering. The other finalists were: News Ltd, which owns the INL media chain; WestpacTrust (bank); Telecom and Waste Management. Full copies of the judges report are available upon request. Murray Horton for the organisers Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa* (Aotearoa - indigenous Maori name for New Zealand) GATT Watchdog Corso CAFCA Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa PO Box 2258, Christchurch email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:1272] Re: NZ
Doug Henwood wrote: Speaking of NZ, today's Financial Times has an article on the country. I'm quoting only the lead (or lede, as we say in j'ism), so as not to get Don Roper's copyright reflex all a-flutter. You can get the whole thing from the FT's web site http://www.ft.com. Go down to the bottom of the opening screen and search for "New Zealand," since the URL I've got is one of those long long temporary search things. Thanks for pointing this out Doug. Interesting - esp considering where it appeared. It spends a lot of time discussing whether New Zealand's bad reaction was due to the Reserve Bank getting its numbers wrong. I think it is much more a structural problem than that. Bill
[PEN-L:1245] NZ
Ellen Dannin wrote: though I have a wee obsession with things Kiwi Speaking of NZ, today's Financial Times has an article on the country. I'm quoting only the lead (or lede, as we say in j'ism), so as not to get Don Roper's copyright reflex all a-flutter. You can get the whole thing from the FT's web site http://www.ft.com. Go down to the bottom of the opening screen and search for "New Zealand," since the URL I've got is one of those long long temporary search things. Doug FRIDAY DECEMBER 4 1998 Asia-Pacific NEW ZEALAND: How bad was made worse By Peter Montagnon Australia's strong performance has come as a embarrassment to New Zealand, a country traditionally held up as a paragon of economic policy virtue. New Zealand was a pioneer of central bank independence and accountability. This, say the textbooks, should have enabled it to stand up to the Asian onslaught better than its bigger neighbour. Yet, New Zealand shares the dubious distinction with Japan of being the only country in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development to sink into outright recession.
NZ - Union Journal Editor Sacked over MAI (fwd)
From: GATT WATCHDOG Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NZ - Union Journal Editor Sacked over MAI PSA Editor sacked, escorted from work - Evening Post, Wellington, New Zealand; 26/2/98 - Mark Stevens Employment Reporter The editor of the Public Service Association journal has been sacked for allegedly failing to carry out an instruction. Editor Pat Martin was suspended on Monday and escorted from the building. He was couriered a letter of dismissal last night but would not comment other than to confirm legal action would be sought through the Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union. The incident has been confirmed by union solicitor Tony Wilton, and PSA general secretary David Thorp. Mr Thorp would not say whether the instruction was about editorial content in the PSA journal. Mr Wilton says it is. The Post understands the dispute involves an article proposed for March 4. It covered the international public sector unions calling for a halt to the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) talks. Information in the article came from a Public Services International (PSI) conference, which PSA representatives attended as affiliates. A source said management wanted an article more in line with New Zealand Council of Trade Union policies. Internal PSA communication obtained by The Post shows Mr Martin sent a message to president Na Raihania and Mr Thorp the day before his suspension asking for comments on the MAI article. Mr Thorp returned an email message saying he didn't agree with the emphasis of the article - the PSA position was decided by the CTU and should be the main focus of the story, his message said. Mr Martin responded in another email that the story needed a public sector angle because it was written for public sector workers. The PSA was at the conference where the investment agreement was discussed and he questioned whether he sould be distancing the union from the PSI. He also said: "The CTU exec resolutions are reported in the story. I did not realise that the CTU had already decided the PSA's position." Mr Wilton said his client didn't refuse to comply with an instruction but rather sought to have it clarified. "Pat's position is that he was not...refusing to comply with this instruction because the management of the PSA had failed to follow its own policies regarding the making of decisions about the content of the journal. "Pat sought to have this instruction put on hold until such time as the proper policies have been followed." It was not the first time a union had been called in to support a union employee. "Unfortunately it does happen from time to time," Mr Wilton said. Mr Thorp said there was nothing unusual about union management dismissing an employee. It had to manage its resources. The Independent reported yesterday that Mr Martin had a willingness to run articles critical of employers. A determination to include a broad range of views had put him out of favour. He was described as a "marked man". The PSA national policy council was discussing the union's policy on the MAI today.
NZ-Govt Irresponsibility, Insincerity, Slammed Over Paris Igotiations (fwd)
From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Feb 14 20:30:08 1998 Subject: NZ-Govt Irresponsibility, Insincerity, Slammed Over Paris Igotiations Comments: Gatt Watchdog Date: Sun, 15 Feb 98 17:34:13 +1200 Organization: PlaNet Gaia Otautahi GATT Watchdog [EMAIL PROTECTED] MEDIA RELEASE 15th February 1998 For Immediate Use Government Social Irresponsibility, Insincerity, Slammed Over Paris Investment Negotiations This week, negotiations on the Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) reach a critical point as senior officials from 29 OECD countries meet in Paris on 16 and 17 February to assess whether and how to complete the controversial treaty by its current April deadline*(see footnote). This is the time that governments will be formulating their final negotiating positions. New Zealand fair trade coalition GATT Watchdog condemns the New Zealand government's behaviour in relation to the MAI as insincere and so cially irresponsible. It is calling on the government to halt its involvement in negotiations on the MAI, which it describes as a bill of rights and freedoms for foreign investors. "On the eve of Jenny Shipley's major announcement about the government's Code of Social Responsibility that it wants to impose on hundreds of thousands of New Zealanders it is outrageous that senior government officials will sneak off to this highlevel meeting in Paris which few people are even aware of. The government has still not completed its series of consultation hui with Maori, and has failed to honour its commitment to hold a Parliamentary debate on the subject," says Aziz Choudry, a spokesperson. (The next series of hui starts on 23 February). "Some have already questioned the sincerity and real motives for setting up a consultation round with Maori and the promise of a Parliamentary debate on the MAI. It is now quite clear that these are merely meaningless stabs at domestic damage control." "The MAI, if signed, will lock in the worst features of a dog-eat-dog deregulated, open economy which has already cost untold job losses and contributed to a rapidly-widening poverty gap. The fact that the New Zealand government thinks that it can push on regardless of public opinion at home or abroad, without any genuine attempt to consult with Maori or non-Maori, or a debate on the issues in Parliament calls into question its sincerity and intentions to ever engage in any open discussion about the issue. How dare it demand "social responsibility" of low-income New Zealanders when it still refuses to be accountable to the public in its international treaty negotiations on the MAI?" The political, social and economic fallout of pushing on with MAI negotiations will have longterm repercussions for New Zealand, he said. "It would be far wiser instead to commit to a moratorium on further MAI negotiations at least until a genuine open public consultation process has taken place, not the insincere, half-hearted and belated efforts that it is trying to pass off as consultation even as it furtively prepares to dot the "i"s and cross the "t"s on as much of the MAI text as possible this week". He says that it is not only the many hundreds of non-governmental organisations, indigenous peoples, unions, and peoples' movements throughout the world which oppose the MAI. "The provincial governments of British Columbia and Prince Edward Island have both called on the Canadian federal government not to ratify the MAI until full public consultations have been carried out across Canada. The BC provincial government has warned that the federal government should not assume that it will allow the MAI to be applied to the province in the event of it signing the agreement. Meanwhile, the US government, whose companies would be the largest beneficiaries of the MAI, is demanding an exemption from the agreement for all existing state and local government laws." The New Zealand government has been singled out by observers of the negotiations as one of the very few governments opposing even token recognition of environmental and labour issues by the corporations who would gain from the MAI. "Its position is quite clear," said Mr Choudry, "it wants social responsibility from the victims of its policies, but not from the corporations who benefit". For further comment, contact: Aziz Choudry (GATT Watchdog) at (03) 3662803 *NOTE(It seems increasingly unlikely that the April deadline for a final signing of the MAI will be met. US Trade Representative Charlene Barshefsky last week publicly stated that the US cannot sign in April. There continue to be many tensions and differences in negotiating positions among OECD member countries which are unacceptable to the USA. But it is likely that there will be a push to lock in the provisions of the MAI
[PEN-L:10354] NZ jobs site
Subject: The Jobs Research Website Launched Today Date: Mon, 26 May 1997 12:50:46 + From: "vivian Hutchinson" [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: "The Jobs Research Website" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: "The Jobs Research Website" [EMAIL PROTECTED] T H E J O B S R E S E A R C H W E B S I T E - a New Zealand - based internet resource for employment action ... Check it out ! http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/ WEBSITE LAUNCHED TODAY The Jobs Research Trust is pleased to announce the launch of their internet resource called the Jobs Research Website. This new internet resource will continue our purpose of developing and distributing information that will help our communities create more jobs and reduce unemployment and poverty in New Zealand. It will continue to provide essential information on jobs, employment, unemployment, the future of work, and related economic and education issues. The main project of the Jobs Research Trust -- producing the Jobs Letter every 2-3 weeks -- has already become a critical resource for the large range of people involved in the employment issue in New Zealand -- community welfare workers, training providers, careers advisers, educators, employers and the business community, employment activists, government departments, and local and national politicians. The new Website is freely available to all internet users, and will contain : * the back issues of the Jobs Letter's diaries, articles and features * associated key papers and articles on employment action in NZ and the world * links to other internet resources on employment issues and the future of work * our "Statistics that Matter" feature in an expanded format, and with historical trends (still under construction) * full keyword search capacities across the whole database (still under construction) NEW ON THE JOBS WEBSITE Take a look at these recent Jobs Letter features now freely available on the Jobs Research Website. *Microcredit -- from Grameen to Washington. An overview of the Feb 1997 Washington Summit dedicated to expanding the programme that lends money to poor people so that they can start small businesses and improve their lives. http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl05510.htm * Ensuring Basic Economic Security. Futurework co-ordinator Sally Lerner calls for a serious look at new mechanisms to allocate work and distribute income. http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl05410.htm *World Trade, Jobs and the Environment Kevin Watkins of OXFAM argues that behind the 'dense fog' of trade jargon, the environment, our rights as consumers, employment standards and the livelihoods of the world's poorest people are under attack. http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl05310.htm *The ILO Jobs Report The Jobs Letter Editors give an edited summary of the 1996- 97 ILO report on world employment trends. http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl05210.htm *Governments, Community Organisations and Civil Society. Garth Nowland-Foreman of Christchurch looks at the challenges facing voluntary organisations in New Zealand in the 1990s. http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/jbl05110.htm REFERENCES AVAILABLE FOR JOBS LETTER ITEMS In response to requests from researchers in the employment field, our internet website will contain annotated source references for all the items contained in our Jobs Letters .. a feature which the Jobs Letter format does not have the room for, but will make our information much more useful to the many researchers and writers who regularly use our information. REGISTER FOR EMAIL ANNOUNCEMENTS OF WEBSITE UPDATES if you want to be kept informed of developments and updates to the Jobs Research Website, we will be sending out an email newsletter every 4-6 weeks with new links to information and features. We will also include pointers to other material on the internet which we have found relevant to our own research and projects in the employment field in New Zealand. You can register for these free announcements by visiting the registration page on our website at http://www.jobsletter.org.nz/register.htm LATEST JOBS LETTER MATERIAL STILL ONLY BY SUBSCRIPTION While the Jobs Research Website will be freely available to all internet users, we will not be placing the most recent (three months) copies of the Jobs Letter on the archive. These will continue to be available only to subscribers, and to preserve our income base for the Jobs Letter -- subscriptions pay our bills. EMAIL SUBSCRIPTIONS NOW AVAILABLE FOR THE JOBS LETTER The new subscription details for the Jobs Letter are : The regular (4-6 page, posted) Jobs Letter costs $NZ112.50 incl GST for 30 letters. This subscription also includes a free email version on request. The
[PEN-L:10182] Re: (Fwd) Progressive web sites; NZ Web page
This is in reply to a specific message from Paul about New Zealand Web sites, and to his general request for progressive Web sites. The reply below comes from a Librarian at Lincoln University, where I work, who has put together what is widely acknowledged as one of the most useful general Web sites in New Zealand, called Ara Nui. It is at http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/libr I'd add to his list the following local one here in Christchurch which has pages for a number of community groups and pointers to others. http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz For an excellent one on mining in one part of New Zealand (the Coromandel) see http://binbro1.bitz.co.nz/watchdog/ Bill --- Forwarded Message Follows --- From: "Andrew White" KEA/WHITEA1 Organization: Lincoln University To: "Rosenberg, Bill" WHIO/ROSENBER Date sent: Fri, 16 May 1997 14:36:05 +1200 Subject:Re: (Fwd) NZ Web page Bill I can't think of any one useful site, but would suggest a few from my "Politics" page in Ara Nui at: http://www.lincoln.ac.nz/libr/nz/nzpolit.htm especially: NewsRoom http://www.newsroon.co.nz for excellent political news coverage, including press releases from MPs and parties Alliance http://www.alliance.org.nz Labour Party http://www.labour.org.nz The best online newspaper (but hardly "progressive") is The Press at http://www.press.co.nz As far as lists go, I don't know of any. There is a list of NZ Social Science related email lists at: http://www.massey.ac.nz/~NZSRDA/nzsorigs/elists.htm Hope this helps, Andrew --- Forwarded Message Follows --- Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:21 -0500 (CDT) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NZ Web page To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill, At a progressive dinner last night I was asked by a local retired minister (United Church) who is a member of a collective of progressive clergy who edit a newsletter devoted to social issues, including what has been happening in New Zealand. I did a short piece for them last year but they want to keep up on a continuing basis. To make things short, he asked me if there was a progressive web page in NZ where he could keep himself current on what is going on downunder so I said I would contact you and ask your if you know of any such site. If not, is there any electronic bulletin board or list that he could subscribe to? Thanks, Paul [EMAIL PROTECTED] Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Computer Services Centre, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, room Hilgendorf H182, Ext 8010. PC network: WHIO/ROSENBER. Vax: W.Rosenberg@Ono Andrew White Library kea/whitea1 ext 8542 /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Acting Director, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:6659] Re: NZ Elections - Early News
Bill is largely right, but it is not quite that simple. The result (before counting special votes) is On the Right Association of Consumers and Taxpayers (ACT - the rump of the New Rightists thrown out of the 1984-1990 New Right Labour govt) 8 National (ruling conservative party) 44 United (a National stooge party with no known policies) 1 -- 53 In the middle New Zealand First (initially a breakaway from National, but has moved somewhat to the left with strong Maori support and a populist policy against immigration, big business and foreign investment)17 On the Left Labour (has moved its social policies leftwards since the 1980's but still with a monetarist-based economic policy) 37 Alliance (alliance of left-breakaway from 1980's Labour with various minor centre-left parties including the Greens) 13 -- 50 - Total seats in parliament 120 Clearly a minority or coalition government is necessary, and everyone here is waiting for NZ First to show its hand. So far it has said it is willing to look at a coalition with anyone. If it goes with National it's policy is not to repeal the Employment Contracts Act - just make minor changes to it. It seems unlikely that it will go with National as many of its supporters (particularly the strong Maori vote it got) would feel betrayed. But its leader, founder, and its chief raison d'etre, Winston Peters, being an ex-National cabinet minister, is somewhat (and deliberately) unpredictable. National has not conceded defeat and is hoping for either a coalition with NZ First or to encourage defections from NZ First or Labour, or to be able to form a minority government. We're in for an interesting few weeks - or months. However, the outcome whichever way it goes is unlikely to have any radical changes to economic policies because Labour's and National's have no radical differences. Their differences are their spending priorities. It is a significant rejection of National's anti-welfare, anti- worker, privatisation policies but not necessarily of the underlying economic policies (unfortunately!). Bill Rosenberg To all those who thought that the Presidential election was the only show in town this year, i can tell you that a major swing in right-left sentiment has occured in NZ today. The latest news is that a firm trend is now apparent and the privatising, welfare-raping, public-sector destroying, employment-contracts act criminals - The National Party which has ruled over the last 7 or so years will lose power. The Labour Party (much changed since the Rogernomics days) will form a coalition with the Alliance (a combination of rather left group - which was formed from people who left the Labour Party when they were last in power acting like conservatives; maori groups, women's groups and green groups). The alliance has vowed to scrap the Employment Contracts Act, buy back some of the privatised enterprises, restore free health and open up education again. NZ First (a centre party made up largely of the better nationals who couldn't hack the destruction that the Nationals were guilty of) will also be in the Coalition. The leader of the Labour Party, Helen Clark will be the first woman PM. NZ can look forward to a better future now especially the poor. The rich who have eaten greedily at the expense of the poor over the National period will now face the judgement day.if Alliance can keep Labour to their promises. Brings a smile to my face. even though it is a small countrythis is a much more significant event that whether clinton or dole wins. kind regards bill -- ## William F. Mitchell ### Head of Economics Department #University of Newcastle New South Wales, Australia ###* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ###Phone: +61 49 215065 # ## ###+61 49 215027 Fax: +61 49 216919 ## http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html "only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money." (Cree Indian saying...circa 1909) /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln
[PEN-L:6645] Re: NZ Elections - Early News
At 3:10 AM 10/12/96, bill mitchell wrote: even though it is a small countrythis is a much more significant event that whether clinton or dole wins. Important among other reasons because NZ has been touted as a model of how to do "radical" free-market reform, and one of the architects of the reform, Roger Douglas (of the Labour Party, it should be pointed out to all you lesser evilists out there), has been travelling the world lecturing on how to do it right. A question: do the "new," Rogerless Labour Party and their partners in the Alliance have much in the way of a positive agenda, or are they just saying No to Rogernomics and its National Party successor? Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:6656] Re: NZ Elections - Early News
A question: do the "new," Rogerless Labour Party and their partners in the
Alliance have much in the way of a positive agenda, or are they just saying
No to Rogernomics and its National Party successor?
The following agenda is the best i remember:
Economy
Repeal further tax cuts (already legislated)
repeal Emp. Contracts Act (very significant change from the right)
But keep targetting low inflation via monetary policy
the likely coalition partners however also would abolish or increase the
inflation target, reintroduce tariffs, restrict foreign investment
Health
business related reforms abandoned, free care for kids
coalition partners - abolish all user charges (back to free health for all)
Social Welfare
abandon the cuts made by nationals - (1991 levels indexed and restored)
increase support for families
Environment
abolish ozone depleting things
carbon tax
increase polluter-pays charges
money for organic farming developments
Defence
abandon the latest Anzac frigate deal (joint with OZ)
coalition partners - withdraw from ANZUS and five power agreements
Education
increase funding
reduce tertiary fees
coalition partners = more money, free tertiary educ (back to old days)
that is a summary. there were other things relating to maoris and the like.
But i think the coalition will not return to rogernomics and the labour party
is much changed since those days.
i don't think there will be a huge buy back of privatised enterprises.
the abandonment of ECA though i very significant and it signals a return to the
very protected award wage system.
there is hope doug!
kind regards
bill
--
## William F. Mitchell
### Head of Economics Department
#University of Newcastle
New South Wales, Australia
###* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
###Phone: +61 49 215065
# ## ###+61 49 215027
Fax: +61 49 216919
## http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
"only when the last tree has died and the last river has been poisoned
and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money."
(Cree Indian saying...circa 1909)
[PEN-L:3827] Alt. Trade Forum in Aotearoa (NZ), July
Programme and Registration Details for: TRADING WITH OUR LIVES: THE HUMAN COST OF FREE TRADE An Alternative Forum On Free Trade - 12th-14th July 1996, Christchurch, Aotearoa/New Zealand Organised by GATT Watchdog Trade and investment liberalisation is a major dynamic in the Asia-Pacific affecting the lives of everyone in the region. Many people's organisations, trade unions, and grassroots groups working for social justice and democracy have mobilised as a counterforce to the current wave of global economic deregulation. As economies are forced to open their borders to foreign investors and imports, indigenous communities, women, small farmers, small businesses and the environment are being devastated by transnational corporations seeking cheap labour, land and resources. 500 of these corporations control over two- thirds of world trade. This July, the New Zealand Government hosts the APEC (Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation) Trade Ministers Meeting at Christchurch Town Hall. Since its birth in 1989, APEC has increasingly become a vehicle to promote trade and investment liberalisation and a means for transnational corporations to infiltrate the region. Highly secretive and accountable to no- one, APEC aims to create open trade and investment among its 18 member countries by the year 2020. In 1999, the New Zealand government will host the APEC Leaders' Summit. Successive New Zealand governments have committed themselves to sweeping market reforms which have made the country one of the most open economies in the world. GATT Watchdog is organising an Alternative Forum on Free Trade Trading With Our Lives: The Human Cost of Free Trade in Christchurch from 12-14 July to bring together people that are concerned about the unjust, anti-democratic and ecologically unsustainable model of trade and development which APEC promotes, to expose the connections that exist between the past decade of domestic reforms and the international sphere, to explore strategies to combat free trade, and discuss alternatives for the future. PROGRAMME Friday 12 July 7.30pm Public meeting and opening session of Alternative Forum Venue: Knox Hall, corner of Bealey Ave and Victoria St. "Trading With Our Lives: The Human Cost Of Free Trade" with Annette Sykes (Ngati Pikiao), Ines Almeida (East Timor Relief Association, Sydney), Dr Alejandro Villamar (Red Mexicana de Accion frente al Libre Comercio/The Mexican Action Network on Free Trade, Mexico City) Saturday 13 July Alternative Forum Venue: Trade Union Centre, 199 Armagh St (Corner of Armagh and Madras Streets) 9.00am Welcome and Introductions 9.15 Free Trade and "the Big Picture" - APEC, GATT and NAFTA - an overview Dr Alejandro Villamar, and others 10.00 Questions 10.20 Free Trade and Colonisation - Moana Sinclair, Ngati Raukawa, Te Kawau Maro 10.40 The New Zealand Experiment - Market Mayhem in Aotearoa/New Zealand in a Global Context - Dr David Small, Corso 11.00 Questions 11.20 Morning Tea 11.40 Free trade, transnational corporations and the erosion of economic sovereignty - Murray Horton, Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA) 12.00 Transnational corporations, rangatiratanga and resistance - Mike Smith, Ngapuhi, Te Kawariki 12.20pm Questions 12.40 Lunch 2.00 Workshops 3.30 Plenary Session. Report back from workshops 4.00 Afternoon Tea 4.15 Women and Free Trade - Leigh Cookson, GATT Watchdog 4.35 Free Trade, biodiversity, and the environment - Cherryl Waerea- i-te-rangi Smith, Ngati Porou, Ngati Apa, Te Kawau Maro 4.55 Questions 5.15 East Timor - Rights to Trade and Invest - Or The Right To Self-determination? - Ines Almeida 5.45 Questions 6.15 Dinner Evening Activities to be arranged Sunday 14 July Venue: Trade Union Centre, 199 Armagh St (Corner of Armagh and Madras Streets) 9.00am Workers' Rights and Free Trade - Maxine Gay, General Secretary of the New Zealand Trade Union Federation 9.20 Free Trade and Development - Radha D'Souza, Asia-Pacific Workers Solidarity Links 9.40 Questions 10.10 Workshops 11.30 Morning Tea 11.45 Plenary Session. Report back from Workshops 12.30 Lunch 2.00 Strategy Session - Planning For The Future Evening protest action planned for the opening of the official APEC Trade Ministers Meeting REGISTRATION Registration Details: Name_ Address__ __ Phone (Home)__Wk Email__ Fees: Waged$50 Unwaged/low income $25 Accomodation: Please arrange billets for ___people For Friday/Saturday/Sunday nights Send this form with payment to: GATT Watchdog P O Box 1905 Christchurch Aotearoa/New Zealand Ph: 64 3 3662803 Fax: 64 3 3484763 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more details, contact Aziz Choudry (as above)
[PEN-L:2299] Re: nz/ social insurance
Mark Fenster writes that New Zealand's social insurance is taught with a great deal of disparagement in American tort law classes. Having just finished my first year torts class I can report that at Ohio State the New Zealand (or any) social insurance system is not taught _at all_, beyond a few sentences towards the beginning of the course to the effect that if your aim is compensating victims of imjuries you might want general social insurance--but "Anglo-American common law" (collapsed into American common law) uses the "fault principle," that those at fault shall pay if you can win a lawsuit against them and collect. My instructor (a good teacher) was a conservative economics and law fan. To be fair he did mention worker's com and no-fault auto insurance, also in passing. I'm writing a short essay on tort reform and would appreciate information on sources for alternative systems for compensating victims of personal injuries. Oh, by the way, Prosser and Keaton on Torts, the main hornbook in the field, is strongly in favor of no-faul social insurance systems. Justin Schwartz On Sun, 7 Jan 1996, Mark Fenster wrote: Terribly sorry about my last flub. Minor question in the greater discussion about NZ. One prominent Torts (common law of civil remedies for personal injury) casebook (law school textbook) used to indoctrinate first year American law students describes a New Zealand social insurance system as a potential alternative to the "inefficiencies" and irrationalities of the American tort system. The system as described, by guaranteeing compensation for income loss and permanent disability without relation to fault, with funding coming (I believe) from some combination of personal taxation, employers, etc., would avoid the "lottery" system of tort awards and the slowness and costliness of the court system. Frankly, I'm interested more in how this is being taught in American law schools than I am in the realities of American legal tort reform (such as it is, given the terms of the debate). Specifically, there is little discussion in the casebook to which I am referring about such a program's popularity (instead, in the great American tradition, it is lauded by its bureaucractic creators and criticized by American law professors) nor was there, in a recent Torts class, any recognition on the part of the professor of the tremendous turmoil that the NZ political economic system has undergone in the past decade (when questioned, he said, "I don't know" what's happened to this system---nor did he seem to know much about New Zealand in general). Instead, this was presented as a dreamy, utopian, quasi-socialistic solution to the "real world" of American jurisprudence. A "liberal" professor might laud the concept while "recognizing" the fact that "it would never work" in the U.S.---thus being both "responsible" to his "liberalism" and "realistic" in his "politics." And so my questions to anyone with any knowledge: what *was* the general, popular feeling concerning this social insurance system and has (and, if so, how has) it been dismantled in the wake of the "NZ miracle"? Thanks, Mark Fenster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2284] Re: Official: NZ is the model
People interested in a thorough (critical!) description and analysis of what has happened in New Zealand over the last decade may like to read the recently published: The New Zealand Experiment: A World Model for Structural Adjustment? Jane Kelsey Auckland University Press with Bridget Williams Books 1995 It was also published in 1995 as "Economic Fundamentalism: The New Zealand Experiment - A World Model for Structural Adjustment?" in the International Labour Series by Pluto Press, London and East Haven, Connecticut. Bill Date sent: Sat, 06 Jan 1996 16:40:57 -0800 From: Robert Peter Burns [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:2281] Official: NZ is the model Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Heard on the radio, Republican congressman saying that the battle over reducing the public sector is now worldwide. New Zealand has done it, quoth he, and other countries are doing it, and if the US doesn't do it, we'll be left behind Yeah, left behind in the race to the bottom. Uugh!! Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED] /-\ | Bill Rosenberg, Systems Manager, Centre for Computing and Biometrics, | |P. O. Box 84, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand. | | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone:(64)(03)3252-811 Fax:(64)(03)3253-865 | \-/
[PEN-L:2288] NZ Experiment
The NZ experience is, unfortunately, contagious. What is interesting is that in Canada the process seems to have been modelled on the NZ experiment. First, a (perceived) centre left government gets elected on a moderate, proactive economic program, then manufactures a phony credit crisis (deficit, debt, bankrupcy -- wail, wail), - a 'crisis' orchestrated by the multinationals, the monetarist central bank and the department of finance and right-wing think tanks (sic) -- which can only be solved by cutting social programs, lowering taxes to the rich, privatizing public enterprise, and firing civil servants. The economic results are disasterous (more deficit, debt, bankrupcy, unemployment -- wail, wail, wail) so obviously, the cure is more cutting, slashing, destroying of programs and lives, etc. What is most disgusting is that this is consciously planned and orchestrated by business and the sychophantic right-wing ideologues, usually misidentified as economists. For a detailed account of the neo-liberalization of the Canadian Liberal Party (comparable to the NZ Labor Party) see Maude Barlow and Bruce Campbell, _Straight Through the Heart: How the Liberals Abandoned the Abandoned the Just Society_ (Toronto: Harper-Collins, 1995). Just as a footnote, it is interesting that the book was "printed and bound" in the United States. (Not approved for reading by the IMF). Paul Phillips, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:2289] Re: NZ Experiment
At 9:04 AM 1/7/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, a (perceived) centre left government gets elected on a moderate, proactive economic program, then manufactures a phony credit crisis (deficit, debt, bankrupcy -- wail, wail), - a 'crisis' orchestrated by the multinationals, the monetarist central bank and the department of finance and right-wing think tanks (sic) -- which can only be solved by cutting social programs, lowering taxes to the rich, privatizing public enterprise, and firing civil servants. The economic results are disasterous (more deficit, debt, bankrupcy, unemployment -- wail, wail, wail) so obviously, the cure is more cutting, slashing, destroying of programs and lives, etc. What is most disgusting is that this is consciously planned and orchestrated by business and the sychophantic right-wing ideologues, usually misidentified as economists. Not all debt crises are phony. The bigger your debts, the more power your creditors have over you. Keynesians social democrats who are blase about running up debts get all bent out of shape when the creditors remind them of their power. Tax the rich, don't borrow from them. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:2291] re: nz crisis/ social insurance
PEN-L Digest 442 Topics covered in this issue include: 1) NZ Experiment by [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2) Re: NZ Experiment by [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood) 3) Re: NZ Experiment by bill mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Date:Sun, 07 Jan 96 11:00 CST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: NZ Experiment Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The NZ experience is, unfortunately, contagious. What is interesting is that in Canada the process seems to have been modelled on the NZ experiment. First, a (perceived) centre left government gets elected on a moderate, proactive economic program, then manufactures a phony credit crisis (deficit, debt, bankrupcy -- wail, wail), - a 'crisis' orchestrated by the multinationals, the monetarist central bank and the department of finance and right-wing think tanks (sic) -- which can only be solved by cutting social programs, lowering taxes to the rich, privatizing public enterprise, and firing civil servants. The economic results are disasterous (more deficit, debt, bankrupcy, unemployment -- wail, wail, wail) so obviously, the cure is more cutting, slashing, destroying of programs and lives, etc. What is most disgusting is that this is consciously planned and orchestrated by business and the sychophantic right-wing ideologues, usually misidentified as economists. For a detailed account of the neo-liberalization of the Canadian Liberal Party (comparable to the NZ Labor Party) see Maude Barlow and Bruce Campbell, _Straight Through the Heart: How the Liberals Abandoned the Abandoned the Just Society_ (Toronto: Harper-Collins, 1995). Just as a footnote, it is interesting that the book was "printed and bound" in the United States. (Not approved for reading by the IMF). Paul Phillips, University of Manitoba -- Date: Sun, 7 Jan 1996 13:23:33 -0400 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Doug Henwood) To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: NZ Experiment Message-ID: v01540a08ad15b1bf6a63@[166.84.250.86] At 9:04 AM 1/7/96, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: First, a (perceived) centre left government gets elected on a moderate, proactive economic program, then manufactures a phony credit crisis (deficit, debt, bankrupcy -- wail, wail), - a 'crisis' orchestrated by the multinationals, the monetarist central bank and the department of finance and right-wing think tanks (sic) -- which can only be solved by cutting social programs, lowering taxes to the rich, privatizing public enterprise, and firing civil servants. The economic results are disasterous (more deficit, debt, bankrupcy, unemployment -- wail, wail, wail) so obviously, the cure is more cutting, slashing, destroying of programs and lives, etc. What is most disgusting is that this is consciously planned and orchestrated by business and the sychophantic right-wing ideologues, usually misidentified as economists. Not all debt crises are phony. The bigger your debts, the more power your creditors have over you. Keynesians social democrats who are blase about running up debts get all bent out of shape when the creditors remind them of their power. Tax the rich, don't borrow from them. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html -- Date: Mon, 08 Jan 1996 08:54:35 +1100 From: bill mitchell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: NZ Experiment Message-ID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Doug said in reply to paul on NZ debt: Not all debt crises are phony. in the NZ case, the debt crisis was not phony. NZ is not an industrial exporter and like OZ suffers large swings in prosperity due to exogenous terms of trade shocks in primary commodity prices. NZ is small (around 3.5 million people) with a subsequent small tax base. The external debt over the years had risen to huge proportions and was eating into their earnings. they also had a welfare state like OZ which is very substantial. with the terms of trade shocks inevitable the debt was growing and growing. further, given the income elasticities of primary commodities, the trend prospects for NZ were not looking good. so the conclusion is that they had to change. the question was how. i think they did it in exactly the wrong way. the method they chose has had some success though - in narrow economic terms. but the costs on the people are huge and i would think not worth it. one benefit which i have referred to before is that the maoris lost so much security in the changes that they have become politicised and very active and threatening. kind regards bill ##William F. Mitchell ### Head of Economics Department # University of Newcastle #
[PEN-L:2292] nz/ social insurance
Terribly sorry about my last flub. Minor question in the greater discussion about NZ. One prominent Torts (common law of civil remedies for personal injury) casebook (law school textbook) used to indoctrinate first year American law students describes a New Zealand social insurance system as a potential alternative to the "inefficiencies" and irrationalities of the American tort system. The system as described, by guaranteeing compensation for income loss and permanent disability without relation to fault, with funding coming (I believe) from some combination of personal taxation, employers, etc., would avoid the "lottery" system of tort awards and the slowness and costliness of the court system. Frankly, I'm interested more in how this is being taught in American law schools than I am in the realities of American legal tort reform (such as it is, given the terms of the debate). Specifically, there is little discussion in the casebook to which I am referring about such a program's popularity (instead, in the great American tradition, it is lauded by its bureaucractic creators and criticized by American law professors) nor was there, in a recent Torts class, any recognition on the part of the professor of the tremendous turmoil that the NZ political economic system has undergone in the past decade (when questioned, he said, "I don't know" what's happened to this system---nor did he seem to know much about New Zealand in general). Instead, this was presented as a dreamy, utopian, quasi-socialistic solution to the "real world" of American jurisprudence. A "liberal" professor might laud the concept while "recognizing" the fact that "it would never work" in the U.S.---thus being both "responsible" to his "liberalism" and "realistic" in his "politics." And so my questions to anyone with any knowledge: what *was* the general, popular feeling concerning this social insurance system and has (and, if so, how has) it been dismantled in the wake of the "NZ miracle"? Thanks, Mark Fenster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:2281] Official: NZ is the model
Heard on the radio, Republican congressman saying that the battle over reducing the public sector is now worldwide. New Zealand has done it, quoth he, and other countries are doing it, and if the US doesn't do it, we'll be left behind Yeah, left behind in the race to the bottom. Uugh!! Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5151] Re: Brits, NZ, and inequality
On Tue, 16 May 1995, Jeff Oman wrote: The sequence is as follows, more inequality reduces incentives to save (or to accumulate human capital) to the less favoured by the distribution. The amount of savings and human capital that is lost is not compensated by the savings and human capital of the rich ones. You mean tinkle-down doesn't work? ; ) Jeff Oman Exactly. What I found is that poor people becomes poorer in time, since most of their capital returns (wether physical or human) go, in fact, to rich people. The reason behind, I suppose and I am trying to prove, has to do with institutions, in that the stability they provide also generates inertia in the way income is distributed. MOst empirical evidence is closer to this approach than to trickle-down, but most theory (neoclassical theory) goes the other way. I think that if development theory can go anyway, this is it. Macario
[PEN-L:5114] Re: Brits, NZ, and inequality
The sequence is as follows, more inequality reduces incentives to save (or to accumulate human capital) to the less favoured by the distribution. The amount of savings and human capital that is lost is not compensated by the savings and human capital of the rich ones. You mean tinkle-down doesn't work? ; ) Jeff Oman
[PEN-L:5091] Re: Brits, NZ, and inequality
There is a discussion about growth and inequality by Burns and Oman. If it helps, I built an endogenous growth model with income inequality that shows that the worse the distribution (and its dynamics) the less the growth. The sequence is as follows, more inequality reduces incentives to save (or to accumulate human capital) to the less favoured by the distribution. The amount of savings and human capital that is lost is not compensated by the savings and human capital of the rich ones. Level and rate of growth fall. In fact, I used as an anechdotical reference the cases of US and UK,... Macario
[PEN-L:5095] Re: Brits, NZ, and inequality
On Mon, 15 May 1995 08:20:53 -0700 M Schettino said: There is a discussion about growth and inequality by Burns and Oman. If it helps, I built an endogenous growth model with income inequality that shows that the worse the distribution (and its dynamics) the less the growth Sounds like an interesting model. I want to toot my own horn a little here: in my recent article in RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY, I built a very simple Harrod-Domar-style model that suggests that with increasing inequality (as measured by an increasing full- capacity-utilization rate of profit), it is possible to have a growing economy but the economy's growth becomes increasingly unstable. In fact, I used as an anechdotical reference the cases of US and UK,... My anectdotal reference was to the US experience in the late 1920s. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:5097] Re: Brits NZ too
On Sun, 14 May 1995, Bruce Cronin wrote: A fascinating side of the neo-'liberal' crusade for 'freedom' in the NZ economy has been their systematic campaign to stamp out criticism of their programme. Alternative centres of policy advice and critique in govt and the universities have had their funds cut. Academics who stand up and try to say the emperor has no clothes on are threatened by their seniors and ridiculed by the press. I've heard this includes eliminating the Industrial Relations Centre at Victoria University, because, afterall, once you've achieved perfection in labour law reform, what more is there to know. Less tongue in cheek, an important part of the ECA was eliminating information keeping related to employment contracts and terms and conditions of employment. They argued it was a service taht could be provided by the private sector, and some there have taken it up. Could it be also that they jsut didn't want to know. Now all debate gets to take place based on incomplete information or anecdotes. Ellen J. Dannin California Western School of Law 225 Cedar Street San Diego, CA 92101 Phone: 619-525-1449 Fax:619-696-
[PEN-L:5083] Re: NZ - the alliance?
On Sat, 13 May 1995, Doug Henwood wrote: On a recent fly-by in NYC, Peter Camejo, the former SWP presidential candidate turned stockbroker (though still a self-identified socialist), said that very interesting things were happening in New Zealand - a left party called, I think, The Alliance, in particular. Any PEN-Lers have any knowledge of this? Doug I was a founder member of the New Labour Party, which is the principle party of the Alliance. The NLP makes up the majority of activists of the Alliance, most of the policy council and significant numbers of the leadership of the 'allied' parties. The other significant party in the Alliance is the Green Party, which had wider electoral support in the 1990 election, but whose leaders are effectively NLP members. The indigenous Maori party is led by an NLP member and has localised rather than wide support among Maori. The context of the NLP formation was five years of 'hard labour' in New Zealand. The Labour Party in government since 1984 was ostensibly Social Democratic but implemented the most extreme version of neo-liberalism outside Chile. The formation of New Labour in 1989 was exciting as it brought together 1. the left of the old Labour Party, (taking one member of parliament and perhaps a third of the membership), and 2. the extra-parliamentary opposition which had been battling the neo-liberalism 'on the streets'. There was a lot of talk of the NLP being a party of a new type, a campaigning party winning people to a programme, rather than an electoral party accomodating to the middle ground. The founding conference reflected the two components of the party - about 400 people from each. Both sides knew they needed each other - the social democrats needed the extra-parliamentary activists if the party was to become more than a soft version of the existing parties. The EPAs knew they needed the electoral experience of the SDs. The policy discussions at the intial conferences were intense - often carried by one or two votes. The leadership reflected the membership mix - the parliamentary leader was Jim Anderton - the leading SD, the Vice President was unemployed movement leader Sue Bradford, the most prominent EPA. The President was Matt McCarton - somewhere in between the SDs and EPAs. Policy discussion in the NLP however went no further than 'capitalism with a human face'. While some in the NLP (especially Matt McCarten) like to see the party as a working class socialist party, and there has been some higher electoral support in working class areas than others, they are a distinct minority; party activists are nearly exclusively middle class and they have shied away from any formal description of the party as socialist. The party remains committed to capitalism in policy areas, particularly economic and industrial policy. Attempts Despite the promising beginnings however the NLP soon degenerated into a classic left social democratic parliamentary party. The SDs used their bureaucratic organisational experience to push the EPAs out of leading bodies and to limit policy along SD lines, including some witchhunting of communists. Virtually all the EPAs, including myself, subsequently drifted away. The party now concentrates almost exclusively on electoral activity, and its limited involment in extra-parliamentary campaigns is mainly to advertise itself. While the discomfort a left social democratic parliamentary party causes the neo-liberals is useful, the NLP/Alliance is not particularly more radical than the Labour Party was before its election in 1984 (eg. they do not consider themselves 'socialist'). My experience with the NLP leaves me with little confidence that they will do anything other than a classic Social Democrat compromise with the neo-liberals if they become government. The alliance has already won the regional government of Auckland (a third of the population) and is making strong gains across the country. The Alliance won the majority on only one regional government committee, although it has a minority on several others. It does not control the significant bodies - the Regional Council and the City Council. Support for the Alliance peaked around 27% in 1994 and has since fallen to around 15%. It is likely to be up to 20-30% in the 1996 national elections and may become the principle parliamentary opposition party. I saw Matt McCarten (who at 22 led the Hotel and Hospital workers union and helped lead the union break with the Labor Party While Matt has broken from the union, the union remains one of the principle bases of support for the old Labour Party. Many of its members of parliament come from this union. Matt is incredibly energetic and enthusiastic, but the organisational reality of the Alliance lags along way behind. For example Matt advocates the need for a strong socialist youth organisation to transform the NLP into a real
[PEN-L:5089] Re: Brits NZ too
On Fri, 12 May 1995, Robert Peter Burns wrote: Ellen Dannin and others who haven't seen it should take a look at the transcript of the CBC program "Ideas" on New Zealand which is available in the pen-l archives. . . . . In my view (jaded of course) we should pay attention to what's happened / ing there. There appear to be major efforts to sell these "reforms" with little effort to publicise the range of impacts. A fascinating side of the neo-'liberal' crusade for 'freedom' in the NZ economy has been their systematic campaign to stamp out criticism of their programme. Alternative centres of policy advice and critique in govt and the universities have had their funds cut. Academics who stand up and try to say the emperor has no clothes on are threatened by their seniors and ridiculed by the press. A very good summary of the social impact of the neo-liberal programme was distributed at the Copenhagen UN Summit on Social Policy in February. It is by Mike O'Brien (Massey University) and Jane Kelsey (Auckland University) and is called Setting_the_Record_Straight.
[PEN-L:5071] Re: Brits, NZ, and inequality
You could well be right, Jeff. I was relying on a British publication of a couple of months ago reporting on the findings of the Rowntree study. Since then I saw that E. Wolff of NYU has produced a study which was reported in the New York Times. A couple of questions, though, if it's that study you're relying on. Does it refer to the _rate of growth_ in inequality, not just the final magnitude of inequality; and what are the relevant periods for which the comparison is drawn? Peter Burns SJ [EMAIL PROTECTED] I may have been wrong. The rate of growth may have been higher in Britian but real earnings for all UK workers rose and the real pay of those at the bottom grew. From 1979 to 1989 the lower decile in the US saw a drop of 11 to 17 percent compared to an increase of 12 percent in the British lower decile. Either way British and American workers faired poorly compared to other advanced countries. See: "Rising Wage Inequality: The United States VS. Other Advanced Countries." Freeman Katz in Working Under Different Rules, Russel Sage, Richard Freeman Ed. 1994 Also: "The Trend in Inequality Among Families, Individuals, and Workers in the United States: A Twenty-Five Year Perspective." Lynn A. Karoly in Uneven Tides. Russel Sage, S. Danzinger and P. Gottschalk Eds. 1994 Jeff Oman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5078] Re: NZ - the alliance?
Doug: On a recent fly-by in NYC, Peter Camejo, the former SWP presidential candidate turned stockbroker (though still a self-identified socialist), said that very interesting things were happening in New Zealand - a left party called, I think, The Alliance, in particular. Any PEN-Lers have any knowledge of this? The Alliance is a pot-pourri or motley collection whichever you like of interest groups who have managed to become the third force in NZ politics although they are still dwarfed by the Nationals and the Labour Party. the alliance was started by a defecting labour politician who had the conscience to realise that the Lange-Douglas era of the 1980s where the new right policies started to be implemented were only preparing the ground for the more lethal and brutal policies of the conservatives and were anti-labour in the extreme. as they say - "first there was rogernomics and now NZ is undergoing Ruthanasia!" (rogernomics - roger douglas the labour treasurer who started all the destruction and ruthanasia - ruth x the conservative treasurer who furthered it). the alliance has had high hopes of taking the position held by the labour as the main opposition. it basically brings together - maori groups, the greens, womens and mens gay groups, and other small single interest groups. its strength is its weakness. it is too fragmented and is likely to splinter when they get down to actually deciding a broad policy approach - beyond each of their own single interests. but there has been a change in the electoral system in NZ now and i think it means the small parties have a better chance of representation. Basically, i would vote the alliance if i lived in NZ and bothered to accept the compulsion to vote. so that might give you an idea of its platform and sentiments. it has been said that it might be able to win G but i think that is unlikely b.c the labour party has done a lot to purge itself from the evil 1980s version. hope that helps kind regards bill we need Brent or Ellen to chime in and fill out some more details. *** William F. MitchellTelephone: +61-49-215027 .-_|\ Department of Economics +61-49-705133 / \about The University of NewcastleFax: +61-49-216919 \.--._/*-- here Callaghan NSW 2308v Australia Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] World Wide Web Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html ***
[PEN-L:5076] UK, NZ: religious revitalization
Anyone who wants a graphic example of religious devotion to monetarism for its own spiritual sake and in the ranks of the IMF and the Bank of Canada -- and its relation to the disasterous NZ experiment -- should read Linda McQuaig's new book on John Crow, the Bank of Canada and the impact of the NZ experiment, *Shooting the Hippo*. It also demonstrates the hypocrisy and venality of the international financial institutions. Non-technical and easily accessible to anyone with no exposure to technical economics, ortho- or hetero-. Paul Phillips, University of Manitoba
[PEN-L:5073] NZ - the alliance?
On a recent fly-by in NYC, Peter Camejo, the former SWP presidential candidate turned stockbroker (though still a self-identified socialist), said that very interesting things were happening in New Zealand - a left party called, I think, The Alliance, in particular. Any PEN-Lers have any knowledge of this? Doug -- Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax
[PEN-L:5052] Re: Brits NZ too
About thatcherism, reaganomics, and similar beasts, I think any comments would be incomplete without mention to Salinomics, or whatever you would call the economic policy exerted in Mexico in the last 8 years. As far as it seems, the most important failure of this kind of programs have appeared in Mexico, with the corresponding devaluation and economic crisis. Privatization, deregulation, trade opening, anything you could say of Thatcher's or Reagan's policies were used in Mexico with the following results: 1995 forecasts 1994 GDP growth -4% 3.5% Inflation 42% 5% INterest Rates (Average) 50% 15% March 110%12% UNemployment5.3%3.4% Underemploym. 30% 27% Pesos per USCy 6.7 3.5 Real Wage growth -20%3% Besides, market concentration in the recently privatized industries is complete: Phone, One company; Banks, 3 banks 60% market, etc. AS in the other cases you mention, government officials always promise long-run (or mid-term at least) advantages in exchange of the short-run sacrifices. A last comment, internal savings in Mexico dropped seriously in the period analyzed. Hope you find it interesting, I find it threatening, Macario
[PEN-L:5056] Brits, NZ, and Chile
Here's the Rowntree reference I promised: _Income and Wealth_ which is available from: Joseph Rowntree Foundation The Homestead 40 Water End York, YO3 6LP England, UK price 9 pounds sterling don't know about p p A 5 page free summary is also available apparently. Another free market disaster area of course is Chile, though one is not allowed to say that in the mainstream press. To get the hype-busting facts, I strongly recommend J. Collins and J. Lear's excellent study, CHILE'S FREE MARKET MIRACLE: A SECOND LOOK Oakland, CA: Food First, 1995. To cite just one inconvenient fact: average annual growth under Pinochet 1974-1989 was 2.6 percent. This compares with 4 percent for 1950-1961 and 4.6 percent for 1961-1971. Oh yeah, and poverty more than doubled, from 20 percent of Chileans in 1970 to 41 percent in 1990. There has been some improvement since the return to civilian rule which has seen increased taxes on business and increased social spending and a hike in the minimum wage. But even so, one is left asking, "What free market miracle?" Peter Burns SJ
[PEN-L:5060] Re: Brits NZ too
Treacy: Economic growth may have been low but look at the boat that was built. It is going to bring home the America's Cup. The peasents will be happy with this. [EMAIL PROTECTED] COPYRIGHTED On Fri, 12 May 1995, Robert Peter Burns wrote: Ellen Dannin and others who haven't seen it should take a look at the transcript of the CBC program "Ideas" on New Zealand which is available in the pen-l archives. It's very long, so one should probably download it, and print it out. In NZ they have tried being even more Thatcherite than Thatcher, with disastrous results as the CBC program makes clear. NZ is the only country in the developed world in which income inequality has grown faster than in Britain. In Britain, the Rowntree Foundation has just put out a report on wealth and income trends in Britain during the Thatcher years. I'll post the address where you can get this separately. A few weeks ago a writer for the LA Times did a cheerleading piece on New Zealand--something like "NZ Profits from Tough Reforms". I sent him a copy of the CBC transcript. No reply yet. One bit that didn't make it into his piece was that AGGREGATE economic growth in NZ from 1984, when the free market crew took over, to 1992 was NEGATIVE 1 percent, compared to an OECD average of positive 20 percent. Cheers, Peter Burns SJ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:5062] Re: Brits NZ too
Peter writes: Ellen Dannin and others who haven't seen it should take a look at the transcript of the CBC program "Ideas" on New Zealand which is available in the pen-l archives. It's very all the statistical details of how the right has wrecked NZ are probably understated. there is a sharp division b/tw the haves and have nots. business types in wellington lunch at expensive harbour side cafes in splendour getting served by some person from up the Hutt Valley/Tawa who catches the train in at high cost (10 kms) and then has to work in insecure conditions for very low pay, barely enough to pay the rent on the council house which is now rented at "market rates" - the viability here depends on having more than one family crowded in the one council tenement. it is very tragic what an ideology can do. but there is a huge upside developing. revolution. the maori people who are most affected by the reforms and who the system has virtually assigned to chronic poverty without any hope at all, have developed a consciousness which traces back to their days as warriors. they are so disadvantaged that the conventional disciplines of staying legal b/c prison awaits or staying under the thumbs of the capitalists b/c the mortgage has to be paid are now absent. they have no mortgages and they are disproportionately represented in prisons (mostly for property crimes due to poverty). all around NZ now active maori groups have formed and they are now moving to reclaim their land back. occupying key areas on certain cities and the cops so far are scared. their protests forced the officials of the annual Waitangi Day celebration (the day they celebrate the treaty b/tw the maori and the pakeha (white invaders) to cancel the day (it is a big day in NZ BTW) after the maoris had spat in the face (literally) of the prime minister. it was beautiful to see. the fucking PM looking disdainful and then scared and intimidated. so they are predicting this will grow into something quite threatening. the educated maoris (laywers etc) are leading the way. and some groups are now saying that terrorism is to begin. NZ will never be the same. but perhaps the destruction of its welfare state will lead to a revolt for dignity. kind regards bill *** William F. MitchellTelephone: +61-49-215027 .-_|\ Department of Economics +61-49-705133 / \about The University of NewcastleFax: +61-49-216919 \.--._/*-- here Callaghan NSW 2308v Australia Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] World Wide Web Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html ***
[PEN-L:5066] Re: UK NZ: Religious Revitalization
Brent writes: The metaphor of the religious fervor of Thatcherism, Reaganism, and Rogernomics is an apt one. Plus: Susan George and Fabrizio Sabelli have published FAITH AND CREDIT: THE WORLD BANK'S SECULAR EMPIRE. (Westview Press, 1994) They argue that the WB is a religious institution. As the Roman Catholic Church was to feudalism, so the WB is to global capitalism. Right, Peter Burns? :-) in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "The capitalist system is not a 'harmonious' regime, whose purpose is the satisfaction of its citizens but an 'antagonistic' regime which is to secure profits for capitalists." -- Michal Kalecki
[PEN-L:5067] Re: UK NZ: Religious Revitalization
Jim said: Plus: Susan George and Fabrizio Sabelli have published FAITH AND CREDIT: THE WORLD BANK'S SECULAR EMPIRE. (Westview Press, 1994) They argue that the WB is a religious institution. As the Roman Catholic Church was to feudalism, so the WB is to global capitalism. Right, Peter Burns? :-) Right, Jim. Only at least in those days we were officially opposed to charging interest--usury was a mortal sin. You can't say that about the World Bank now, can you? :-) :-) Peter Burns SJ
[PEN-L:5068] Re: Brits NZ too
Ellen Dannin and others who haven't seen it should take a look at the transcript of the CBC program "Ideas" on New Zealand which is available in the pen-l archives. It's very long, so one should probably download it, and print it out. In NZ they have tried being even more Thatcherite than Thatcher, with disastrous results as the CBC program makes clear. NZ is the only country in the developed world in which income inequality has grown faster than in Britain. Income inequality has grown faster in the US than in Britain. Jeff Oman
[PEN-L:5069] Brits, NZ, and inequality
You could well be right, Jeff. I was relying on a British publication of a couple of months ago reporting on the findings of the Rowntree study. Since then I saw that E. Wolff of NYU has produced a study which was reported in the New York Times. A couple of questions, though, if it's that study you're relying on. Does it refer to the _rate of growth_ in inequality, not just the final magnitude of inequality; and what are the relevant periods for which the comparison is drawn? Peter Burns SJ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:4390] NZ For Sale?
At a time when all the cutbacks in Washington, DC, can lead to depression, along come some newspaper clippings sent from New Zealand by my dear old mom to cheer me up. I thought PEN-Lers might be in need of cheering up too -- along the lines of "things could be worse". Some may recall that (Sir) Roger Douglas was the architect of free market mania in New Zealand in the 1980s. Out of office for some years, Douglas recently launched a new political party, ACT (any Kiwis or Aussies out there who can tell us what the acronym stands for?). Douglas has an ingenious plan for tax reform if elected. Income tax would be replaced in part by selling off 5000 slots per year to eager immigrants, raising some NZ$3 billion per year. A place in a market utopia to the highest bidders. Puts a new spin on Treasury auctions of scrip, doesn't it? What will Newt do with this idea when he hears about it? Wyoming, Montana etc are large and sparsely populated so plenty of immigration slots could be tendered to knock $200 billion off the deficit. Cheers, Brent McClintock
[PEN-L:4392] Re: NZ For Sale?
On Thu, 9 Mar 1995 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some may recall that (Sir) Roger Douglas was the architect of free market mania in New Zealand in the 1980s. Out of office for some years, Douglas recently launched a new political party, ACT (any Kiwis or Aussies out there who can tell us what the acronym stands for?). Association for Citizens and Taxpayers.
NZ and Competion indices
This discussion remindsed me of my first economics lecture at the University of Otago, NZ. The Professor was Mike Cooper, a local legend in his own time. He was talking about the uses and abuses of GDP as a measure of welfare. He had a story about indices of welfare which went, roughly, as follows. Once, probably in the late 1960's sometime, a ranking of countries was published which placed NZ top of the list. I think this occurred fairly frequently at the time. As is usual with these studies it combinned weighted values of doctors per person (doc per pop), newspapers in circulation and all the other usual things. One year however, a similar index was published out of the USA, which put the USA at the top and NZ nowhere in sight. Prof Cooper decided to find out why. It transpired that the US index included a major item called "national vitality and security", in which NZ performed very poorly. Strange becuase we're a pretty secure lot and have plenty of vitality. As you will have guessed however, "national vitality and security" meant "number of nuclear submarines per person, number of nuclear capable missiles ". Welafre in NZ must have really hit rock bottom when they banned nuclear warships from entering ports. Cheers, Peter Robertson. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
NZ
The most comprehensive analysis of the ECA and the attack on New Zealand labour that I have seen is a long (240 page ms) manuscript by Ellen Dannin who responded to my earlier request for information for my debate with Douglas. (That should read 140 page, not 240 page). (We Can't Overcome? Labour Law Reform and the Unions in New Zealand".) If Ellen is on the net, let me just say that I haven't finished reading it yet, but what an eyeopener. As a sidebar, I would be interested in recent developments in OZ ( if things are going that well -- what has happened to Hewson -- we get virtually no press reportage here. And what of Bronnie?) See ya, mate Paul Paul Phillips, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
