By Bernard Hickey
John Key and Alan Bollard proved last week they are excellent at what they do.
They are the short term masters of our puny universe of an economy.
John Key is a master tactician. He is planning for one result (a second election win) on one date (November 26) and he knows which levers to pull to achieve that.
He knows that consumers and voters, particularly those stressed, urbanites with big mortgages and small petrol tanks, love low interest rates and a strong New Zealand dollar. It means they might be able to pay the bills each month, fill the petrol tank and still be able to go on an overseas holiday.
So John Key is happy to see the currency rise. He said as much again this week when challenged on the government's 'over-borrowing' and how that is driving up the currency. He said the New Zealand Debt Management Office had pulled forward its borrowing to take advantage of keen foreign lenders. Key answered a question about a fundamental long term problem by giving a short term tactical answer.
As a former currency trader his focus had to be on the next few minutes and days. Tactics are much more important than strategy when trying to pick the waves of currency movement. Planning on a five year or ten year time horizon is pointless when you're trying to work out where the currency will be after lunch.
Unfortunately for New Zealand's future, we need some long term strategy to build high-paid and interesting jobs that earn foreign exchange revenues so we can start growing our wealth as a country.
This requires a five or ten year plan to encourage a much higher national savings rate, much more investment in high value-add export industries and a deliberate strategy to favour producers over consumers and savers over borrowers.
In countries such as China and Singapore their leaders plan to build industries and jobs over decades. They control exchange rates and savings rates, albeit through undemocratic means, but it works. It is a Confucian approach. Here our currency is not controlled by officials. We have a laissez faire approach.
The other master of our universe is Alan Bollard, who this week doggedly stuck to his line that he was carrying out his orders specified in the Reserve Bank Act and his Policy Targets Agreement. That means he uses the Official Cash Rate to target inflation at between 1-3% over the next two to three years and ignores the exchange rate and employment.
Bollard could intervene to push the currency lower and has done it before, but he sees it as a risky strategy and the last thing a bureaucrat wants to do is take financial risks, particularly when a successful risk would hurt voters and make it more difficult for John Key to achieve his own short term goal.
So we have a tactician and a bureaucrat running our economy for the short term to get reelected and to hit an inflation target.
Meanwhile, we collectively keep borrowing and selling assets to support a lifestyle we can't afford in the long run and allow our currency to rise to level that makes it impossible for any manufacturing exporter to invest for the long term.
We are choosing to live in the now instead of planning for the future.
We are choosing consumerism over confucianism.
No chart with that title exists.
83 Comments
The big State can't do anything but enslave us Bernard. And your economic thinking is all over the show as normal, which I shall prove.
Unfortunately for your case you pick Singapore as the system to aspire to. Trying reading the following piece, then answering my ending question:
http://www.transitioning.org/2011/04/16/ubs-singapore-has-russian-stand…
After giving the figures, how they're calculated and the logic of them, this commentator concludes:
The high cost of living [in Singapore] coupled with low wages and domestic purchasing power condemns the average Singapore worker to an ignonimous, monotonus and stressful working life. Singapore workers have to work harder to earn the same amount of money and save for a longer period to purchase the same product.
In 1991, Goh Chok Tong, then the Prime Minister, promised Singaporeans that we would be able to achieve the “Swiss standard of living” within a decade. Ten years later, we have a living standard which is closer to Russia than Switzerland. Like Singapore, the Russians has a low wage and domestic purchasing power and Russia, especially the city of Moscow, has one of the highest cost of living in the world.
You want to aspire to that!
And following logically from his analysis, my question (again) for you - which you didn't answer the first time I asked it.
You seem to believe that a weak currency is an economic advantage, so I offer you the following contract. I shall exchange all the money in your house at the rate of 50 cents for each $1. Further, I will exchange all the income coming into your house, giving you 50 cents for each $1. You now have a weak currency and so will become an economic powerhouse (according to your theory), whereas poor old me is going to be hamstrung with a strong currency. I am, however, quite willing to offer you this contract/service. Do we have a deal? If so, we'll swap bank account numbers, you put all your money in my bank and I'll simply put half of that back in return. If no contact, why not?
(Exports are simply the cost of our imports).
How about why not because your ideas/analogy bear no resemplence to the real world....as normal for a Libertarian...
ie as per usual typical libertarian/fundie mindset, its black or white so sit in the white corner take anything thats even alittle bit grey and immediately call it black...
regards
Speculation is short term, over the long term the market is the best allocator. And if central planners try to outwit the speculators, then the economy just gets further removed from market signals, and the unintended consequences are thus simply magnified.
The Singaporean example gives the bottom line of intervention.
The speculative market is no longer Short Term Tribeless it is the employ of ...Govt..by direction...Corporations ...by Hedge....the carry trade....the private speculator and can no longer (in my opinion be considered a contingency) but an active force applying pressure to economies wittingly or otherwise......Just because Central Banks don't want to get involved for fear of unforseen consequence ...it does not take the elephant out of the room....
This type of...Industry.?.....has little or nothing to do with growing a sustainable economy....employment on a broader scale... and in fact can impact negatively almost on a whim.......
Show empirical evidence that speculators distort markets over the long term - you won't be able to because all speculators are trying to do is predict the direction of markets, ergo, they could not for long set the direction of markets as they are merely part of the market.
Steven seems to imply I am saying everything, including timing, is perfect under laissez faire: I've not once said that, rather, lassez faire is the best allocation mechanism, and much more than that, combined with it's logical politicial system of a constitutional republic it is the ONLY system in which my life is completely free from interference by the both of you, and you from me. It is the only system which guarantees my privacy and my freedom, thus, it is the only civilised system that cannot end in atrocity of any type: moving toward centrally planned societies, collectivism in all it's guises, is a movement toward the tribe and barbarism.
And with that I have to be back to work.
Regards
That will be a matter of history only tribeless...as we are living during it's making.
Well said. And the me-me-now-now conditioning of the mind is greatly accelerating this. Privacy and freedom are slowly but steadily being eroded although NZ is still better placed than our big US brother.
I think this country desperately needs a vision to navigate through the fresh tides of the rapidly changing Information Age. Unfortunately most of our present leaders were conditioned in the old Industrial Age way of doing things and want to maintain this status quo. We can learn a lot from other countries and how they manage their ship. But we would need our own way because every country has its own unique characteristics. We could be a world leader in showing how to move forward and not just kicking the can down the road...
Spot on Bernard.
More saving? The government's borrowing forward strategy not only artificially inflates the $ but parking that money in banks coupled with covered bond moves helps them meet Central Bank set funding rules. Meanwhile retail saver returns drift lower and their risks rise. Not a recipe for increased NZ saving.
Productive investment growth? A look at your deep freeze list suggests that investment in enterprise through financial intermediaries hasn't been that attractive for thousands of NZ investors. Wild West financial conditions drive investment away from business.
Stable basis for capital and market planning? Money flooding into the NZ$ can just as soon ebb in the foreign exchange betting shop - a bit of dollar stability would be another step to a sound economy whatever the $ level.
Looks like the home free market for money shufflers needs to be curtailed.
Savers are "suffering low returns as is everybody else....businesses are finding it hard, wage earners...and so are savers....
I agree on the "wild west" in the aftermaths of the 80's blowup Govn was asked to regulate to make it safer for domestic investors, the lobbying by the big boys stopped that....they now see that efefct.
regards
"John Key knows that consumers and voters, particularly those stressed, urbanites with big mortgages and small petrol tanks, love low interest rates and a strong New Zealand dollar. It means they might be able to pay the bills each month, fill the petrol tank and still be able to go on an overseas holiday."
Yes, because that's much more sensible than not spending money as fast as you earn it. If you're financially stressed, with big bills and even bigger debt, you should still waste as much money as you can on extravagant luxuries such as overseas holidays. That's the smart thing to do.
I have been reading John A Lee's book 'Socialism in New Zealand". 1938. As an historical book it is fascinating read of what was achieved by New Zealand Governments since our inception. The Bank of New Zealand was created in the 1860s. At one stage it collapsed and had to be rescued by the Governemnt, which took shares in the this oh so private Bank and then sold them once the Bank recovered. Silly boys. In 1989 when it collapsed again the Government of the day sold it to foreigners!! (It had been nationalised by this stage.) State Advances was created in 1894 to provide cheap finance for the farmers, manufacturers and the workers. But the most fascinating part is what was done in 1935. The whole aim was not to pay interest to foreigners and to provide a decent wage for workers and and guaranteed incomes for the farmers. The Governemnt of the day added up the amount of interest that had been paid to foreigners whether individual of companies and realised how much better off the Country would have been if that money had been paid to the People. I do reccomend this book for a good understanding of what can be done when there are long term plans..
And where, Patricia, did guaranteed income for farmers end us up? It wasn't a good place; indeed, it was almost national bankruptcy. That's the end result of socialism - well, that and no individual freedom, with a life led shackled under the yoke of State. I want out of that, thanks.
I challenge you to answer my question posed in the first post to this thread.
Tribless there is no absolute answer to anything in this world but a country, or even people for that matter,has to have a plan as to where it wants to be and how to do it. Any plan will run amuck, whether it be a socialist or capitalist one, and will fail if it is regarded as infallible (as we have seen withg the view that the Market is infallible) or is not monitored. All I am saying is that this book is a fantastic read and history does give answers for those who want to understand.
There is no such thing as a 'capitalist plan': there is just the free transactions of consenting individuals and the spontaneous order that results from that (and the free society).
Those who would plan an economy always fail and the unintended consequences are always ultimately lethal.
Do you agree with the premise that a planned economy is only possible by enforcing a planned society?
Probably ....on the strength of the option you have proffered.. you used only and enforcing
However if a planned economy were enacted on the masses from tactical vantage points in Govt..... Corporations .....Media .....and the like, it would take far less of a unanimous consensus to direct a society.......
"... to direct a society'
Ie, inevitably by force. No freedom to be found there Christov.
'... unanimous consensus'
Well, count me out of that unanimous consensus for a start, which sort of knocks the whole concept on its head, doesn't it?
And why is everyone ignoring my first post above: that's the nuts and bolts here.
Tribeless ... there is no force implied in direction.......one can be directed ...willingly...passively...apathetically...unwittingly.....as is more common in democratic society.
Unanimous consensus.....you read it out of text...far less of a ...were the operative words....the implication being you can plan outcomes that require the endorsement of a society....... provided you hold the vantage points...... from which that society will be directed.
In fact Tribeless....having read a lot of your posts at various intervals..(some very good) the following statement ...Those who would plan an economy always fail and the unintended consequences are always ultimately lethal.......sounds like an off the cuff remark from you.....even a little naive......?
Contingencies are always part of a plan if that plan has broad parameters....dealing with contingencies that arise....slow down...speed up...reprioritise....the hows... but the end game remains the constant......
So, do you want to take up the offer in my first post Christov?
(Yes, 'lethal' perhaps a little too much: that applies in totalitarian planned economies 'mainly'. The effects in our Western planned economies are not lethal in that sense, but deleterious, most certainly.
Tribeless...while I can see where your going on the Currency thing...you have to appreciate that those here who argue for the weaker currency...(mostly to compete in established niche markets).....myself included do have a viewpoint that is biased and loaded with self interest........that said i'd be happy to play it your way if the ..currency speculators were discouraged in some way to ...level the playing field.....I think you underestimate the impact non productive financials have upon the currency.......just massive...huge...what ever superlative you can think of.
No point in even thinking about what we can or can't do with the exchange rate. It'll keep going highr and higher the closer the US & Europe get to bankrupcy. The only thing that will contain the kiwi's rise is the slow down in China, and with it Australia.
Why would Bollard bother to raise interest rates here in NZ when the rest of the planet is either in a recession and heading for depression or about to? All that would do is put more stress on the population and hasten our own demise.
I am surprised Steven...that you used the word you did....did you read the first paragraph...?
Our situation touted as the weak U.S....Euro ...etc is actually more because of high speculation in AUD...NZD...etc.....combined with a speculative flight from the ..USD ...Euro...etc.both in the short and partial long positions.
The US is about to implode as it's housing bubble finally breathes out the last of its over valuation & the Govt debt burden becomes too big to continue any sort of normal policy direction for Dems or Reps; they can't even agree on how to raise the Govt Debt Ceiling from $14.2 Trillion to whatever they need to keep the lights on. They are already raiding the Federal Pension schemes by the tune of $80 billion while Congress dithers. US employment is at 1930's levels and worsening and QEI & QEII money printing has raised real inflation to over 10%. Now the Fed has ceased QE the US markets will correct back to 2008 levels and further as the free money to keep their big banks alive dries up.
The ECB has dithered too long about the debt restructuring for its PIIGS and is also in a death spiral as it's too big to fail banks are now seriously at risk of defaults from Greece and Ireland.
China's self imposed slowdown is severely impacting the good half of Australia's two speed economy and will exacerbate Australia's domestic decline and housing collapse.
Oh and did I mention Mideast insurrections and revolutions, Saudi's failure to suppress the OPEC oil price and the continual rise of global commodities which will lead to further civil unrest across the developing world...
If one or more of these problems get out of hand then the global economy will experience a depression that will make the 1930's look like the halcyon days of Rogernomics.
You'll probably find the NZ$6b figure you attribute to John Key actually initially came from our story. What we said was that China's sovereign wealth fund had 1.5% of its money targeted at NZ investments which is the equivalent of about NZ$6b.
What is obvious is that the fund - China Investment Corporation - has been buying our govt bonds for some time and been a contributor to the strong demand for them in recent months. What we were also saying, or attempting to say, is China likes our protein - especially dairy farming - story and the sovereign wealth fund has the deep pockets to expand its buying into other areas here aside from govt bonds.
Since our story, Fran O'Sullivan has suggested in granny Herald that China Investment Corporation expressed interest to John Key in buying into Fonterra should its capital structure be changed. And towards the end of last week I heard from two sources that Chinese interests were sniffing around Dairy Holdings, although I haven't yet had any names confirmed.
I'm not going to name names of banks buying on behalf of Chinese interests, but you won't find anyone with much knowledge of the govt bond market to deny they are among the buyers.
No, that's why th $NZD has fallen against the AUD from a peak of 83.192 in Oct 2009 to today's rates. And the trend is still in decline.
You think the tail wags the dog?? The fluctuations in the FX markets last week had nothing to do with NZ or AU, it was all to do with the US, Greece & China.
looks like a down trend to me...
Yes I did say the $NZD's strength was caused by events outside of our control in the US, Europe & China. Against the these major currencies the kiwi is strengthening as thier economies go into decline. Particulary against the USD. The world reserve currency in which we buy & sell almost everything, especially oil.
As to your point I also said the kiwi is weakening against the AUD because the economy is stronger over there. Well at least while China's still buying minerals and coal...
If it suits the plan ...or bigger picture ....or began to act adversly on the (percieved greater need) Iconolast I believe he would intervene again...but again omly as a short term desperate measure.....delivering short term relief.
So the answer is He Lost.....and was again swamped by what is now a resilient epidemic and around that time (I believe) under advisement decided it better to play the game than attempt to referee in a freeforall....
That is why only open jawboneing or signaling of a Tobin Tax..would have any meaningful....lasting impact on where the true value of our currency lies on any given day.
That said...those who are in the need to know category seem comfortable with a high dollar because it fits the dress for the moment..........I'm struggling to get into mine.
What is going on. Any explanations? They're needed. On Tuesday last week the RBA held the OCR rate steady and the AUD fell over. On Thursday the ABS announced the Employment numbers and all that produced was a conversion of a few full-time jobs into part-time jobs, but otherwise the unemployment numbers remained steady. AND the AUD collapsed AGAIN, for a second time in a week, on the perception interest rates wont be raised till at the earliest July, possibly August. On the same Thursday morning the RBNZ held the OCR rate steady and the NZD soared on the expectation interest rates will be raised in December. I dont think so. What is going on? Why is all this hot money flooding into NZ? What are the currency-cowboys objectives? Something is going on. If Bollard is on top of his game he should be able to explain this to the great-unwashed.
Why is all this hot money flooding into NZ?
Why indeed.
It is a very good question.
And of course intake of the flow has been recently increased beyond what was required to keep the taps running - as was admitted by Bill English.
We really are pawns in an end-game - the strategy/intent of which has not been revealed.
Even if Key is a short-term, non-strategic planner, Bollard hails from the opposite background. He is supposed to act independently of The Executive, but the implication is he is not. A very serious implication indeed. A problem with the structure of governance and the flawed constitutional definition of appropriate checks and balances.
We really could do with a bicameral Parliament or some other constitutional means to reduce the potential for unilateral actions of the Executive branch of government.
Perhaps time the GG were brought into the frame?
From an international investment perspective NZ is well placed for the near future because of the production and export of dairy and meat. Which happen to be in great demand from Asia. Particularly China. They plan to buy NZ assets not because of our economy is in such a great shape but because they will need food. So when such a player with vast amount of reserve currencies comes out and says we are going to buy NZD (as it happened a couple weeks ago) it drives up speculative demand. Plus China also wants to get rid of USDs for various reasons and NZD looks a much better alternative at present.
FYI from an emailer
Hi Bernard,
Excellent column today. Key is definitely a short-term tactician - not a visionary or strategic bone in his body.
You may have weakened this central point by bringing in the Chinese comparison.
I think even in the context of NZ's 3 year election cycle, the Key and English combination and their focus on short-term will see NZ's economic performance slip substantially over the next few years. The world economy is much different now than prior to 2007 - but Key and English do not understand that and do not have vision or strategy that will grow our economy.
I voted for the guy and do not dislike him at all. But it looks to me like history will show that Key will go down as one of the worst prime ministers NZ has ever had. Nice guy - just not good at his job at a time when NZ desperately needs a visionary and strategic prime minister
Unfortunately, there is no credible visionary and strategic politician on the NZ political horizon. Disaster.
Regards
Jeff
I have found that there is no point in me attempting to interact with a fundimentalist, be that christian, loony left, rabid right or libertarian. Its simple really, NZers indeed the ppl of all nations want a society where ppl somewhat share the risks and impacts....for a very good reason....it works.
regards
I talked to a mate who does shop fittings, employs a few people and works over lower north Island. He said its dead across the board, he has never seen anything like it. He also does the major supermarkets and he said even they are really hurting. So Key's policy appears to be failing many.
But Mousie, thou are no thy-lane,
In proving foresight may be vain:
The best laid schemes o' Mice an' Men,
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain, For promis'd joy!
He may not get to the election in as comfortable position as he thinks and it could be a Green/Maori, labor colilition in which case, yes this team of National MP's will go down in history as the fools they really are.
The trouble is I dont think there is any answer right now, JK has done pretty well IMHO, I would have been really worried if Labour had stayed in power, I think we'd be in even deeper doo doo, for a single term.
The solution I believe is unfortunately in our past on a road we never took. What we should have done is saved as a Nation for a rainy day, instead we as voters jumped at the political party "promising" us our tax back, which we blew on housing and toys. Since we failed to plan and prepare, now we have to pay that cost....I can but hope we learn the lesson, Im pretty sure not yet. I think as a recent piece said JK is aiming to win by keeping interest rates low enough and petrol cheap enought that ppl think they can just carry on....its not taht simple as we will find out.
Will Labour getting in this year be better? personally the way its looking I think I'd probably prefer Labour if only because a) JK is intent on selling what little state silver is left even when it makes no sense to do so, b) He wont start to dish out some hard medicene while its not too nasty. As someone said, putting an accountant in charge of a business is a good way to save money so much so there is no business left, JK is this sort of person IMHO, he isnt a leader, he's a smiling opportunist who cant see big pictures or at least the ones that are good for NZ not not his constituants. So, I think taxes have to rise, if they do so now it will be a smaller % than later, and rise later it will I am sure....
regards
What we see depends mainly on what we look for.
John Lubbock
I have seen modifications to Bernards viewpoint on a number of subjects over the last two or three years...I don't see that as all over the show.....I see that as asking the question when it begs to be asked......some may read his articles as doctrine........rather than a question posed for discussion and occassionaly enlightenment.....
He who asks a question may be a fool for five minutes. But he who never asks a question remains a fool forever.
Tom J. Connelly
I agree, I think BH has changed somewhat, but its a broader questioning, but if you can think and deduce and if you are not a fanatic then modifying your stance in light of experience and knowldege this is what I'd expect...
This doesnt mean anyone gets an easy ride, I dont think anyone is safe from BH's journalist's nose, HC wasnt and now JK isnt...
;]
regards
re: tribeless' first post;
Just a humble opinion in response tribeless, since no one has answered so far.. It appears your metaphor is somewhat over simplified? For example, I would gladly take your offer up, while clarifying that I would give you every dollar that I own in the form of monopoly money, and would gladly take 50% of that back in the form of legal NZ currency, or any other legal currency, or even gold for that matter...
I think while completely absurd of course, it is probably a little closer to the reality, in that not all currencies have the same value.. and also that value is in itself a subjective term, ie: value is whatever someone/minority/majority place on an item or symbolic item such as money...
Yep.....but really I for one dont give much attention to Tribeless. What he [dis]misses is humans formed tribes for very good reasons, such as enhanced survival and support of specialisations......these are actions that have been going on for thousands of years and have stood the test of time....ppl choose to form a society and stay in one....what he wants is to disband that and force 99.999% of the planet to live as he believes is right...
Its a pity in a way that he cant step outside of our society and go off and doing his own thing Im sure we'd all be happier....and then we get to see which way is best.
regards
Tribeless can and doubtless will respond for himself, but I would have to say that is not at all how I read his position.
It is only partially true that societies have stood the test of time. Many have not, particularly those which demanded too much of their members by way of personal sacrifice and restrictions on personal freedom.
I do not see how you can possibly conclude from anything he has said that what he wants is to "force" anybody to live "as he believes is right". The libertarian position is the polar opposite of that - that people should be allowed to live as they themselves believe to be right and bear the responsibility for the consequences, with tough burdens of proof required to justify State restrictions on that liberty.
I agee and my responses above went some way to clarify that..Ms de Meanour....I went on to say that direction did not imply force......but that passive/ pro-active direction while occupying key strategic positions in a society was nontheless effective...as is the case in most democratic societies.
Not even sure that I know what you mean by "passive/pro-active direction while occupying key strategic positions in a society".
But I would anyway say that Government action, on the assumption that that's what you mean, cannot be claimed to be "effective". It may or may not be effective. There are plenty of examples throughout history, and throughout the world, of Government policies that have attempted to direct or guide individual behaviour and been totally ineffective, and/or achieved precisely the opposite effect of what was intended.
Bottom line is, if I'm left to run my own life and I stuff up, that is my problem; whereas if Government attempts to run everybody's life and stuffs up, that is everybody's problem.
Why does everyone think the people living in these high saving Asian economies enjoy their saving?
Give any ordinary Chinese, Indian, Korean, Thai, Malaysian etc the chance to immigrate to these so called "debt riddled" nations such as the USA or NZ, and 90% + would jump at the chance.
Most Chinese etc people who save a good amount of their income for social security reasons wish to be like Americans and spent every cent they get!
And keep the dollar high, thanks. I like my yearly overseas holidays!
FYI from an emailer
Hi Bernard
Given your recent takes that John Key and Allan Bollard are short-sighted, the NZ economy needs re-balancing away from debt/spend and towards export/save, and so on, it would be good to hear your opinion on the legalize marijuana debate, and its economic implications. Is legalized marijuana the change that's required to "rebalance the economy"? If not, what is? It would be read your take on the issue. After-all, from what I understand, you think good intentions, small changes, a bit here and a bit there.... this all doesn't amount to much. Let's here your take on a policy that could fundamentally change an economy (the fundamentally change bit - that's my opinion, some would disagree). Most politicians would never mention the issue (because of the "pothead" label); I trust interest to ignore that sort of nonsense. Regards, AlexHa. Can't see a pot-led export recovery myself. But I'm in favour of decriminalisation personally. Even the experts say now that the war on drugs hasn't worked. Perhaps we can become one of the world's best suppliers if it is decriminalised.
100% Pure as the slogan
;)
cheers
Bernard
There's a stoner and a super genius sitting on a bench waiting on a bus. The genius gets
bored, leans over to the stoner and says, "Hey I'll tell you what, I'll ask you a question and if
you don't know the answer you have to give me five bucks. If you ask me a question and I
don't know the answer I have to give you fifty bucks." The stoner says, "Alright, Man." The
genius asks the stoner, "What is the Pythagorian Theory?" The stoner replies, "I don't know,"
and hands the genius five bucks. "Okay," the stoner says, "What has three legs going up a
hill and four legs going down?" The genius thinks real hard and finally gives up. he hands
the stoner fifty bucks and then asks, "So, what is the answer?" The stoner says, "I don't
know," and hands the genius five bucks.
FYI from a reader via email:
Hello Bernard
I saw you on TV tonight making the comment that the Government was prepared to effectively fire 41 workers at Hillside as it was costing a bit less to make them in China. It was great to hear this being brought to the attention of NZ on National TV. There is a group of us in Dunedin who are trying to fight this decision as it makes no sense at all when you look at the long term broader economic effect on Dunedin and social effects it will have on Hillside workers and other Engineering firms here . Our fear that KiwiRail will close down Hillside Engineering as soon as it can is real. In a recession, the last thing a government should be doing is actively throwing skilled people out of work. The day will come when the only jobs going are in fast food outlets, casinos and The Warehouse.
For Key to try to convince us that the Sky City was a great deal as it would generate extra business and jobs rings hollow.
Regards
Eunice
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.