However it is unlikely this government will ever do so. Deferring the goal of increasing it to .35% till National was in power was a dead give away.

And the fact that they have refused to increase the incomes of students or beneficiaries (with or without children) despite the fact that their real costs have gone up by more than the CPI. If one was to assess what their allowances and incomes would buy in 1999 and today (and even worse as fuel, power, food and rent costs will continue to rise) one could note as large a cut in real standard of living as occured in 1991.

Despite this, Cullen says he has taken Treasury advice and is not having a no income tax threshold and is focusing tax change (raising the thresholds) on helping those in full-time work. Apparently only the working poor are to receive any assistance, the non working poor or those in casual labour (less than full-time) can expect nothing. Unless they are on Super apparently those on this fixed income are the deserving poor (a large middle class voting block).

It should provide Greens with the student and beneficiary vote.

The question is whether Greens can work with National, so we can have the first MMP government supportive of beneficiaries and students since 2002.

It depends on which region you look at. South America, I would agree, India, I would agree, but in large parts of Africa, I would disagree - much of the farming there is still collectively done, or people own small holdings and farm off them.

Another thing is that if trade of agricultural economies increases, then there will be demand for more labour - that would push the price of labour up, and benefit the people. The state would get more tax revenue, which would naturally allow them to invest in the country. Don’t believe me? Look at Zimbabwe pre-2000 - a prosperous nation where land was in the hands of not that many people; they had some of the best living standards in Africa.

“Where it has worked before, as in the Asian Tiger nations and even China, was when the government worked to ensure a more equitable distribution of land ownership amongst the population, but in Latin America especially a colonial mindset still is firmly entrenched in halls of power.”

The Asian Tiger nations and the PRC mostly grew on the basis of highly efficient (in the case of the Tigers) and cheap (in the case of the PRC) manufacturing. Of course, an efficient taxation structure also helped them out.

> Removing trade barriers isn’t going to help Burmese as the majority of the country’s exports are designated as military monopolies (teak, gems, rice etc. textiles are an exception, though most major Burmese companies are linked with the military in some way). So trade is merely going to put more money in the hands of the junta.

Yep. Burma’s probably the only country I would support across-the-board trade sanctions against. For precisely that reason.

China and Russia are the main arms suppliers in recent years. Asean countries provide diplomatic support.

Well first of all, in the Third World, farmers aren’t necessarily those that work the land, but effectively are feudal landlords who work in concert with government to ensure that the landless have no alternative, but to labor on their estates for rates that they decide. So just because trade of agricultural commodities will grow doesn’t mean that the common folk will be much better off.

Where it has worked before, as in the Asian Tiger nations and even China, was when the government worked to ensure a more equitable distribution of land ownership amongst the population, but in Latin America especially a colonial mindset still is firmly entrenched in halls of power.

The relative levels, and much more are here: http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/27/55/40381862.pdf

and

You can see very interesting reports on the quality of aid each country gives, as well as info on their levels of tariffs etc.. here: http://www.cgdev.org/section/initiatives/_active/cdi/_country/new_zeal and

The other thing is that agriculture does not trap an economy. Prior to 2000, Zimbabwe was one of the most prosperous economies in Africa, and it had a mainly agricultural base. New Zealand has a mainly agricultural base, and we aren’t Third World. It all comes down to competitive advantage; if a nation has the right soil for it, then they should grow that crop (I’ll include animals in the word crop).

About Burma, the tragedy is not the cyclone, the tragedy is a military dictatorship that needs to be dealt with. Unfortunately, like with North Korea, Sudan and Zimbabwe, the People’s Republic of China is a substantial barrier to dealing with that problem. At least the dictators that the United States backed were not complete and utter incompetents.

I wouldn’t personally advocate war as a means purely to help people. I would certainly like to know what countries are say, selling Myanmar weapons or letting their leaders open bank accounts, or letting the generals travel freely.