Economic debate gets Green voice

TVNZ7’s much hyped economic debate (you’ve probably seen the adds by now) will have a Green voice.  Following TVNZ’s Guyon Espiner interviewing Finance Minister Bill English Green Party Co-Leader Dr Russel Norman will critique National’s first year in Government along with Roger Douglas (ACT) and David Cunliffe (Labour). 

TVZN7’s economic debate screens tonight on TVNZ7 at 910pm and is repeated Wed 4th at 10.10am and 2.10pm, and Fri 6th Nov at 9.10pm. 

 Also: In this week’s Green video Russel responds to Bill English’s add with a Green perspective.

 

16 thoughts on “Economic debate gets Green voice

  1. Great to see the Greens will be included in this economic debate as they seem to be the only party to be questioning the flawed assumption that the worlds economy (and New Zealands) should be designed around endless and ever increasing GDP growth.

    Despite the fact that it is widely acknowledged that GDP is a deeply flawed tool for measuring of growth or progress as it only caputres the amount of economic acitvity happening without any analysis of the quality of this acitivity or its impact on people lives or the environment.

    Ultimately, people’s wellbeing and the economy are dependant on the environment and we urgently need a ecomonic model that reflects this.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  2. is that a first draft..?

    i clicked hoping for a coherent explanation of sorts..

    (and was going to post it on whoar..)

    but this is just really a series of one-liners/slogans..slung together..

    and..you russel..are guilty of what you accuse national/key of being..

    namely..you are working from the assumption ‘thing will remain the same’..(c.f..yr ‘primary-produce'(meat)-themed exhortation..)

    with the inference we just need to give the ‘clean/green’ badge a bit of a polish..

    and..she’ll be right..!

    carry on as before..

    and i can only assume yr diet-blinkers stop you seeing that the whole ‘meat-industry’..

    for a variety of reasons/factors..

    will not be here/be greatly minimised within decades..

    (just the rise of cruelty/pesticide-free/w.h.y-flavoured factory-grown meat will see to that..)

    you are going to have to get a grasp of this wholesale change coming up..

    before you can hope to present any form of coherent alternative economic-model..

    (‘badge-polishing’ just won’t ‘cut it’..eh..?..)

    this vid really is a first draft..eh..?

    why don’t you pull it..and have another ‘go’..eh..?

    there was one ray of light..

    that is the final line..

    ‘no environment..!..no economy..!’..

    if i were you ..i’d get that on t-shirts/billboards(?)asap..

    as far as a good slogan is concerned..(i.e..an effective idea-distillate..)

    that one definitely works..

    (always try to end on an ‘up note’..i say..)

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  3. Russel is a pretty matter of fact guy.

    He does better without the suit IMHO, and instead of the delivery of piecemeal message fragments, he ought to work up a proper “rant” form of this complete with the appropriate mockery of National’s abandonment of market principles in their quest to totally gut the ETS.

    There’s so much in the message that it almost has to be scripted just to remember all the points in order. We get told we don’t have a cohesive alternative policy.

    That may be in part a problem with our delivery. When we deliver the opposition has to be left looking for the truck that just ran over them. When they come up with a one-point argument we have to hit them with ALL of it together.

    Some people argue that X won’t fix ALL the problems. The lunacy of thinking that 20 years developing structural malinvestment incentives can be corrected with a single silver bullet is patently obvious to me, but what I VERY often see is an argument based on a false premise that we should not accept but miss its inclusion, and we then wind up arguing details, usually with difficulty, against a backdrop of that flawed assumption. We should ever let our opponents dictate the grounds of the argument without at least considering what alternative assumptions might be appropriate.

    The ETS changes are easy meat.

    The argument against the CGT says the US has a CGT but still had a bubble. That plays games with the truth. The CGT in the USA is 15% while the top tax rate for income is 35%. The US has a small CGT. It also has a Federal Funds rate that is not distinguishable from zero. One can’t ever assume that the assertions from which the opposition argues are correct, instead one has to recognize that for them to even argue one of our points, they have to be either misinformed or simply lying in their teeth.

    That is almost always the case, and it pays to take the moment or two of reflection that allows us to identify the point of false information.

    respectfully
    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  4. this is just really a series of one-liners/slogans..slung together..

    I think it’s a piss-take of Bill English’s recent ad which was done in that style

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  5. Never saw the ad. Which isn’t to say that anything is missing from my life in that regard. :-)

    BJ

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  6. More in depth pieces are needed of course. That’s not to say that this is somehow defective because its short and pithy. Remember, the audience for this would not be the greatly informed commenters of this blog. It seems to be for the exact opposite kind of audience and its one that probably wouldn’t even watch a 10 minute piece on the economics of the ETS or whatever – unless perhaps their interest had been tweaked by something like this first.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  7. It’s difficult to read Phil’s one-liner style posts but I got one message from it, that we should all take on board. We should not assume that things will remain the same. Indeed, things remaining the same for much longer seems very unlikely and, of course, in the longer term, they definitely won’t. See Chris Martenson’s Crash Course for a hint at why. It’s a US centric course but the story will be very similar for all developed and even developing economies. A briefer version can be viewed here.

    However, that poses a problem. In order to show up the policies of the other parties, it might be necessary to play in the same ball park. I just hope that the green leaders certainly don’t imagine that our economy will be based on agricultural exports and tourism for much longer.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  8. norman did well on the tvnz7 show..

    8/10..?

    douglas looked like a total buffoon..

    and cunnliffe seemed to spend half his time agreeing with norman..

    all in all a good showing for the greens..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

  9. bugs on a bumper bj; – NZ sells it’s No:1 income (tourism) on being clean and green; – it has the potential for population (ie; growth) that few places have.
    The infamous ‘Brain Drain’ of the 60’s has, imo happened
    Above other things, nz is disappointing.
    Off- Shore Patriots used to weep like the Irish.
    but the Potential remains comparatively modern, underdeveloped.
    And we have such a long collection of Faces in the ‘news’
    Malcolm Fraser was one; but he opened the door to 10M immigrants to give Australia a resilient tax foundation.
    Without quoting sociologists it’s fair to say that in the world of funds, even staying still means falling behind.

    But the current mob are so shy

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 (0)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>