Well it's great to see Bollard has maintained his unwavering and uncritical support for the demonstrably failed economic policies of 80'e neo-liberalism - specifically "Monetarism".

The most glaring example from this article disproving fundamentalist "Monetarist" doctrine is "[t]rading partner activity has recovered a little faster than expected. Currently, growth is strongest in China". We should be asking why China's growth is faster then expected - could it be that the four public central Banks of China create the Chinese credit - free of debt and interest to the Chinese Governement and consequently the Chinese people?

In comparison, New Zealand via Alan Bollards Monetarist mindset borrows 250M/week at interest as debt from Bankrupt foreign private banks and worse still Bollard has privatised the creation of New Zealand credit and allows foreign private central banks to create our money as debt to us with interest.

Could China's recovery be attributed to the fact that Billions of Debt Free Credit create by the Chinese people to benefit the Chinese people was spent on a true stimulus plan - upgrading Chinese state infrastructure, Chinese roads, Chinese trains, Chinese high speed trains and so on and so on...

IN comparison the National Government decide to create a cycleway, with capital derived from taxing the NZ public or borrowed as debt to the New Zealand public that must be paid back, with interest from Bankrupt Foreign Private Banks - who incidentally also create the money from nothing at all.

So maybe it's time for Bollard to drop the demonstrably failed economic policies of Monetarism and embrace working economic models such as the Chinese model of Public Credit.

Huia

who let you lot out.

Tena ra tatou katoa
(Greetings)

Which textbook do you recommend. Perhaps a textbook written by the Wizard Alan Greenspan who openely admitted that his neo-liberal Ayun Rand inspired Monetarist Free-Market Philosophy was flawed[1]. Greenspans admission was irrelevant because the US and European Union Economies had already demonstrated this fact. However, when you consider that the "Wizard" was unable to define money then his failure to regulate the US economy should be no surprise. In a congressional questioning session, Congressman Ron Paul (TX-R) asked Greenspan to define money. Greenspan replied, "... We have a problem trying to define exactly what MONEY is...the current definition of MONEY is not sufficient to give us a good means for controlling the Money Supply..." [2]

[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/23/AR2008102300193.html
[2] US Congressional Testimony February 17th 2000

Perhaps you would prefer a textbook written by Adam Smith, maybe Wealth of Nations, one of the lesser influential members of the classical economists who's theories formed the basis of Austrian economics. The only problem with Smith is that like Ayun Rand and her Libertarian followers - he was unable to correctly define money. Consequently any economic text written with Smiths (and also Rands) definition of money are equally invalid. Im sure you could read Smiths definition but to paraphrase Smith defined precious metals as money[3] when we all know that precious metals are in themselves just commodities and subject to price variations. The price variations of precious metals are best described by their variance as observed in the USA during the Great Depression when the price of gold was fixed by FDR by law (fiat) and yet silver was allowed to increase and decrease with the market. As such it is easy to discern that it was the law (fiat) that defined money and not the precious metal itself.

[3] "By the money price of goods it is to be observed, I understand always, the quantity of pure gold or silver for which they are sold, without any regard to denomination of the coin."

Perhaps you would prefer I read a textbook by Margrit Kennedy, such as "Margrit Kennedy: Interest and Inflation Free Money "[4] who's studies of interest and debt have proven that debt based economies such as ours incur an average interest charge of 50% on every widget produced in the economy - google her name and you can find the studies yourself. That means that all items by definition cost twice as much as they should as the cost of interest must be factored into the item to account for interest charges incured - payable to private mainly Australian banks - in every stage of the items production.

[4] Margrit Kennedy: Interest and Inflation Free Money
(Published by Seva International; ISBN 0-9643025-0-0;
Copyright 1995 by Margrit Kennedy)
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~roehrigw/kennedy/english/

It is also Kennedy's studies of interest and debt that have shown that increases in the official cash rate (OCR), the only method of controlling and directing an economy available to Monetarist economies - is in itself and of itself inflationary. It is obvious that credit created without interest andinjected directly into an economy is in itself not inflationary - it is obvious because the credit does not require the economy to grow in order to get the credit to pay back the principle plus the compounded interest.

For those of you who argue that Public Credit - such as that used by the Chinese - is inflationary, prove it! Give me a single example where publicly created credit spent into the economy is inflationary.

Kia ora ano tatou e hoa ma
(Thank you my friends)
Noho ora mai ra
(All the best)
Huia