Member log in

Labour and Greens serving business interests

GUEST OPINION

David Cunliffe has decided to direct great wodges of taxpayers’ money to the forestry industry.

According to the Otago Daily Times, when “asked about the response from the industry to the policies, Mr Cunliffe said it had been ‘bloody good’ but that was not surprising, as the party had consulted widely with industry in putting the package together.”

What an astonishingly stupid question. Of course those who are about to be in receipt of taxpayers’ money think the policy is a bloody good idea. The questioner should have asked people in other industries, who will now face an unfair competition for resources, if they think it is a bloody good policy. Or he might have asked us, the taxpayers.

The Greens pulled the same trick last week when they boasted on Facebook that a solar panel producer had spoken favourably of the party's solar subsidy policy. Could politicians cosying up to business become the new norm under Labour and the Greens?

The harm done by industrial policies of the kind Mr Cunliffe and the Greens promote cannot be observed in the fortunes of the firms favoured by the government. For example, the Detroit car manufacturers bailed out by Obama may now be thriving. But that doesn’t show the policy worked. The cost of the policy is the opportunities for other productive activities that have been forgone because of the forcible transfer of resources to Obama’s favoured firms.

Alas, those lost opportunities are invisible. Whereas the joy of those being offered a meal at the tax-funded trough is all too obvious.

Jamie Whyte is leader of the ACT Party

Comments and questions
9

The clock is ticking until the election and ACT's strategy seems to be to position itself as Naitonal's attack poodle rather than influencing the debate or media agenda through constructive policy development or wagging the big blue dog in any kind of positive direction.

How disappointing...

Rubbish Neutered Cerberus. If you read the about article you would see that ACT's policy is different from both National and Labour. This article is all about 'influencing the debate or media agenda through constructive policy development'.

Trying reading the article again Stephen - mentions of National's examples of crony capitalism = 0.

Mentions of specific ACT policy (i.e. statements such as "ACT believes that no industries should receive favourable treatment from the taxpayer" = 0).

Instead the article finishes on a non-sequitur about the Obama administration along with a glib remark about feeding the taxpayer trough.

If this is the best ACT can come up with they will continue to remain irrelevant unfortunately.

The concept of opportunity costs. Never ever mentioned by any other political party. What a breath of fresh air Jamie will bring into parliament.

ACT is not a far right party. Its just the right party.

"For example, the Detroit car manufacturers bailed out by Obama may now be thriving. But that doesn’t show the policy worked"
Surely it shows the policy (of supporting the car industry) did work.
Seems like you want to relitigate the decision, but don't deny the policy achieved the desired outcome

This highlights the concept of opportunity cost.

The failed car industry has been propped up by taking money from(Stealing for political kudos) successful enterprise and rewarding failure.

Totally ignoring the cost or losses imposed on successful industry. Entirely invisible to the general public.

"The harm done by industrial policies of the kind Mr Cunliffe and the Greens promote cannot be observed in the fortunes of the firms favoured by the government." By way of contrast after the farming industry was made to stand on its own feet and ceased being favoured by the government, look what's happened to it.

Remember Muldoon saying after certain policy announcements that, We will now have 2 lambs where 1 was before. The price dropped in half.
We should have been taking notice of what the market was saying and reduced production, not doubling it.

The wool board (of perceived importance) where we stock piled and tried to tell the market what they would be paying. Sheer stupidity.

The message is clear. Government and government boards, get your nose out of business and stick to social needs.

It's ok when the left does it.