Post Az9LJyz5JVJVuDNvyy by RobynNuthall@mastodon.nz
(DIR) More posts by RobynNuthall@mastodon.nz
(DIR) Post #AywdwCR71Im8kbO9T6 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-06T21:29:07Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
"Massey University Dean's Chair in Management Professor Jarrod Haar said it did not help anyone to have young people on benefits.But he said it would be better to use the money that would have been spent on teenagers' benefits on encouraging businesses to hire them."#SusanEdmunds, 2025https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/575154/how-many-job-hunters-are-there-for-each-job-adThis is wrong on so many levels. For a start, those benefit support those receiving them and feed money into the real economy. They're not the dead loss they're being spun as here.
(DIR) Post #AywfEtyly1OaxmcB1c by amerika@annihilation.social
2025-10-06T21:33:35.784680Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@strypey Or just cut taxes
(DIR) Post #Az7NUZ044dIo5w63VY by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-12T01:47:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Adequate social welfare benefits are not a drain on the economy. They are an investment, on many levels. Eg;* They keep workers lives stable during times when businesses can't afford to deploy their labour* They build a sense of belonging to society and wanting to support others in kind* They subsidise businesses offering the essentials of life, and to a lesser extend hospitality and entertainment, without the government getting to pick and choose who gets the subsidy (so less nepotism)
(DIR) Post #Az9KPlAZUPBKqLwsuO by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-13T00:22:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
An important corollary to my post yesterday about the societal benefits of providing unemployment benefits.In a society that has a shortage of goods to be purchased, someone is going to miss out, regardless of how much money is available to pay for things. In these circumstances, lifting incomes is likely to be inflationary.But that's not our situation in Aotearoa these days.(1/4)
(DIR) Post #Az9KPtpzGJ41j7O4Zc by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-13T00:22:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
On the contrary, we have businesses going to the wall because not enough people can afford to pay for what they offer. The only essential we're genuinely short of is affordable housing.Under these circumstances - unlike when there's shortages - lifting incomes enables more goods to be purchased instead of wasted. It helps small businesses to survive, even expand. Growing the productive economy and further increasing incomes and spending power.(2/4)
(DIR) Post #Az9KQ2JhjhaY1bLv0K by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-13T00:22:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Done right, this creates a virtuous cycle, where more people can earn a living, and fewer unemployment benefits need to be paid. Not only that, but the tax take increases, from higher businesses earnings and more workers paying tax on wages and salaries, without putting up tax rates (although there are good economic arguments for doing that too in some cases).(3/4)
(DIR) Post #Az9KQArJybESWB8sVs by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-13T00:22:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
The kind of austerity budget championed by zealots like Ruthenasia Richardson is the economic equivalent of extracting blood from a hemorrhaging patient. Fiscal bloodletting can only make the situation worse. As I thought we learned from the Great Depression.(4/4)
(DIR) Post #Az9LJyz5JVJVuDNvyy by RobynNuthall@mastodon.nz
2025-10-13T00:32:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypey Absolutely agree. It's so obvious putting money in everyone's pocket - except the very rich - pushes economic growth. That's why *generally* GDP is higher under progressive governments. GFC taught us this. Interestingly even then the Key government didn't go for austerity while the UK did. That and Brexit totally stuffed the UK economy.
(DIR) Post #AzBGkTixXE7hJnZqUK by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-13T22:48:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"Ocean Yu, director of popular Cantonese outlet Star Cafe Seafood Restaurant, said he had made the painful decision to close his restaurant on the North Shore on 30 September after six years of business.Yu said the end of the lease and a sharp decline in customers from 2023 were key reasons behind the closure."#DuoyaLu, 2025https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/chinese/575852/auckland-s-yum-cha-restaurants-running-out-of-steamFor reasons given in my economics rant yesterday, I doubt it's a coincidence that this downturn coincides with the new government's first term.
(DIR) Post #AzBQ7KAm704bwXYYYy by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-14T00:35:00Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
#NeoclassicalEconomics has become a cult. It's demonstrably false dogmas treated as gospel truth;* corporatising and selling off public infrastructure cuts costs and improves services. False.* cutting public spending boosts economic growth. False.* Suppressing wages and benefits boosts employment. False.* Deregulating markets increases competition, reducing prices. False.How on earth do we get through to people who still believe this horseshit, despite decades of counter-evidence?
(DIR) Post #AzBQtu4tv73JCXyOZs by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-14T00:44:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
It's notable that the Minister of Finance in the current NZ government has a background in English literature and corporate lobbying. I guess they couldn't find anyone with an economics or finance background that would deliver the cargo cult budget approach they've been able to get Nicola Willis to front.#NZPolitics #economics
(DIR) Post #AzBTs5KJQXLlN60RSC by olivetree@ieji.de
2025-10-14T01:17:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypeyFor starters, people that talk about this should add context. Your debunking isn't an absolute truth either. If you consider extreme cases it becomes obvious:If 99% of the people are poor, it's unlikely that relying more on social security can succeed, whereas if only 1% is poor it's likely to be a good measure for everyone.
(DIR) Post #AzBt8nI6Ea5jDC2FrU by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-10-14T06:00:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"Overall, more new migrants are still arriving in New Zealand than departing. But last year saw the biggest net loss of New Zealand citizens of any calendar year on record. About 56% of New Zealand emigrants – those planning to live overseas for a year or more – head to Australia, where the average pay rate is 26% higher."#MichelleDuff, 2025https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/09/leaving-new-zealand-record-departure-numbersReminds me of that quip from the 1970s; will the last person to leave the country please turn the lights out?
(DIR) Post #B0PuseKJNDgXotA4ie by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-19T22:18:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I missed a bunch of replies in Oct/ Nov while travelling. But since I see it now ...@olivetree> If 99% of the people are poor, it's unlikely that relying more on social security can succeedWhy? You'll need a strong industrial policy to build productive capacity. But otherwise, what I said remains true. Boosting the spending power of poor people is an investment in the real economy. Keeping them broke keeps small businesses - the major employer in most economies - from succeeding.
(DIR) Post #B0TAKOedaOWamSQ3Ki by olivetree@ieji.de
2025-11-21T11:54:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypeyMoney for social security comes from taxes, which means to increase that spending you must either financially burden the very same people that need money or burden the companies, dampening economic growth lengthening the time needed for the country to leave that situation.Tax increases always burden tge poor the most, so increasing social security to help the poor is like cutting off a part of your body to save you from starvation. And since public service tends to be very inefficient (no sense of ownership from anyone), it's even worse.Taxing the *very* rich, while fixing an injustice, doesn't solve the real problem. Try dividing that money for everyone and see how it amounts to very little. Plus it brings other problems (it shouldn't but it does).
(DIR) Post #B0U0qqpBa4PR229LWK by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-21T21:43:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@olivetree OK, we have a completely opposite view about political economy. I think every axiom you stare here is observably wrong. I'm happy to argue the toss, but you may get more out of reading some books by economists who study the real economy. Rather than neoclassical cultists who use their own theories as evidence for their own theories.Development as Freedom might be a good place to start. Then perhaps Debunking Economics by Steve Keen.
(DIR) Post #B0V90hbDjDuY6immkS by olivetree@ieji.de
2025-11-22T10:49:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypeyI agree that I probably suffer some bias in terms of economics view, but not everything I said is observably wrong, not in my country anyway. The only arguable one is that taxes dampen economic growth.I'll note down that book, could be interesting to have a different view. But if it assumes that public administration/management is decent or not fully corrupt, then it's a waste of time.
(DIR) Post #B0WBn38RM8ePrkSvhI by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-22T22:55:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@olivetree> But if it assumes that public administration/management is decent or not fully corrupt, then it's a waste of timeFunny, it's seems obvious to me that corporate management is corrupt, and corrupting, and public administration is corrupt only to the degree it's been remodeled on corporate management;.https://davidgraeber.org/papers/anthropology-and-the-rise-of-the-professional-managerial-class/I think it's really worth examining where you got this dogma from, and why you're so committed to it. Maybe explore its history?https://the.levernews.com/master-plan/
(DIR) Post #B0WIgN6jOrYTSfQfK4 by olivetree@ieji.de
2025-11-23T00:12:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypeyI don't care about corporations corruption as they can't force me to give them money, unlike the government. Heck, I don't even know how they can be corrupt! They are definitely "corruptors", but never corrupt, because they can't just mandate by law that people give them more money, they can only manipulate them.So you're second link is funny when it says "corporate forces legalized", as only the government can legalize anything.You didn't say that public administration wasn't corrupt, so I'm not sure where you're getting at.I actually think that governments and corporations suffer from many common problems and their huge size is the core of the problem, but in the public case you have extra lack of sense of ownership, even for the "top boss".As to my dogma, there's Silvio Berlusconi, Nicolas Sarkozy, José Sócrates and multiple other not so high ranked people coming up on the news all the time. And this is in developed countries! Is it still a dogma when it's demonstrably true?
(DIR) Post #B0WKEiLT2rOX83GH3I by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-23T00:30:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(1/2)@olivetree> I don't care about corporations corruption as they can't force me to give them moneyClearly you haven't heard of regulatory capture or monopolies. They do this all the time.> in the public case you have extra lack of sense of ownershipOwnership doesn't create accountability, except maybe to the owner. What about everyone else who corporate practices impact? Public services are accountable via democratic oversight. Corporations lack that, so they're inherently corrupt.
(DIR) Post #B0WKVgpzu4tbNNdVh2 by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-23T00:33:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
(2/2)> Is it still a dogma when it's demonstrably true?If you cherry pick examples that confirm your bias and ignore the tsunami of counterexamples, then yes.I'm not saying that public administration can't be corrupted. On the contrary the Master Plan podcast I linked you to explains exactly how that was done in the US. It took decades and huge amounts of funding to hack around the checks and balances in the US system, and it's failed before (web search the 1933 "business plot").
(DIR) Post #B0WsgmLx8Ow86o2gXA by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2025-11-23T06:56:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
BTW If you want to get a sense of how people who don't subscribe to neoclassical assumptions think about political economy, this half hour interview is a good intro;https://shows.acast.com/bold-politics-with-zack-polanski/episodes/68f7f3528125b849f840aa4a
(DIR) Post #B0XE7YewFnFqUiX7tQ by olivetree@ieji.de
2025-11-23T10:56:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypeyRegulatory capture is still corp corrupting politicians. Monopolies and cartelizations are a failure of society, no one thinks they are a good idea except for the owners of said monopolies. However, are state-owned infra monopolies any better? Their end prices are more reasonable, but you also need to include what they take from taxes. In this case I'm really questioning, I never looked into it or heard anything, but I think you can guess my guess.But here's some more anecdotal evidence: in my country, bus urban transportation is monopolized *by law*. A company is assigned an area it can exclusively operate in. Most companies have their prices equivalent to that of state-owned public transportation.State-owned companies also have the issue of strikes because the unions are puppeteered by political parties, so sometimes those services don't exist at all (yes, hospitals, schools and transportation included) for no reason. You know why I know it's for no reason? Because they happen not during 8 years of government but around 1 month after elections and changing seats following those 8 years.As for cherry picking examples, that's a bad accusation, you know there are plenty more, I just mentioned some of the highest profile cases. I don't have a link, sadly, they just appear in primetime news. I'm aware that not every element of the government is corrupt, but these aren't petty cases either.Democratic oversight is a joke and I dare say a phallacy. Just take a look at another high-profile case: Lula da Silva. And if you argue that he wasn't convicted (by technicality but he wasn't), there's at least Isaltino Morais, an actual convicted fellon for corruption during his time in city hall that got re-elected.Finally, please notice I never said anything good about corporations. I only said that subsidies come from taxes, and increasing those tends to keep the people poor and/or hinder economic growth. There are plenty of other companies that help grow the economy and aren't corporations and csn't control society. I don't even think the "economies of scale" can benefit from increased scale indefinitely, precisely because of internal corruption (which harms mostly the company, not society, and is why I don't care). I see it in my daily job all the time.
(DIR) Post #B210UblCvFsQW5VaAi by olivetree@ieji.de
2026-01-06T17:36:52Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypeyJust heard the podcast, interesting but I didn't find any conflicts with what I said, he just didn't connect it directly. He said that there's no need to pay tax, because money can be printed, and that inflation hurts the poor the most. Unless you tell me that printing money doesn't cause inflation, increasing gov budget hurts poor people first, which is what I said.It also assumes you can print money. Again, context (think EU).
(DIR) Post #B2HvZ1Cbkmx5YEF8jI by strypey@mastodon.nzoss.nz
2026-01-14T21:32:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@olivetree > He said that there's no need to pay tax, because money can be printed, and that inflation hurts the poor the mostI suggest you listen again, because I don't believe he said either of these things. I'll listen again myself before I say more.
(DIR) Post #B2ID5s1sZuMFsWTYtE by olivetree@ieji.de
2026-01-15T00:48:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@strypeyWell, I really recommend you to listen carefully, and I mean this in the most honest way possible (I heard the podcast sober and am now slightly drunk and have no intention to lie, I'm not a stakeholder of anything, just a pure soul at this point and could swear by it)He really said those things, he just did not connect them. (Had a spell check by a sober person, am willing to hear the podcast again when sober to pinpoint the exact time he said those things).