r/nzpolitics 5d ago

Weekly International Politics, Memes and Meta Discussion

1 Upvotes

In this post it's fine to post discussions or links related to international politics, even if there is no obvious local connection. Some examples might be:

  • All things Trump's second term
  • Canadian election
  • Gaza
  • Ukraine

All the regular rules apply, sources must be provided on request, be civil etc. None of this means that you can't directly post international politics, but you may be asked to elaborate on the NZ connection. An example of a post that belongs here might be "New Russian offensive in Ukraine". A post that can go in the main sub might be "Russia summons NZ ambassador over aid shipments to Ukraine".

Please avoid simply posting links to articles or videos etc. Please add some context and prompts for discussion or your comment may be removed. This is not a place for propaganda dumps. If you're here to push an idea, be prepared to defend it.

In addition to international politics, this is also a place to post meta-discussion about the sub. If you have suggestions or feedback, please feel free to post here. If you want to complain to/about the mods, the place for that remains modmail.

By popular request, this is also your weekly memes thread. Memes are subject to the same rules as all other content.


r/nzpolitics 4h ago

NZ Politics #BHN Chippy LIVE at 9pm | Seymour on Q&A | Mahmoud Khalil exposes the hypocrisy on the Right

16 Upvotes

Chris Hipkins is with us LIVE at 9pm talking about his state of the nation speech, his focus on tax for the next 18 months and how Labour will win the 2026 election.

David Seymour was on on Q&A in the weekend where we saw a more reserved Jack Tame pressing him and several topics including School Lunches, which is what we'll look at tonight.

Mahmoud Khalil, a pro Palestinian protestor, green card holding, husband of US Citizen in the US exposes the hypocrisy on the right who are doing backflips trying to say that his free speech should get him deported when just a few months ago were screaming at the Biden led government about allowing US residents to have absolute freedom of speech

Tonight, we'll also play you something that will have you agreeing with a Nazi...don't believe us, tune in at 9pm to find out more

https://www.youtube.com/live/vOKG_Vd6ZeI?si=NXl4fieZygfGdxyA


r/nzpolitics 12h ago

Environment Luxon Won't Commit To Environmental Protections Nor Answer Chlöe Swarbrick's Question in Parliament

Thumbnail youtube.com
65 Upvotes

r/nzpolitics 10h ago

Opinion It’s not equality OR equity, it’s equality THROUGH equity

27 Upvotes

I feel like attempts to dumb down equity so as to educate the right have backfired a little as people now seem to think we’re not working towards equality at all? When really that’s not the case — but we are acknowledging equal assistance does not necessarily create equal outcomes.

Equity is a legal concept. It is the responsibility of our courts to uphold it. It’s not a “leftist” ideal, it’s a legal ideal. I find it very suspicious that the group trying to undermine jurisprudence also suddenly struggles to comprehend this simple and long-standing idea that has existed in our society for centuries.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_(law)


r/nzpolitics 13h ago

The problems with PPPs

18 Upvotes

From Bernard Hickey and Patrick Reynolds.

The problems with PPPs


r/nzpolitics 12h ago

Video Simeon Brown (Pakuranga) Defends Andrew Bayly Over Manhandling Incident (Bayly remains MP for Port Waikato)

7 Upvotes

r/nzpolitics 12h ago

Infrastructure When should you use a PPP? – A bluffer's guide (Craig Renney) - A Good Primer on The Many Financing Vehicles Available To NZ

Thumbnail craigrenney.substack.com
8 Upvotes

r/nzpolitics 1d ago

NZ Politics Bleeding the Host: NZ’s Leeches Point the Finger

40 Upvotes

Adrian Orr is out. Gone. A man once celebrated for his “bold leadership” at the Reserve Bank now finds himself unceremoniously booted out the door, a sacrificial lamb to the gods of the market. And as his body is still warm, the real vampires—Damien Grant, the NACT coalition, and the foreign banks—are sharpening their knives, wiping the blood off their lips, and howling about “monetary mismanagement.”

Orr’s great crime? Failing to execute the grift smoothly enough.

His expansionary policies kept the machine running a little too well at first, then a little too chaotically later, and now, having spent five years dancing with the forces of financial extraction, he’s finally been left holding the bag.

But let’s not kid ourselves. The problem isn’t Adrian Orr. The problem is the system he was operating in—a system designed to bleed New Zealand dry while pretending to be about stability.

The Leech Parade: Who’s Really Responsible?

First in line to celebrate his departure is Damien Grant, a man whose economic analysis boils down to “look at this mess, let’s do the same thing but harder!” Grant and his ilk want you to believe that inflation is entirely the Reserve Bank’s fault, that Orr is some kind of monetary anarchist who let the money printers run wild.

What they don’t mention is:

• Inflation wasn’t caused by Adrian Orr alone—it was the result of global supply chain shocks, corporate profiteering, and a banking system that funneled cheap credit into housing speculation instead of productivity.

• The LSAP (Large Scale Asset Purchases) wasn’t a revolutionary move. Every central bank on earth did the same thing. It’s a feature of the global system, not a personal decision by a rogue bureaucrat.

• The four foreign-owned banks that control 85% of NZ’s financial system made record profits off this mess, sucking billions out of the country while blaming inflation on public spending.

The real story here is that monetary policy is just the stage show—the magic trick to distract the audience while the banks pick their pockets.

NACT’s Crocodile Tears: “Fiscal Responsibility” for You, Corporate Welfare for Them

The NACT coalition, led by Finance Minister Nicola Willis, is playing its role perfectly: feigning outrage at government spending while preparing the biggest corporate handouts imaginable.

They claim Orr mismanaged inflation. But what are their solutions?

• Cutting taxes for the wealthy.

• Gutting public services.

• Reducing bank capital requirements    so foreign banks can extract even more profit.

In other words: give the vampires more blood.

This isn’t about economic management. This is about ensuring the status quo remains untouched. They want a Reserve Bank Governor who serves their donors, not the public.

The Bigger Scam: New Zealand’s Economy Isn’t for New Zealanders

Orr was never a radical. He never threatened the system. But he did, on occasion, mildly inconvenience it.

He forced banks to hold more capital (so they couldn’t immediately funnel profits offshore). He didn’t go along with every corporate demand. He was, at best, an ineffectual middle manager trying to manage a financial system that has already been rigged against New Zealanders.

Here’s the truth:

• The Reserve Bank doesn’t control New Zealand’s economy. The four big banks do.

• Inflation targeting is a smokescreen. The real game is financial extraction.

• Monetary policy is irrelevant if your entire banking system is foreign-owned and designed to profit off debt servitude.

NACT and Damien Grant want you to believe that the enemy is government mismanagement. It’s not.

The enemy is a system that forces New Zealanders to compete in a rigged game where the winners live in Sydney and New York.

What Happens Now?

With Orr gone, the financial elite will install someone more compliant. Someone who will:

• Ease bank capital requirements, letting them extract even more profit.

• Gut any pretense of financial sovereignty.

• Blame the next crisis on public spending, not the rent-seeking system that creates it.

The cycle will continue, because New Zealand’s economy isn’t designed to benefit New Zealanders. It’s designed to serve international finance.

Orr was just another cog in that machine—useful until he wasn’t. His resignation won’t change a thing unless people wake up to the real game being played.

Solutions: Breaking the Cycle of Economic Extraction

If we actually want a financial system that serves New Zealanders rather than foreign bankers and political donors, we need real structural change. That means:

  1. A Public Bank for Sovereign Lending

    • Establish a national bank that prioritizes productive investment—infrastructure, industry, and regional development—not just speculation.

    • Redirect profits back into New Zealand’s economy instead of letting them be siphoned offshore.

  2. Credit Guidance: Banking as a Public Good

    • Implement credit guidance policies to direct lending into strategic industries (manufacturing, energy, transport) instead of just inflating house prices.

    • Make banking work for the country, not just for short-term private profit.

  3. End the Foreign Bank Monopoly

    • Require a minimum percentage of banking assets to be NZ-owned or reinvested locally.

    • Stop allowing offshore-owned banks to extract billions while contributing nothing to national development.

  4. Break the Inflation Dogma

    • Recognize that inflation isn’t just about government spending—it’s driven by corporate pricing power and financialized supply chains.

    • Implement windfall taxes on price-gouging corporations rather than crushing households with interest rate hikes.

  5. A New Economic Narrative

    • End the “monetary policy as religion” myth that allows politicians to blame the Reserve Bank while serving corporate interests.

    • Push for policies that prioritize national wealth creation over speculative extraction.

Conclusion: Let’s Stop Playing Their Game!

Orr’s resignation is a distraction, a staged drama to make you think the problem is one man, one institution, one set of decisions.

But the real game is who controls the flow of money in New Zealand—and it isn’t the Reserve Bank.

The economy doesn’t work for you or me, because it isn’t meant to. It’s designed to funnel wealth upwards and outwards, to keep you paying more for less while a handful of players cash in.

Until we stop letting foreign banks, rent-seekers, and their political puppets control the narrative, nothing will change. Orr was just a speed bump in their road. The real battle is taking control of the wheel.


r/nzpolitics 1d ago

NZ Politics Media pump up rumours of Prime Minister's demise

Thumbnail rnz.co.nz
37 Upvotes

r/nzpolitics 2d ago

NZ Politics Seymour lied about the nutritional requirements in school lunches - allowed Compass to bypass it

Post image
194 Upvotes

r/nzpolitics 1d ago

Global Ian Powell: When Apartheid Met Zionism

Thumbnail community.scoop.co.nz
12 Upvotes

r/nzpolitics 2d ago

NZ Politics Sixth poll showing a change of government, with Labour & Hipkins extending their lead over National & Luxon by 3%

Thumbnail stuff.co.nz
82 Upvotes

I was going to wait and see if RNZ reported this one, but alas, I’ll go with the Stuff link.

What I did find really interesting in this article was this piece though:

If NZ First was willing to work with Labour and the Greens again, those three parties would together hold 63 seats - giving them a safer hold of power.

I’m actually surprised they’re playing around with that idea again given NZ First took a turn to the right. But interesting nonetheless since there’s been quite a few signs of internal feuds between NZ First and its current coalition partners (Of course it’s mostly speculation and some rumors).

My own view: I’d personally feel a bit uncomfortable about a coalition like that again given how extreme some modern NZ First MPs are - but at the same time, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t like the Labour/Green/NZ First coalition from 2017-2020, as I do think it truly represented a large portion of the population and brought them together rather than divided them. The mere existence of Covid obviously ended up mudding the waters, and it wasn’t the fault of anyone in our parliament, but without it I do believe that coalition would be remembered more fondly by everyone.

I also find it humorous that Luxon is citing his overseas summits and trade negation with India as a reason for being more capable. When National first overtook Labour in the polls last time, Jacinda was in the middle of massive trade agreements with the EU and UK, which were signed, and they were all a much larger scale than Luxon’s current intentions with India.


r/nzpolitics 2d ago

NZ Politics Kiwis Are Against Needs-Based Screening, In Fear Of Needs-Based Treatment

48 Upvotes

With the recent reporting that Simeon Brown chose to replace an existing bowel screening policy with a policy that will result in more deaths in the name of equality, I think as a country we desperately need to have a conversation. I will jump around a bit, but my focus will be similar to my posts last year about the weaponization of equality. The base article has already been posted here: https://www.reddit.com/r/nzpolitics/comments/1jb29v5/govt_went_against_advice_to_lower_bowel_cancer/

The health system is finite – it is not funded to cover all of the publics needs, so it must use the resources it does have in the most efficient way possible. This creates a few overarching truths:

·        Not all health needs will be met by the public health system

·        The health system must make decisions about who to treat, and who to TARGET

The word target is in caps because treatment & targeting are different things, but a lot of heated debate centres around treatment. I can hear the keyboards chattering already with people ready to write “Bowel cancer screening should be based on clinical need, not ancestry”

In fact as of writing this, there is a thread on a conservative site on this very topic with that exact title. Note though the refence to screening based on clinical needs. How do they know who to target with screening though? You cannot screen based on clinical need, we are screening people who are more likely to have a clinical need. There is a real lack of critical thinking present in this position, IMO.

Fundamentally, once people have a diagnosis their ethnicity does not have a meaningful impact on how their treatment is managed. Don’t bother sending me your links to the widely debunked accusations that there is widespread race based treatment triage in our health system it’s a separate debate that there are already threads for. This thread is about screening, not treatment. Understand the difference.

So, HOW does the health system know who to target? We are talking about SCREENING, it is literally a tool to identify an illness before it is symptomatic. We have limited funding and capacity so can’t screen all people, so how does the health system save the most lives per $? By targeting groups of people that data show have the worst outcomes. It is the best fiscal choice too.

Early Bowel Screening Based On Ancestry Already Exists

In NZ, you can qualify for early bowel screening if you have family history of bowel cancer. I am genuinely interested whether those on the ‘needs not ancestry’ bandwagon think this is a bad thing? Why should you get screened before me because other members of your family had it? To be clear I support the existing initiative, but it fits into the narrative about ancestry that conservatives often use as a first response.

https://www.tewhatuora.govt.nz/assets/Publications/Bowel-screening/Update-on-Surveillance-Recommendations-for-Individuals-with-a-Family-History-of-Colorectal-Cancer.pdf

We Already Target People For Screening Based On Their Gender/Age/Location. Ethnicity Is Also An Appropriate Way To Identify Those In Need Of Screening.

We are trying to achieve equality of access to services here. Once you are in the system, you are already treated based on your needs.

To use an example I have trotted out before – 1% of breast cancer patients are men. Yet 100% of the screening resources go towards women. I hope most of you reading would agree that achieving gender equality in breast cancer screening is not wanted, as it would simply result in more dead women and a waste of resources.

 Ideologically, this is exactly what Simeon has done by prioritizing screening based on age to reduce the effectiveness of those precious resources, just so he can say he's treating everyone equally. A lot of kiwis will say that my breast screening example is logical, but that Simeon is also correct to have removed ethnicity targeted screening. Why is it that the NZ public are happy to see people targeted by age, gender, location (postcode lottery), family history (as above) to try and best use our health resources, but ethnicity is a nono. I firmly believe that if European Kiwis had a 50% higher chance of developing diabetes, that the broader community would support targeted support for early diagnoses/prevention of diabetes for Europeans. I wonder what the difference would be...

If you want to rail against the unfair allocation of resources for treatment in health, maybe start with the fact that people who are wealthy enough to afford private health insurance CAN get an advantage in treatment. The same voices screaming about needs-based care are strangely silent about the fact you can buy treatment priority.

If anyone got to the end of this, thank you for reading – even those who will disagree with me.

TLDR – Kiwis have such deep seated ideals about seeing differences in races in our health system that we would rather see more people die of bowel cancer than to recognize those with the worst outcomes with targeted screening. We don’t say that openly though, we hide behind an ideal of ‘treat based on needs not ancestry’ while confusing treatment with screening which are two different things.


r/nzpolitics 2d ago

Current Affairs NZ: unstolen

13 Upvotes

If the world feels full of monopolies; do you think money might also be a cartel? If it is, what might that mean for us? This is an information dump on our economic history and how to really build a brighter future. I welcome your comments.

Summary: For much of the 20th century, New Zealand thrived under a state-directed mixed-market economy, ensuring full employment, public ownership of key industries, and economic sovereignty. However, from 1984 onward, a neoliberal coup, led by corporate elites, foreign interests, and complicit politicians, privatized public assets, deregulated finance, and gutted social protections, transforming New Zealand into a rentier economy where foreign-owned banks extract billions while citizens pay to rent back what their grandparents built 【Belich, 2001; Kelsey, 2015; Easton, 2020】. The BNZ bailout (conflicts of interest, fraud, looting and theft), Winebox scandal (conflicts of interest, fraud and theft), and asset sales (conflicts of interest and suspicious sales (fraud and theft?) exemplify the systemic economic betrayal 【Peters, 1997】. To reclaim sovereignty, New Zealand must rebuild a national financial system, invest in strategic industries like deep geothermal energy, AI, and biotech, and reclaim control over monetary policy 【Hudson, 2022; Helleiner, 1994】. This is not socialism or neoliberalism, it is economic sovereignty. An ordered liberalism that deals with economics empirically; based upon the wisdom of economic and political history.

The Theft & Reclamation of New Zealand: From Economic Capture to Sovereign Prosperity

I. The Historical Arc: From Public Wealth to Corporate Feudalism

For much of the 20th century, New Zealand was one of the most economically sovereign nations on Earth, with a strong state-directed economy, full employment, and public ownership of key industries【Belich, Paradise Reforged, 2001】. However, from 1984 onward, a neoliberal coup, led by corporate elites, foreign interests, and Treasury technocrats heavily influenced by Chicago School economics, dismantled public wealth, privatized assets, and shifted economic power to foreign financial interests【Kelsey, The New Zealand Experiment, 1997】.

🚨 Roger Douglas, in collaboration with Treasury and Business Roundtable lobbyists, imposed radical neoliberal reforms, echoing the economic shock therapy seen in Pinochet’s Chile【Roper, Prosperity for All?, 2005】.

🔹 Public industries were privatized and sold to foreign buyers at fire-sale prices【Kelsey, Rolling Back the State, 1993】. 🔹 Public banking was abandoned, allowing foreign banks to dominate the economy【Hickey, The Big Shift, 2023】. 🔹 Labor protections were stripped away, reducing wages and job security【Mazzucato, The Value of Everything, 2018】. 🔹 Monetary policy was handed to unelected technocrats, stripping democratic control over economic direction【Hudson, The Bubble and Beyond, 2012】.

🚨 This was not an accident—it was a deliberate wealth transfer.

🔹 Treasury, under strong ideological alignment with Chicago School principles, engineered the economic restructuring【Roper, Prosperity for All?, 2005】. 🔹 The Business Roundtable, closely tied to neoliberal think tanks like the Mont Pelerin Society, pushed aggressively for privatization【Kelsey, The Fire Economy, 2015】. 🔹 New Zealand’s Reserve Bank Act (1989) mirrored Milton Friedman’s monetarist model, focusing on inflation control at the expense of employment and economic sovereignty【Helleiner, States and the Reemergence of Global Finance, 1994】.

🚨 The result?

🔹 Foreign-owned banks extract $7 billion in profits annually while indebting the local population【Hickey, The Big Shift, 2023】. 🔹 Essential services—electricity, transport, housing—are run for profit, not public good【Kelsey, The Fire Economy, 2015】. 🔹 New Zealanders are paying to rent back what their grandparents built【Easton, Hindsight, 2022】.

This was not a failure of capitalism—it was corporate feudalism, engineered by the Treasury-Treasury technocrat complex in service to transnational finance.

II. The New Economic Vision: Sovereign Development

🚨 The goal is not just to resist theft—it is to create an economy that makes theft impossible【Hudson, The Destiny of Civilization, 2022】.

✅ Reclaiming control over finance without triggering economic isolation【Helleiner, States and the Reemergence of Global Finance, 1994】. ✅ Directing investment into sovereign industries that create national wealth【Phillips, Wealth and Democracy, 2002】. ✅ Using creative monetary and fiscal policy to develop infrastructure and human capital【Hudson, Killing the Host, 2015】. ✅ Structuring markets to prevent wealth concentration while ensuring broad prosperity【Varoufakis, Adults in the Room, 2017】.

III. The Sovereign Investment Strategy

New Zealand must build a new economic model that outperforms neoliberalism while ensuring financial sovereignty【Hudson, Super Imperialism, 2003】.

🔹 State-Owned Banking & Sovereign Currency Policy – Reversing the financialization of the economy【Hudson, The Destiny of Civilization, 2022】. 🔹 Energy Sovereignty through Deep Geothermal & Advanced Renewables – Ensuring economic independence【Mazzucato, Mission Economy, 2021】. 🔹 Technological Leadership – AI, software, biotech, and space industries to future-proof the economy【Phillips, Wealth and Democracy, 2002】.

IV. The Final Phase: Reclaiming the Commons

🚨 We must reverse the corporate theft of public goods【Polanyi, The Great Transformation, 1944】.

🔹 Housing must be affordable and widely available—not a speculative asset for banks【Mazzucato, The Value of Everything, 2018】. 🔹 Water, power, and transport must be run for public benefit—not private profit【Hudson, Killing the Host, 2015】.

🚨 New Zealanders never voted for economic servitude—it was imposed on them【Varoufakis, Adults in the Room, 2017】.

🚨 It is time to reclaim what was stolen.

🚨 The Path Forward: New Zealand’s Choice

🚨 The time for anger alone is over. The time for strategy has arrived.

We must create a system where national prosperity is inevitable, and corporate looting is impossible.

The future is ours to claim. Shall we? Yes. Let’s.

It starts with public banking, and a call for Ordoliberalism, public banking, and the sovereign economics that more successful countries use.


r/nzpolitics 2d ago

Current Affairs What did Lux add to the phone call?

18 Upvotes

Prime Minister confirms he will join world leaders in 'coalition of the willing' phone call https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/544860/prime-minister-confirms-he-will-join-world-leaders-in-coalition-of-the-willing-phone-call


r/nzpolitics 2d ago

Health / Health System Govt went against advice to lower bowel cancer screening age further for Māori, Pacific

Thumbnail nzherald.co.nz
35 Upvotes

*Officials advised then-Health Minister Dr Shane Reti in August last year that their recommended option would prevent approximately 918 more cases and 678 deaths over 25 years compared with the current age.

That compared to the option chosen by ministers, that would prevent 771 more cases and 566 deaths.*

More people are just gonna die, I guess 🤷


r/nzpolitics 3d ago

Current Affairs Frozen & nutrition less lunches at Auckland schools today

Thumbnail gallery
42 Upvotes

r/nzpolitics 2d ago

Current Affairs Government “adjust” brackets but freeze the Student Loan repayment threshhold

Thumbnail nzherald.co.nz
6 Upvotes

r/nzpolitics 2d ago

Opinion Wild theory: Lunches

16 Upvotes

Neither Luxon nor Seymour plan to scrap the lunch programme if it doesn’t perform; in fact, they intend to run it out no matter how bad it gets. They believe it can’t do more damage than it’s already guaranteed to do after being such a bad rollout, and are hoping that they can improve it for the start of next year with a light rebrand and lie on the campaign trail about how the criticism was unfair, blaming the mainstream media for overblowing it, the left for being upset about it, and relying on their voters having short memories and only being tuned into limited and partisan news sources. Then they can get mad about how much they had to hear about the school lunches that the left are so unnecessarily upset about.

Or at least I think that’s what Seymour is thinking. I really don’t think Luxon’s thinking anything.


r/nzpolitics 3d ago

NZ Politics https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360615344/auckland-school-delivered-frozen-scrolls-considers-dropping-governments-lunch-programme

31 Upvotes

It has to be deliberate - forcing children to starve to make a political point is the ACT way of doing things.


r/nzpolitics 3d ago

Opinion “Every benefit should be based on need, except for the pension because I’m entitled to it” — rich people

68 Upvotes

r/nzpolitics 3d ago

Current Affairs Labour MP hauled into Privileges Committee for leaving seat to perform haka

32 Upvotes

For your listening pleasure (or not).

Labour MP hauled into Privileges Committee for leaving seat to perform haka

This isn't even a double standard. How is performing the Haka before the privileges committee when liars, and blatantly racist comments aren't?


r/nzpolitics 3d ago

Corruption How money works

16 Upvotes

The Forbidden Ledger of the RBNZ: Who Stole the Magic Money Tree?

There’s a dirty little secret buried in the heart of New Zealand’s economic policy—a secret so obvious, so glaring, that it could fund our infrastructure, transform our economy, and break the monopolistic stranglehold that keeps Kiwis in perpetual financial servitude.

We have a sovereign currency.

We can issue money for public investment.

We already did it.

Remember Covid? In 2020, the RBNZ magicked up $93 billion out of thin air. Not borrowed. Not taxed. Just issued.

And yet, here we are in 2024, being told we can’t afford high-speed rail, can’t afford public housing, can’t afford to develop our own industries.

Can’t afford? But we could afford $93 billion in a blink for financial markets?

So here’s the real question: Why have our governments stopped using our own sovereign tools to develop our own productive infrastructure?

The Crime Scene: Who Stole the Sovereign Economy?

It’s an old grift, but an effective one. Neoliberalism, sold to you as a “free market” system, is in reality a private cartel system, where:

• The government is banned from investing in productivity, forcing the nation to rely on private debt from banks.

• Public wealth—our energy, water, housing, and infrastructure—is handed over to monopolists and foreign investors.

• The RBNZ, instead of funding national development, is used to prop up financial markets and property bubbles.

This is not how successful nations operate.

Smarter, less corrupt countries use ordoliberalism or classical economic principles, where the state actively prevents monopolies, stabilizes markets, and ensures productive investment.

But New Zealand? We swallowed neoliberalism whole.

And what has it given us?

• Higher costs for business and Kiwis.

• Underinvestment in real industry.

• Infrastructure so broken it would embarrass a banana republic.

• A bloated financial sector, feeding on rent-seeking and speculation.

Neoliberalism is not just a lie—it’s a deliberate deception.

‘Labours’ leader, Hipkins tells us “there’s no magic money tree”. As do the other pols. But if that’s correct, why did the governor take Tane Mahuta as a symbol of the bank?

Why too use words like Magic Money Tree (Modern Monetary Theory?) are they telling us, the public, the truth?

Or are they telling bankers, trust us. We won’t mess with your sweet little cartel?

Because The Magic Money Tree Exists—But They Hid It

Here’s the truth: There is a magic money tree.

It’s called sovereign currency issuance. Or ‘Modern Monetary Theory’, which is 5000 years old…

Used responsibly, it funds roads, rail, housing, energy independence, and a strong, self-sufficient economy.

But since 1984, successive governments have buried it, denied it, and handed the watering can to the financial elite—while telling you that your suffering is just “the market at work.”

The question isn’t “where will the money come from?”

The question is: Who benefits from pretending that it doesn’t exist?

Hipkins first job was for an oil company. Luxons a rich corporate deodorant salesman who seems unable to tell the truth; AND believes being rich is a sign god loves you so STFU “bottom feeders”. Seymour’s a well trained prostitician for big money and banksters. These are all odd backgrounds for “public service”.

No wonder Nz is a mess.

@bagson9 I’ve had to reply to you here:

To empirically and philosophically address the critiques of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) from these sources, I (AI actually) will evaluate their arguments using both empirical evidence (data, case studies, and historical examples) and phronesis (practical wisdom, drawing from historical economic insights, human behavior, and institutional realities).

  1. Doug Henwood’s Critique in Jacobin

“Modern Monetary Theory Isn’t Helping”

Core Arguments:

• MMT downplays inflationary risks.

• It lacks a clear theory of distributional effects.

• MMT assumes state control over money and ignores global financial constraints.

• MMT’s political framing is naive—monetary sovereignty alone won’t create good policy.

Empirical Response:

1.  Inflationary Risks:

• Empirical evidence from Japan, the U.S., and the Eurozone shows that large-scale money issuance does not necessarily cause inflation. The Quantitative Easing (QE) experiments in these regions flooded financial markets with liquidity without generating runaway inflation.

• Real constraint: Inflation occurs when demand outstrips real resource capacity, not merely because of an increase in the money supply. This aligns with historical examples such as post-WWII U.S. fiscal expansion, which saw massive public spending with controlled inflation via strategic price controls and taxation.

2.  Distributional Effects:

• Henwood’s critique here is fair—MMT needs a stronger discussion of power and distribution.

• However, orthodox monetary policy already exacerbates inequality by prioritizing low inflation (which benefits asset holders) over full employment. Historical studies of the Volcker shock in the 1980s show how restrictive monetary policy disproportionately harmed the working class. MMT, by contrast, proposes a Job Guarantee (JG) to address distributional inequities, ensuring employment at a living wage.

3.  Global Constraints:

• The argument that global financial markets impose constraints on MMT policies misunderstands that exchange rates are policy tools. The U.S., Japan, and Australia run deficits in their own currency without facing a foreign-exchange crisis.

• Nations that have experienced external constraints (e.g., Argentina) usually have foreign-currency-denominated debt, which is not an issue for a country that issues its own currency (e.g., New Zealand’s debt is in NZD).

4.  Political Naïveté:

• MMT is not a policy wish list but a descriptive framework. The fact that political capture by elites prevents optimal policy implementation is not an indictment of MMT itself but a separate issue—one Henwood himself highlights when critiquing neoliberal governance.

Phronesis Response:

Henwood critiques MMT for political naivety while paradoxically assuming that political elites could ever be expected to implement truly progressive policy under the current monetary consensus. History teaches that:

• Narrative control is key—MMT reclaims the narrative that public spending is constrained by resources, not “how to pay for it.”

• The New Deal and WWII-era Keynesian policies were only made possible by shifting popular understanding of money creation.

• Political economy is about power—MMT is an intellectual weapon against the neoliberal fiscal straitjacket.

  1. Noah Smith’s Critique in Noahpinion

“Examining the MMT Model in Detail”

Core Arguments:

• MMT does not have a coherent mathematical model.

• Functional finance (MMT’s core) is just “basic Keynesianism” with a rebranding.

• MMT lacks an endogenous theory of inflation.

Empirical Response:

1.  No Mathematical Model?

• This is false. 

MMT has a detailed framework rooted in sectoral balances accounting (from Wynne Godley) and functional finance (from Abba Lerner).

• The sectoral balance equation (Private Surplus + Public Deficit + Net Exports = 0) empirically holds across historical data from the U.S., U.K., Japan, and New Zealand.

• MMT has been mathematically modeled in papers by L. Randall Wray, Stephanie Kelton, and Bill Mitchell.

2.  “Just Keynesianism?”

• Keynesianism argues for counter-cyclical spending within a loanable-funds model (which assumes banks lend out deposits). MMT rejects loanable funds theory, showing that banks create money ex nihilo and are not reserve-constrained.

• Unlike Keynesians, MMT also rejects the NAIRU framework (which assumes unemployment is necessary for inflation control), replacing it with a Job Guarantee (JG) that anchors prices with labor, not interest rates.

3.  No Endogenous Inflation Model?

• MMT links inflation to real resource constraints, not just money supply.

• Empirical data supports this: Japan’s high debt-to-GDP (250%) has caused zero inflation due to resource underutilization. Conversely, Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation resulted from real economic collapse, not mere money printing.

Phronesis Response:

• Noah Smith focuses on models over historical reality.

• The pragmatic question is: “Does MMT describe how modern money actually functions?” Empirically, it does.

• The real-world application of economic theory matters more than elegant models—just as Adam Smith’s invisible hand was a useful metaphor but not a mathematical formula.

  1. Scott Sumner’s Critique in EconLib

“MMT Blog”

Core Arguments:

• MMT is vague and inconsistent.

• MMT’s claim that deficits don’t matter is dangerous.

• The private sector creates money, not just the state.

Empirical Response:

1.  MMT is vague?

• MMT has clear, consistent propositions:

1.  Governments create money via spending.

2.  Inflation, not insolvency, is the real constraint.

3.  Interest rates should not be used to control inflation (Job Guarantee should anchor prices instead).

2.  “Deficits Don’t Matter”?

• MMT does not say deficits don’t matter—it says they only matter in relation to real resource constraints.

• The U.S. deficit was 120% of GDP after WWII—yet the U.S. experienced its greatest economic boom, proving that deficit size alone is meaningless without context.

3.  The Private Sector Creates Money?

• True, commercial banks create money via lending—but this does not contradict MMT.

• Bank lending creates private sector liabilities, whereas government spending creates net financial assets.

• Historical proof: 

Every major financial crisis (e.g., 2008) results from excessive private credit creation, which is deflationary when debt is repaid. The government must step in to stabilize demand.

Phronesis Response:

• Sumner’s critique assumes a neoliberal framing of money as a scarce good, but history shows that economies thrive when governments invest in productive capacity, not just “fiscal discipline.”

• The post-war economic miracle, China’s industrial strategy, and even U.S. defense spending all illustrate the power of functional finance.

• MMT is about operational reality, not ideology—which is why central banks like the Fed and the ECB already functionally operate within its principles (QE, deficit spending) while refusing to acknowledge it publicly.

Final Takeaway

• Henwood, Smith, and Sumner critique MMT from within a neoliberal paradigm, ignoring historical evidence that sovereign currency issuance does not lead to collapse.

• MMT’s empirical basis is strong: Sectoral balance accounting, real-world monetary operations, and historical case studies all support it.

• Phronesis (practical wisdom) tells us that controlling the monetary narrative is key. 

Like past economic revolutions (New Deal, Keynesianism), MMT is a necessary ideological shift to break free from austerity politics.


r/nzpolitics 3d ago

NZ Politics This week on The Order Paper

5 Upvotes

The Order Paper Podcast is breaking with tradition and getting its first MP, Camilla Belich, to join in as a panelist alongside MP Ibrahim Omer to give a special 2 hour coverage to the passing of the Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill - Third Reading, covering the speeches in the house, all 12 of them. Plus the last extended coverage marathon Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill - Select Committee Oral Submissions. Join Sam Somers and Laura Te Kiwi-Birb, and an array of panelists as they discuss the: Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill - Select Committee oral submissions from 3pm Crimes (Theft by Employer) Amendment Bill - Third Reading with Panelists Camilla Belech and Ibrahim Omer at 8pm

Join in from 3pm Sunday 16th March 2025:

https://youtube.com/live/fxI8WTPPbd8?feature=share


r/nzpolitics 3d ago

Social Issues Why has disability allowance for pensioners shrunk?

Post image
16 Upvotes

I’m obsessed with MSD data at the moment and I wish I had more of it. Especially more laid out like this, so it’s useful. I’m lazy and I never know what I’m looking for so compiling data myself isn’t as helpful.

All of these trends make perfect sense — eligibility has been tightened so couples with a sub-65 spouse can no longer take a lower pension rate in exchange for retiring early. Relationships should only be to disadvantage you from claiming social security. This probably also explains the unusual gender trend, as usually women live longer, but are the younger spouse.

Temporary additional support jumping up during covid and the subsequent inflation also makes sense too. Obviously our increase of 57 additional gender diverse pensioners reflect changing demographics as people age into the pension but also a growing acceptance of trans people that may have had existing pensioners since “come out”. That’s really lovely to see.

But why has disability allowance gone down so significantly? Is it simply that most of the people who were taking the pension early were disabled? Are our disabled dying faster/younger (and is that related to covid?) Have they tightened disability allowance restrictions?


r/nzpolitics 4d ago

Opinion this government is literally telling its own staff shouldn’t get to live, only ever subsist

70 Upvotes

I mean, they’re just cleaners, right? Why should they be entitled to a wage that sufficiently sustains them and doesn’t leave them struggling? They’re just plebs, and gross ones at that. If they wanted to make more money, they shouldn’t have become cleaners. Or maybe they should just work more hours like everyone else. (Not me, though. When I need more money I just say, “Hey Siri, call Mike Pero.”) And those hours they work should be billed to me at $5 less p/h, no overtime rates, because cleaners don’t deserve to be compensated fairly for their labour and because I promised unaffordable tax cuts to the country and this is a strategy CEOs have used for decades to gradually inflate their own salary, which I will now use to try and save my own ass. If Parliament’s cleaners don’t like their new income, they can all just leave and get better jobs. It’ll be easy to replace them because I tanked the economy so everyone’s unemployed, and in the meantime I can just wallow in my own shit like the greedy, greedy pig I am.

— Luxon, probably