Russel Norman

The greens are right to back down on QE. Their critics on the left are wrong to make QE a symbol of progressive orthodoxy.

I argued against the Greens policy because they proposed removing the independence of the Reserve Bank and linked monetary policy decisions to fiscal decisions about what we spend our money on, and because QE isn't right for New Zealand's economy right now.

Russel Norman dared to (gasp!) compare John Key's approach to politics with that of Robert Muldoon! Have you ever heard anything so outrageous (since the exact same comparison was made in relation to Helen Clark)? 

Russel Norman's speech to the Green Party's AGM in the weekend caused a bit of a splash - not so much for what he said, but how he said it.

Research by the Greens into just who bought the Mighty River Power shares show that those Mum and Dad investors were more like 'Mummy and Daddy dahling' investors

It's no secret that I'm no fan of National's partial asset-sales programme. To me it's always seemed like selling the rental property to pay to renovate the spare room. Why would you give away the long-term returns for the sake of a quick buck to spruce up a few schools, hospital and roads? Having said that, it's not the nuttiest of ideas, either.

In the different stories being told about the sell-off of Mighty River Power, not even numerals mean the same thing to everyone.

If you were to go searching for a place where absolute, unarguable truth could be found, you might think you would find it in the realm of mathematical certainty. After all, we like to say that numbers - unlike certain lowly ranked National Party MPs - never lie.

The quantitative easing policies suggested by the Green Party may or may not be a good idea. But the arguments being put up against it don't carry much weight.

First of all, an up front disclaimer. I have no formal training in economic theory (albeit that I dabble on occasion in some Law and Economics theory in the course of my day job).