New Zealand dumped democratic socialism and now understands how to create a wealthy, happy people...

2aguy

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2014
111,952
52,206
2,290
Drop dead bernie.....how about doing what New Zealand has done....

America will have to relearn this lesson....

In 1950, New Zealand ranked as one of the 10 wealthiest countries on the planet, with a relatively free economy and strong protections for enterprise and property. Then, under the growing influence of welfare state ideas that were blossoming in Britain, the United States and most of the Western world as well, the country took a hard turn toward government control of economic life.

The next two decades produced a harvest of big government and stagnation. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, torturous regulations, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, costly labor strife, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated, incentive-sapping welfare system.

The central government in those years established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending. This was the “democratic socialism” that Bernie Sanders admires, but which New Zealanders eventually realized was a national calamity.

With an endless roster of failed government programs and economic ruin staring them in the face, the country’s leaders in 1984 embarked upon one of the most comprehensive economic liberalization programs ever undertaken in a developed nation. The two heroes most responsible for this radical redirection were Rog
------
All farm subsidies were ended in six months. Tariffs were cut by two-thirds almost immediately (today the average tariff is just 1.4 percent). Most imports enter the country completely free—or very nearly so—of any quota, duty, or other restriction.

Taxes were slashed. The top rate was cut to 33 percent, half of what it was when the big government crowd was in charge. The books were finally opened so people could actually see what government elites in Wellington were spending their money on.


From the mid 1980s into the 1990s, the New Zealand government sold off dozens of money-losing state enterprises. The government workforce in 1984 stood at 88,000. In 1996, after the most radical downsizing anywhere in recent memory, its public sector workforce stood at less than 36,000—a reduction of 59 percent.

Establishing a new business in New Zealand was made quick and easy, largely because the regulations that were not abolished were finally applied evenly and consistently. At the same time, compulsory union membership was abolished, as were union monopolies over various labor markets.
---

The dramatic changes paid handsome dividends. The national budget was balanced, inflation plummeted to negligible rates, and economic growth surged ahead at between 4 percent and 6 percent annually for years.

New Zealand’s national government bobs back and forth between the major political parties but the reforms of nearly four decades ago have remained largely intact. By some important indexes, the country is in a remarkable and enviable position.


 
Drop dead bernie.....how about doing what New Zealand has done....

America will have to relearn this lesson....

In 1950, New Zealand ranked as one of the 10 wealthiest countries on the planet, with a relatively free economy and strong protections for enterprise and property. Then, under the growing influence of welfare state ideas that were blossoming in Britain, the United States and most of the Western world as well, the country took a hard turn toward government control of economic life.

The next two decades produced a harvest of big government and stagnation. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, torturous regulations, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, costly labor strife, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated, incentive-sapping welfare system.

The central government in those years established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending. This was the “democratic socialism” that Bernie Sanders admires, but which New Zealanders eventually realized was a national calamity.

With an endless roster of failed government programs and economic ruin staring them in the face, the country’s leaders in 1984 embarked upon one of the most comprehensive economic liberalization programs ever undertaken in a developed nation. The two heroes most responsible for this radical redirection were Rog
------
All farm subsidies were ended in six months. Tariffs were cut by two-thirds almost immediately (today the average tariff is just 1.4 percent). Most imports enter the country completely free—or very nearly so—of any quota, duty, or other restriction.


Taxes were slashed. The top rate was cut to 33 percent, half of what it was when the big government crowd was in charge. The books were finally opened so people could actually see what government elites in Wellington were spending their money on.


From the mid 1980s into the 1990s, the New Zealand government sold off dozens of money-losing state enterprises. The government workforce in 1984 stood at 88,000. In 1996, after the most radical downsizing anywhere in recent memory, its public sector workforce stood at less than 36,000—a reduction of 59 percent.

Establishing a new business in New Zealand was made quick and easy, largely because the regulations that were not abolished were finally applied evenly and consistently. At the same time, compulsory union membership was abolished, as were union monopolies over various labor markets.
---

The dramatic changes paid handsome dividends. The national budget was balanced, inflation plummeted to negligible rates, and economic growth surged ahead at between 4 percent and 6 percent annually for years.

New Zealand’s national government bobs back and forth between the major political parties but the reforms of nearly four decades ago have remained largely intact. By some important indexes, the country is in a remarkable and enviable position.



Freedom isn't just economic, is it social. I'm not sure where New Zealand stands on the broad issues of social freedom, but, if they operate as Canada and other Commonwealth nations do, the liberty of it's citizens is always a secondary concern for the covert kakistocracy.

What America should do is get back to Americanism and stop looking to emulate other nations who regularly interfere with their own citizens opportunities. THAT will spell the end of ANY system in due time.
 
A most informative article 2aguy and I plan to watch the inserted links later for more. There is a lot that stood out from the article including New Zealand's excellent ratings on freedoms, fair elections, rated easy for business start-ups, and their balanced national budget. So much more and definitely worth reading.

From the OP's link: "The Heritage Foundation’s Index reveals in its analysis of New Zealand that subsidies are the lowest among OECD countries, and this has spurred the development of a vibrant and diversified agricultural sector.”

The US should take a hard look at the comparison between New Zealand's progress from Democratic Socialism to Capitalism over the last 4 decades with Venezuela's...a failed socialistic disaster with governmental control over economic life.

The author's factual observation should enlighten a few who doubt that capitalism is superior to socialism: "New Zealand’s experience is one of numerous examples in which socialism caused ruin that capitalism then fixed. (Germany under Ludwig Erhard after World War II is an especially spectacular one). I know of no cases in history in which capitalism produced disaster that socialism then repaired. None. The only thing socialism does for poor people, it seems, is give them lots of company. What New Zealand did, central-planning disasters from Venezuela to Cuba to California must eventually imitate to recover."
 
Drop dead bernie.....how about doing what New Zealand has done....

America will have to relearn this lesson....

In 1950, New Zealand ranked as one of the 10 wealthiest countries on the planet, with a relatively free economy and strong protections for enterprise and property. Then, under the growing influence of welfare state ideas that were blossoming in Britain, the United States and most of the Western world as well, the country took a hard turn toward government control of economic life.

The next two decades produced a harvest of big government and stagnation. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, torturous regulations, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, costly labor strife, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated, incentive-sapping welfare system.

The central government in those years established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending. This was the “democratic socialism” that Bernie Sanders admires, but which New Zealanders eventually realized was a national calamity.

With an endless roster of failed government programs and economic ruin staring them in the face, the country’s leaders in 1984 embarked upon one of the most comprehensive economic liberalization programs ever undertaken in a developed nation. The two heroes most responsible for this radical redirection were Rog
------
All farm subsidies were ended in six months. Tariffs were cut by two-thirds almost immediately (today the average tariff is just 1.4 percent). Most imports enter the country completely free—or very nearly so—of any quota, duty, or other restriction.


Taxes were slashed. The top rate was cut to 33 percent, half of what it was when the big government crowd was in charge. The books were finally opened so people could actually see what government elites in Wellington were spending their money on.


From the mid 1980s into the 1990s, the New Zealand government sold off dozens of money-losing state enterprises. The government workforce in 1984 stood at 88,000. In 1996, after the most radical downsizing anywhere in recent memory, its public sector workforce stood at less than 36,000—a reduction of 59 percent.

Establishing a new business in New Zealand was made quick and easy, largely because the regulations that were not abolished were finally applied evenly and consistently. At the same time, compulsory union membership was abolished, as were union monopolies over various labor markets.
---

The dramatic changes paid handsome dividends. The national budget was balanced, inflation plummeted to negligible rates, and economic growth surged ahead at between 4 percent and 6 percent annually for years.

New Zealand’s national government bobs back and forth between the major political parties but the reforms of nearly four decades ago have remained largely intact. By some important indexes, the country is in a remarkable and enviable position.



Freedom isn't just economic, is it social. I'm not sure where New Zealand stands on the broad issues of social freedom, but, if they operate as Canada and other Commonwealth nations do, the liberty of it's citizens is always a secondary concern for the covert kakistocracy.

What America should do is get back to Americanism and stop looking to emulate other nations who regularly interfere with their own citizens opportunities. THAT will spell the end of ANY system in due time.
Here are a couple of links with rankings for personal freedom.

Cato Institute-Human Freedom Index 2020:
"The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Estonia, and Germany and Sweden (tied in 9th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Japan (11), the United Kingdom and the United States (tied in 17th place), Taiwan (19), South Korea (26), Chile (30), France (33), South Africa (68), Argentina (70), Mexico (86), Brazil (88), Kenya (93), India (111), Russia (115), Turkey (119), China (129), Saudi Arabia (151), Egypt (157), Iran (158), Venezuela (160), and Syria (162)."

New Zealand ranked 10th by Legatum Prosperity Index 2020 in social freedom with Norway, Sweden Denmark ranked top 3.
 
Drop dead bernie.....how about doing what New Zealand has done....

America will have to relearn this lesson....

In 1950, New Zealand ranked as one of the 10 wealthiest countries on the planet, with a relatively free economy and strong protections for enterprise and property. Then, under the growing influence of welfare state ideas that were blossoming in Britain, the United States and most of the Western world as well, the country took a hard turn toward government control of economic life.

The next two decades produced a harvest of big government and stagnation. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, torturous regulations, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, costly labor strife, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated, incentive-sapping welfare system.

The central government in those years established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending. This was the “democratic socialism” that Bernie Sanders admires, but which New Zealanders eventually realized was a national calamity.

With an endless roster of failed government programs and economic ruin staring them in the face, the country’s leaders in 1984 embarked upon one of the most comprehensive economic liberalization programs ever undertaken in a developed nation. The two heroes most responsible for this radical redirection were Rog
------
All farm subsidies were ended in six months. Tariffs were cut by two-thirds almost immediately (today the average tariff is just 1.4 percent). Most imports enter the country completely free—or very nearly so—of any quota, duty, or other restriction.


Taxes were slashed. The top rate was cut to 33 percent, half of what it was when the big government crowd was in charge. The books were finally opened so people could actually see what government elites in Wellington were spending their money on.


From the mid 1980s into the 1990s, the New Zealand government sold off dozens of money-losing state enterprises. The government workforce in 1984 stood at 88,000. In 1996, after the most radical downsizing anywhere in recent memory, its public sector workforce stood at less than 36,000—a reduction of 59 percent.

Establishing a new business in New Zealand was made quick and easy, largely because the regulations that were not abolished were finally applied evenly and consistently. At the same time, compulsory union membership was abolished, as were union monopolies over various labor markets.
---

The dramatic changes paid handsome dividends. The national budget was balanced, inflation plummeted to negligible rates, and economic growth surged ahead at between 4 percent and 6 percent annually for years.

New Zealand’s national government bobs back and forth between the major political parties but the reforms of nearly four decades ago have remained largely intact. By some important indexes, the country is in a remarkable and enviable position.



Freedom isn't just economic, is it social. I'm not sure where New Zealand stands on the broad issues of social freedom, but, if they operate as Canada and other Commonwealth nations do, the liberty of it's citizens is always a secondary concern for the covert kakistocracy.

What America should do is get back to Americanism and stop looking to emulate other nations who regularly interfere with their own citizens opportunities. THAT will spell the end of ANY system in due time.
Here are a couple of links with rankings for personal freedom.

Cato Institute-Human Freedom Index 2020:
"The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Estonia, and Germany and Sweden (tied in 9th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Japan (11), the United Kingdom and the United States (tied in 17th place), Taiwan (19), South Korea (26), Chile (30), France (33), South Africa (68), Argentina (70), Mexico (86), Brazil (88), Kenya (93), India (111), Russia (115), Turkey (119), China (129), Saudi Arabia (151), Egypt (157), Iran (158), Venezuela (160), and Syria (162)."

New Zealand ranked 10th by Legatum Prosperity Index 2020 in social freedom with Norway, Sweden Denmark ranked top 3.


Yeah...I think Hong Kong just dropped off that list...
 
Drop dead bernie.....how about doing what New Zealand has done....

America will have to relearn this lesson....

In 1950, New Zealand ranked as one of the 10 wealthiest countries on the planet, with a relatively free economy and strong protections for enterprise and property. Then, under the growing influence of welfare state ideas that were blossoming in Britain, the United States and most of the Western world as well, the country took a hard turn toward government control of economic life.

The next two decades produced a harvest of big government and stagnation. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, torturous regulations, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, costly labor strife, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated, incentive-sapping welfare system.

The central government in those years established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending. This was the “democratic socialism” that Bernie Sanders admires, but which New Zealanders eventually realized was a national calamity.

With an endless roster of failed government programs and economic ruin staring them in the face, the country’s leaders in 1984 embarked upon one of the most comprehensive economic liberalization programs ever undertaken in a developed nation. The two heroes most responsible for this radical redirection were Rog
------
All farm subsidies were ended in six months. Tariffs were cut by two-thirds almost immediately (today the average tariff is just 1.4 percent). Most imports enter the country completely free—or very nearly so—of any quota, duty, or other restriction.


Taxes were slashed. The top rate was cut to 33 percent, half of what it was when the big government crowd was in charge. The books were finally opened so people could actually see what government elites in Wellington were spending their money on.


From the mid 1980s into the 1990s, the New Zealand government sold off dozens of money-losing state enterprises. The government workforce in 1984 stood at 88,000. In 1996, after the most radical downsizing anywhere in recent memory, its public sector workforce stood at less than 36,000—a reduction of 59 percent.

Establishing a new business in New Zealand was made quick and easy, largely because the regulations that were not abolished were finally applied evenly and consistently. At the same time, compulsory union membership was abolished, as were union monopolies over various labor markets.
---

The dramatic changes paid handsome dividends. The national budget was balanced, inflation plummeted to negligible rates, and economic growth surged ahead at between 4 percent and 6 percent annually for years.

New Zealand’s national government bobs back and forth between the major political parties but the reforms of nearly four decades ago have remained largely intact. By some important indexes, the country is in a remarkable and enviable position.


So now they have their own society full of have and have nots..congrats..
 
Drop dead bernie.....how about doing what New Zealand has done....

America will have to relearn this lesson....

In 1950, New Zealand ranked as one of the 10 wealthiest countries on the planet, with a relatively free economy and strong protections for enterprise and property. Then, under the growing influence of welfare state ideas that were blossoming in Britain, the United States and most of the Western world as well, the country took a hard turn toward government control of economic life.

The next two decades produced a harvest of big government and stagnation. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, torturous regulations, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, costly labor strife, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated, incentive-sapping welfare system.

The central government in those years established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending. This was the “democratic socialism” that Bernie Sanders admires, but which New Zealanders eventually realized was a national calamity.

With an endless roster of failed government programs and economic ruin staring them in the face, the country’s leaders in 1984 embarked upon one of the most comprehensive economic liberalization programs ever undertaken in a developed nation. The two heroes most responsible for this radical redirection were Rog
------
All farm subsidies were ended in six months. Tariffs were cut by two-thirds almost immediately (today the average tariff is just 1.4 percent). Most imports enter the country completely free—or very nearly so—of any quota, duty, or other restriction.


Taxes were slashed. The top rate was cut to 33 percent, half of what it was when the big government crowd was in charge. The books were finally opened so people could actually see what government elites in Wellington were spending their money on.


From the mid 1980s into the 1990s, the New Zealand government sold off dozens of money-losing state enterprises. The government workforce in 1984 stood at 88,000. In 1996, after the most radical downsizing anywhere in recent memory, its public sector workforce stood at less than 36,000—a reduction of 59 percent.

Establishing a new business in New Zealand was made quick and easy, largely because the regulations that were not abolished were finally applied evenly and consistently. At the same time, compulsory union membership was abolished, as were union monopolies over various labor markets.
---

The dramatic changes paid handsome dividends. The national budget was balanced, inflation plummeted to negligible rates, and economic growth surged ahead at between 4 percent and 6 percent annually for years.

New Zealand’s national government bobs back and forth between the major political parties but the reforms of nearly four decades ago have remained largely intact. By some important indexes, the country is in a remarkable and enviable position.



Freedom isn't just economic, is it social. I'm not sure where New Zealand stands on the broad issues of social freedom, but, if they operate as Canada and other Commonwealth nations do, the liberty of it's citizens is always a secondary concern for the covert kakistocracy.

What America should do is get back to Americanism and stop looking to emulate other nations who regularly interfere with their own citizens opportunities. THAT will spell the end of ANY system in due time.
Here are a couple of links with rankings for personal freedom.

Cato Institute-Human Freedom Index 2020:
"The jurisdictions that took the top 10 places, in order, were New Zealand, Switzerland, Hong Kong, Denmark, Australia, Canada, Ireland, Estonia, and Germany and Sweden (tied in 9th place). Selected countries rank as follows: Japan (11), the United Kingdom and the United States (tied in 17th place), Taiwan (19), South Korea (26), Chile (30), France (33), South Africa (68), Argentina (70), Mexico (86), Brazil (88), Kenya (93), India (111), Russia (115), Turkey (119), China (129), Saudi Arabia (151), Egypt (157), Iran (158), Venezuela (160), and Syria (162)."

New Zealand ranked 10th by Legatum Prosperity Index 2020 in social freedom with Norway, Sweden Denmark ranked top 3.


Yeah...I think Hong Kong just dropped off that list...
Indeed I'm sure you're right, and of course more one-upping recently by China after UK offered dual citizenship to Hong Kong's passport holders- China has announced it will no longer recognize the passports of British national overseas citizens. No surprise of course.
 
Drop dead bernie.....how about doing what New Zealand has done....

America will have to relearn this lesson....

In 1950, New Zealand ranked as one of the 10 wealthiest countries on the planet, with a relatively free economy and strong protections for enterprise and property. Then, under the growing influence of welfare state ideas that were blossoming in Britain, the United States and most of the Western world as well, the country took a hard turn toward government control of economic life.

The next two decades produced a harvest of big government and stagnation. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, torturous regulations, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, costly labor strife, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated, incentive-sapping welfare system.

The central government in those years established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending. This was the “democratic socialism” that Bernie Sanders admires, but which New Zealanders eventually realized was a national calamity.

With an endless roster of failed government programs and economic ruin staring them in the face, the country’s leaders in 1984 embarked upon one of the most comprehensive economic liberalization programs ever undertaken in a developed nation. The two heroes most responsible for this radical redirection were Rog
------
All farm subsidies were ended in six months. Tariffs were cut by two-thirds almost immediately (today the average tariff is just 1.4 percent). Most imports enter the country completely free—or very nearly so—of any quota, duty, or other restriction.


Taxes were slashed. The top rate was cut to 33 percent, half of what it was when the big government crowd was in charge. The books were finally opened so people could actually see what government elites in Wellington were spending their money on.


From the mid 1980s into the 1990s, the New Zealand government sold off dozens of money-losing state enterprises. The government workforce in 1984 stood at 88,000. In 1996, after the most radical downsizing anywhere in recent memory, its public sector workforce stood at less than 36,000—a reduction of 59 percent.

Establishing a new business in New Zealand was made quick and easy, largely because the regulations that were not abolished were finally applied evenly and consistently. At the same time, compulsory union membership was abolished, as were union monopolies over various labor markets.
---

The dramatic changes paid handsome dividends. The national budget was balanced, inflation plummeted to negligible rates, and economic growth surged ahead at between 4 percent and 6 percent annually for years.

New Zealand’s national government bobs back and forth between the major political parties but the reforms of nearly four decades ago have remained largely intact. By some important indexes, the country is in a remarkable and enviable position.



Same story in Sweden, about the same time too. Why anybody thinks it'll be different here is beyond me. But I worry that America has too many people who want to live on someone else's dime, and our election process seems to be somewhat fraudulent. Other countries voted out their democratic socialists. I'm not too sure Americans will be allowed to do the same thing.
 
They still have state health care though.


For the 2010-2014 period, the study found cancer survival rates were better in Australia, Canada and Norway than in New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland and the UK.​
New Zealand had the second worst five-year survival rate (the percentage of patients alive five years after diagnosis) for pancreatic, ovarian and lung cancer (8.2 per cent, 36.3 per cent and 15.5 per cent respectively) for 2010-14.​
For five-year survival, the country also had the lowest level of improvement for every type of cancer bar one across the 20-year period.​
Jackson said this was most obvious for lung and colon cancer survival rates. Between 1995 and 1999, New Zealand had gone from having one of the top three rates, alongside Australia and Canada, to being towards the bottom of the pack.​

I always love these, because researchers refuse to even look at US survival rates, because we are always top of the world, and we're not as socialized as all the rest.

So instead of reporting that devastating truth, they just omit the US. They'll even report Canada's survival rates, but ignore the US.
 
A most informative article 2aguy and I plan to watch the inserted links later for more. There is a lot that stood out from the article including New Zealand's excellent ratings on freedoms, fair elections, rated easy for business start-ups, and their balanced national budget. So much more and definitely worth reading.

From the OP's link: "The Heritage Foundation’s Index reveals in its analysis of New Zealand that subsidies are the lowest among OECD countries, and this has spurred the development of a vibrant and diversified agricultural sector.”

The US should take a hard look at the comparison between New Zealand's progress from Democratic Socialism to Capitalism over the last 4 decades with Venezuela's...a failed socialistic disaster with governmental control over economic life.

The author's factual observation should enlighten a few who doubt that capitalism is superior to socialism: "New Zealand’s experience is one of numerous examples in which socialism caused ruin that capitalism then fixed. (Germany under Ludwig Erhard after World War II is an especially spectacular one). I know of no cases in history in which capitalism produced disaster that socialism then repaired. None. The only thing socialism does for poor people, it seems, is give them lots of company. What New Zealand did, central-planning disasters from Venezuela to Cuba to California must eventually imitate to recover."
New Zealand has very restrictive immigration policies as well. They definitely don't have to worry about people walking or swimming across their borders. That is one of the top three problems this country faces.
 
Drop dead bernie.....how about doing what New Zealand has done....

America will have to relearn this lesson....

In 1950, New Zealand ranked as one of the 10 wealthiest countries on the planet, with a relatively free economy and strong protections for enterprise and property. Then, under the growing influence of welfare state ideas that were blossoming in Britain, the United States and most of the Western world as well, the country took a hard turn toward government control of economic life.

The next two decades produced a harvest of big government and stagnation. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, torturous regulations, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, costly labor strife, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated, incentive-sapping welfare system.

The central government in those years established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending. This was the “democratic socialism” that Bernie Sanders admires, but which New Zealanders eventually realized was a national calamity.

With an endless roster of failed government programs and economic ruin staring them in the face, the country’s leaders in 1984 embarked upon one of the most comprehensive economic liberalization programs ever undertaken in a developed nation. The two heroes most responsible for this radical redirection were Rog
------
All farm subsidies were ended in six months. Tariffs were cut by two-thirds almost immediately (today the average tariff is just 1.4 percent). Most imports enter the country completely free—or very nearly so—of any quota, duty, or other restriction.


Taxes were slashed. The top rate was cut to 33 percent, half of what it was when the big government crowd was in charge. The books were finally opened so people could actually see what government elites in Wellington were spending their money on.


From the mid 1980s into the 1990s, the New Zealand government sold off dozens of money-losing state enterprises. The government workforce in 1984 stood at 88,000. In 1996, after the most radical downsizing anywhere in recent memory, its public sector workforce stood at less than 36,000—a reduction of 59 percent.

Establishing a new business in New Zealand was made quick and easy, largely because the regulations that were not abolished were finally applied evenly and consistently. At the same time, compulsory union membership was abolished, as were union monopolies over various labor markets.
---

The dramatic changes paid handsome dividends. The national budget was balanced, inflation plummeted to negligible rates, and economic growth surged ahead at between 4 percent and 6 percent annually for years.

New Zealand’s national government bobs back and forth between the major political parties but the reforms of nearly four decades ago have remained largely intact. By some important indexes, the country is in a remarkable and enviable position.


So now they have their own society full of have and have nots..congrats..

"If the gap between rich and poor concerns you, you should be happy to know that New Zealand scores relatively well by that indicator too. The Gini Coefficient, crude though it may be, is the most often cited representation of a country’s wealth inequality. It ranges between 0 (everyone has the same income) and 1 (one resident earns everything, nobody else earns anything). World Population Review claims that New Zealand’s Gini is 0.672, better than the world average of 0.74. The same index reveals the country with the best Gini in the world is the U.S., at 0.480."

 
They still have state health care though.


For the 2010-2014 period, the study found cancer survival rates were better in Australia, Canada and Norway than in New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland and the UK.​
New Zealand had the second worst five-year survival rate (the percentage of patients alive five years after diagnosis) for pancreatic, ovarian and lung cancer (8.2 per cent, 36.3 per cent and 15.5 per cent respectively) for 2010-14.​
For five-year survival, the country also had the lowest level of improvement for every type of cancer bar one across the 20-year period.​
Jackson said this was most obvious for lung and colon cancer survival rates. Between 1995 and 1999, New Zealand had gone from having one of the top three rates, alongside Australia and Canada, to being towards the bottom of the pack.​

I always love these, because researchers refuse to even look at US survival rates, because we are always top of the world, and we're not as socialized as all the rest.
but
So instead of reporting that devastating truth, they just omit the US. They'll even report Canada's survival rates, but ignore the US.
Rest assured there Andyllusion that pancreatic cancer 5 year survival rates are bad worldwide if you are referring to stage IV. You'd have to be more precise as to which stage of cancer for your "second worst 5 year survival" so we compare notes. To pull out a 2010-14 stat is a bit outdated, considering the rate of new information is currently doubling every 6 months-certainly inclusive of medical. You have selected the three worse types of cancers for your analysis, yet didn't show a comparative analysis...but you know this Andy Illusion;) Ovarian cancer has similar outcome stats but a bit more promising than PC, but again depends upon the stage for accurate comparisons to be made.
 
They still have state health care though.


For the 2010-2014 period, the study found cancer survival rates were better in Australia, Canada and Norway than in New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland and the UK.​
New Zealand had the second worst five-year survival rate (the percentage of patients alive five years after diagnosis) for pancreatic, ovarian and lung cancer (8.2 per cent, 36.3 per cent and 15.5 per cent respectively) for 2010-14.​
For five-year survival, the country also had the lowest level of improvement for every type of cancer bar one across the 20-year period.​
Jackson said this was most obvious for lung and colon cancer survival rates. Between 1995 and 1999, New Zealand had gone from having one of the top three rates, alongside Australia and Canada, to being towards the bottom of the pack.​

I always love these, because researchers refuse to even look at US survival rates, because we are always top of the world, and we're not as socialized as all the rest.
but
So instead of reporting that devastating truth, they just omit the US. They'll even report Canada's survival rates, but ignore the US.
Rest assured there Andyllusion that pancreatic cancer 5 year survival rates are bad worldwide if you are referring to stage IV. You'd have to be more precise as to which stage of cancer for your "second worst 5 year survival" so we compare notes. To pull out a 2010-14 stat is a bit outdated, considering the rate of new information is currently doubling every 6 months-certainly inclusive of medical. You have selected the three worse types of cancers for your analysis, yet didn't show a comparative analysis...but you know this Andy Illusion;) Ovarian cancer has similar outcome stats but a bit more promising than PC, but again depends upon the stage for accurate comparisons to be made.

Sure. If you look at over all averages, we're still number one.

Finding comparative research data between specific stages, is difficult simply because no one does it. Or at least, none of the research I've found in the last 20 years, has done it.
 
They still have state health care though.


For the 2010-2014 period, the study found cancer survival rates were better in Australia, Canada and Norway than in New Zealand, Denmark, Ireland and the UK.​
New Zealand had the second worst five-year survival rate (the percentage of patients alive five years after diagnosis) for pancreatic, ovarian and lung cancer (8.2 per cent, 36.3 per cent and 15.5 per cent respectively) for 2010-14.​
For five-year survival, the country also had the lowest level of improvement for every type of cancer bar one across the 20-year period.​
Jackson said this was most obvious for lung and colon cancer survival rates. Between 1995 and 1999, New Zealand had gone from having one of the top three rates, alongside Australia and Canada, to being towards the bottom of the pack.​

I always love these, because researchers refuse to even look at US survival rates, because we are always top of the world, and we're not as socialized as all the rest.
but
So instead of reporting that devastating truth, they just omit the US. They'll even report Canada's survival rates, but ignore the US.
Rest assured there Andyllusion that pancreatic cancer 5 year survival rates are bad worldwide if you are referring to stage IV. You'd have to be more precise as to which stage of cancer for your "second worst 5 year survival" so we compare notes. To pull out a 2010-14 stat is a bit outdated, considering the rate of new information is currently doubling every 6 months-certainly inclusive of medical. You have selected the three worse types of cancers for your analysis, yet didn't show a comparative analysis...but you know this Andy Illusion;) Ovarian cancer has similar outcome stats but a bit more promising than PC, but again depends upon the stage for accurate comparisons to be made.

Sure. If you look at over all averages, we're still number one.

Finding comparative research data between specific stages, is difficult simply because no one does it. Or at least, none of the research I've found in the last 20 years, has done it.
Maybe I'm unclear about what you're stating but every cancer as you know has stages and outcomes per stage are compared within each type of cancer. Now, if you're asking for sites that compare say, stage 4 PC and stage four colon cancer, I'd bet money that that's there too, I just haven't looked.

This one shows PC only with comparing the 4 different stages with four differing outcomes on average.
 
Drop dead bernie.....how about doing what New Zealand has done....

America will have to relearn this lesson....

In 1950, New Zealand ranked as one of the 10 wealthiest countries on the planet, with a relatively free economy and strong protections for enterprise and property. Then, under the growing influence of welfare state ideas that were blossoming in Britain, the United States and most of the Western world as well, the country took a hard turn toward government control of economic life.

The next two decades produced a harvest of big government and stagnation. Increasingly, New Zealanders found themselves victims of exorbitant tariffs, torturous regulations, massive farm subsidies, a huge public debt, chronic budget deficits, rising inflation, costly labor strife, a top marginal income tax rate of 66 percent, and a gold-plated, incentive-sapping welfare system.

The central government in those years established its own monopolies in the rail, telecommunications, and electric power businesses. About the only things that grew during the period from 1975 to 1983 were unemployment, taxes, and government spending. This was the “democratic socialism” that Bernie Sanders admires, but which New Zealanders eventually realized was a national calamity.

With an endless roster of failed government programs and economic ruin staring them in the face, the country’s leaders in 1984 embarked upon one of the most comprehensive economic liberalization programs ever undertaken in a developed nation. The two heroes most responsible for this radical redirection were Rog
------
All farm subsidies were ended in six months. Tariffs were cut by two-thirds almost immediately (today the average tariff is just 1.4 percent). Most imports enter the country completely free—or very nearly so—of any quota, duty, or other restriction.


Taxes were slashed. The top rate was cut to 33 percent, half of what it was when the big government crowd was in charge. The books were finally opened so people could actually see what government elites in Wellington were spending their money on.


From the mid 1980s into the 1990s, the New Zealand government sold off dozens of money-losing state enterprises. The government workforce in 1984 stood at 88,000. In 1996, after the most radical downsizing anywhere in recent memory, its public sector workforce stood at less than 36,000—a reduction of 59 percent.

Establishing a new business in New Zealand was made quick and easy, largely because the regulations that were not abolished were finally applied evenly and consistently. At the same time, compulsory union membership was abolished, as were union monopolies over various labor markets.
---

The dramatic changes paid handsome dividends. The national budget was balanced, inflation plummeted to negligible rates, and economic growth surged ahead at between 4 percent and 6 percent annually for years.

New Zealand’s national government bobs back and forth between the major political parties but the reforms of nearly four decades ago have remained largely intact. By some important indexes, the country is in a remarkable and enviable position.


So now they have their own society full of have and have nots..congrats..

You fail to realize that under the old system most people became have nots over time.
 
> New Zealand Maori lawmaker kicked out of parliament for refusing to wear a tie, calling it a "colonial noose"
It looks like a tie to me. Certainly as much as a "bolo tie" is considered a tie, versus a pendant.
The shirt is buttoned up far enough to be decent for formal business attire.
Any more than that is asking too much.
 

Forum List

Back
Top