According to a recent post on Frog Blog it would appear so.
As well as randomly comparing the current crisis to the methodologically flawed “shock doctrine”, frog states that NZ MUST:
invest in rebuilding our local communities so that they are economically independent and self sustainable
This would surely only be the best thing to do if you have an extremely pessimistic outlook for the world and world trade.
Let us remember that there is a trade-off between the comfort and lack of “risk” associated with “sustainability” and the “return” associated with the world of free trade. If our nation is determined to produce things here that we are comparatively (relative to the rest of the world) worse at producing, then we will have a lower income – we will be able to buy less things.
Now, if we are especially afraid of a bad outcome, or if we place the probability of a collapse in world trade highly, then a movement towards sustainability within the nation makes sense. However, if we are not of this world view – the sacrifice associated with “sustainability” is not worth it.
I think the Green party, as well as the ACT party, both have the best intentions in mind. They want to help “society” – where their view of society stems from their own set of experiences and associated beliefs. However, has either party ever wondered why their view of what would help society differs so markedly from the others view (without trying to pin it on selfishness or stupidness).
Furthermore, has either party wondered why they can’t get a commanding share of the vote. I am sure that both parties put it down as a historical accident – they may say that “after all, most people in this country will vote National or Labour no matter what”. However, I see it differently – the majority of New Zealanders don’t vote for either party because the majority of New Zealanders don’t agree with their views on society and how government can help.