Heh, reminds, me of this on Kiwiblog

“I only date and marry mainstream New Zealanders. Vote National”

“I only have consensual relationships with those that don’t want to put it all at risk. Vote Labour”

“I only mix with successful individuals. Vote Act”

“I don’t breed with immigrants or criminals. Vote NZ First”

“I don’t date. Vote Progressives”

“We’re all part of the whanau. Vote Maori”.

“I only date those who vote for accountability and fiscal responsibility…”

“Quote a line from Atlas Shrugged to me and i’m yours! Vote Libz”

“I only date after marriage. Vote United Future”

“I only date individuals non-aggressively with mutual voluntary consent and with full respect for each other’s private property. Vote Libertarianz”

“I only date stoners. Vote ALP… um… ACL… er… shit… f**k it, you wanna get high?”

“I only date hedgehogs. Vote McGillicuddy Serious”

“I only date people who vote Green, in a non threatening, gender neutral way”

For me – yes. There are things I would want to change – but no party is offering what I would deem a fair social trade-off

“Vote National, get the status quo”?

Agreed, you are completely right here.

However, even given there inconsistence, I believed that the range of policies that they were likely to introduce was better than I expected from the more consistent small parties.

Now, given my view of the inflation debate, and how it is going to be an issue at some point over the next three years, I can’t physically vote for Labour anymore – as I believe they will ruin the Reserve Bank Act.

As a result, I am really leaning towards voting for National of all parties – even though I don’t trust them in a lot of ways. Why, because I trust Bill English to protect the RBA and other economic policies – at least to a sufficient enough degree.

If anything shakes that then I really will have no idea who to vote for.

“anybody there ever get into geonomics?”

What is that?

I never even said anything about consistency in the whole thing. I do prefer parties to be consistent – but consistency alone isn’t sufficient to make me vote for a party is it 😉 . If a party consistently wants to do things I don’t want it to do I’m hardly going to vote for it ahead of a inconsistent party that is at least willing to implement some policies I do support

There is no way ACT would be seen as mainstream in the US due to ACT’s liberal social stance on issues. Not to mention that the USA’s “free” economy is that in name only.

Matt – “Given the policies of both parties, yes this is something I would say. Both parties are far too idealistic, and neither of them represents a particularly palatable trade-off between equity and efficiency – that seems extreme to me.”

What is the trouble with holding a consistent set of principles? The two centrist parties will say anything to get votes, yet that’s something you admire?

Interesting. Furthermore, in the 1980’s I bet milk and meat were very cheap – given that they had heavy domestic subsidies.

The reason that economists believe the current situation is preferable is because, by opening up trade with the rest of the world we have been able to focus on the things we are good at making and we have been able to trade them for a whole bunch of good quality stuff we don’t make.

The loss of cheap milk and houses in Queenstown is a loss – but the gain from cheaper vehicles and cheaper TV’s far outstrips that. If you want to see the alternative, look at the cost of cars in South Africa 😉

“The green sustainability thing is about not relying on frivolous consumer goods for happiness (consumerism). They used to say “the best things in life are free” but we don’t hear that anymore.”

Ok. If people want to consume stuff because it makes them happy that is fine by me – calling their choice “frivolous” appears to be a bit pretentious, although I am sure you don’t mean it in that way judging by the typically high quality of your comments here.

“Consumerism” is a term that has been coined so that people on the far left have some holistic “ism” to criticism, so that normal people don’t realise they are the ones being put down.

“Since we live in a socialist country the mainstream view is left from centre but not at the communist end of the sprectrum, so both parties are seen as extremists.”

I think you are right that it stems from our reference point Steve.