I prefer to replace ‘NZ Inc perspective’ with ‘growth perspective’. My experience is that NZ Inc implicitly refers to some measure of national income and calling it ‘growth’ indicates that you’re explicitly excluding everything else.

They’d try to build a happiness machine, spitting out units of happiness.

I call it a brewery, but people may have other ideas …

“Matt, can you please do a post on my anecdotal observation that whenever
something goes wrong, the reaction is “what will the government do
about it?””

You have an account – you can do a post 🙂

It is also relevant for the discussion around Fonterra and export diversity. There is a rally cry that NZ Inc must diversify. But if you create regulation that creates an entity like Fonterra and there is high global demand and prices for dairy, where do you expect resources to be allocated?

Matt, can you please do a post on my anecdotal observation that whenever something goes wrong, the reaction is “what will the government do about it?”

Isn’t there a role for using broad frameworks that already exist and using personal responsibility. Perhaps the reaction should be to wind back complicated policies rather than adding more?