KEY POINTS:
I have only a few words to say to Stephen Jennings, the Taranaki-born billionaire moneylender who made his fortune in Russia: Bugger off back there and take your laissez-faire capitalist hogwash with you.
And, as a favour to Kiwis, you could find obscenely highly paid jobs for the leading lights of the Business Roundtable, plus Roger Douglas and Ruth Richardson, and take them with you.
It has to be the joke of the year that Mr Jennings would peddle his financial theories to Kiwis while the world's financial structures, particularly the moneylending ones, are falling down around the ears of those whose boundless avarice constructed, and inevitably destroyed, them.
His fortune was made, as were so many here, in the uncontrolled disposal of state-run businesses and industries, without any consideration of the effects that might have on the men and women in the street.
In May, the Russian state statistics service recorded 18.9 million people living in poverty, or 13.4 per cent of the population.
But kommersant.com, the Russian online news service, reports that experts estimate the level of poverty to be much higher - 20 to 22 per cent - and are concerned that the ever-rising inflation rate will lead to increased poverty.
And the Russian Ministry of Economic Development and Trade has throughout this year continued to raise its inflation forecasts. In April, it upped its predicted rate for 2008 to 9.5 per cent but this month the forecast has grown to 10.5 per cent.
Many economists, however, are sceptical that the ministry is adequately gauging inflation and predict that the actual rate will be closer to 15 or even 20 per cent. Studies indicate that only 8 per cent of state social assistance reaches the poorest tenth of the population and that one-fifth of poor households receive nothing at all. That Government assistance, such as maternity benefits, has been severely slashed.
Organised crime reaps untold billions from the Russian economy, its tentacles reaching far into politics, the bureaucracy, business and industry. Official studies reveal that alcohol-related illnesses continue to account for one in eight of all deaths in Russia and conclude that there are at least 2.3 million alcoholics. The population is declining by 700,000 a year and male life expectancy has fallen to less than 59 years, compared with 72 for women.
Meanwhile, Mr Jennings and dozens like him become multibillionaires. And guess what? He advocates reducing the size of government, "changing" the welfare system, reducing taxes and "debating" the "sacred cows" such as the health system.
In other words, we should make sure that the rich pay less tax, cut welfare to the bone and do away with our "free" health services.
Only reducing the size of government makes sense, because it has grown out of all proportion in nine years of Labour rule and has become a serious drain on our economy and an impediment to efficiency.
We are about to have a change of government, probably a stand-alone National one, and it has to be conceded that there is an element in that party for whom Mr Jennings' prescriptions have more than a little appeal.
So let them be warned. The New Zealand public will not tolerate any return to the policies of the Douglas and Richardson years. If there is so much as a hint of it, National can expect to last a mere three years.
What John Key and co really need to do is undertake a searching and fearless inspection of the uncritically accepted principle of "economic growth" which has governed economic thinking for far too long.
They could, perhaps, begin by studying the works of the noted commentator John P. Tiemstra, a professor of economics and business at Calvin College, in Grand Rapids, Michigan, a Christian liberal arts college.
In his 2008 presidential address to the American Association for Social Economics, titled "Rethinking the Costs of Economic Growth", he concluded:
"Contrary to what many economists seem to believe, economic growth is not the solution to all problems or the answer to all moral dilemmas. The value of economic growth depends on the uses to which we put it.
"Growth that only provides more toys for the top third of the population is not worth the costs. Growth that creates better nutrition, health and education for the bottom half is worthwhile.
"So when our crass, craven politicians suggest that the sum total of their vision for society is more economic growth, we should reject them.
"With great wisdom and good leadership, it should be possible for us to be both prosperous and happy."
So John Key and co, forget about leading the world in reducing carbon emissions, which is an exercise in futility, and set about leading the world in reforming discredited economic thinking.
