Rich still get richer, poor poorer

GUEST EDITORIAL

There was never any fear that I would be dux at my high school, so there is a fair chance that the people who write to this paper could be more intelligent than me.

What I don't get is how they can keep supporting Labour or National when these parties have proven themselves inept at running this country for the betterment of most of the populace.

My recent letters on the performance of National and Labour over the past 25 years or so have brought zero response. Similarly for my letter of October 24, noting the effects of Labour's Rogernomics and continued enforcement of these policies by National, specifically that "there had been no discernible benefits (to the NZ economy) despite 13 years of reforms", that it was "difficult to believe the outcomes could have been worse had there been no reforms" and that real average wages in 1994 were lower than in 1975. These are not my words but come from Professor Bob Gregory, of the Australian National University, after he published a study comparing the economic performances of the United States, Britain, Australia and New Zealand over a period long enough to cover the reforms in the last three of those countries listed.

By the lack of response, it would seem supporters of Labour and National are happy with these outcomes. The pathetic record of Labour and National cannot be defended, yet still they support these parties.

The policies of Labour and National are firmly entrenched in the trickle-down theory of making the top 2 to 3 per cent or so of the population as wealthy as possible (at the expense of the general population) in the false belief that the wealth will trickle down to the rest.

How do we know that this belief is unfounded?

Because every year the published "Rich List" shows us the rich have got richer and the poor have got poorer, that the wealth gap is wider. And what do Labour and National tell us the aims of their policies are? To make everyone better off with a better share of a "bigger pie" of the national wealth. How many more years are they going to persist with policies that are clearly not achieving their stated aims?

It is said the definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing and expect a different result. By this definition, the Rogernomics of Labour and National are insane. The evidence is in the "Rich List" and in the fact that real wages have declined over the past 25 years or so.

A Radio Live talkback host has been telling people a vote other than for Labour or National is "a wasted vote" and such voters had no hope of achieving anything. What a disgrace to the democratic process. But, if you want the wealth gap to keep growing by all means vote for Labour or National.

There are alternatives to Labour and National, and surely they could do no worse than those two. Maybe they could do better. Every vote is important. You won't get what you don't vote for. Just be sure what you vote for is what you want.