Talk:Rogernomics

	New Zealand portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the New Zealand politics task force (assessed as High-importance).

Economics Mid‑importance

	Business and economics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

There needs to be more expansion on what the lasting effects of rogernomics were for the country, ie. The effect of the closeure of state owned bussiness to rural centres etc..

Well obviously state owned business and businesses and government life support will fail once you stop funding their life support through the printing press. That was the only way to tackle the inflation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

resiled[edit]

What does 'resiled' mean in the original article?

Turned away from, withdrew from, rejected. It just means that Labour is no longer a follower of pure Rogernomics, although there are arguments about exactly how far it has moved away. -- Vardion 02:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4th Labour govt[edit]

I'm wondering if there should be a page on the fourth Labour government in general. While Rogernomics was the most important thing they did, there were also a lot of other important things, like getting out of ANZUS, general rejigging of foreign policy, homosexual law reform and other social stuff, and it would be good to have it all on one page. Rogernomics could be briefly dealt with and have a link to this page.

Currently there is a page on the 41st New Zealand Parliament but this just focusses on who the MPs were, and should probably be left as such, especially since a fourth Labour government page would obviously need to cover both terms.

Perhaps a project could be started to create a page for each New Zealand government, at least since the party system got started in 1890ish. It would definitely be useful to have pages on the first Labour government, the Liberals etc.

What do people think? --Helenalex 21:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good thing. I suggest Fourth Labour Government of New Zealand, and similarly for the other governments. There's some material already at New_Zealand_Labour_Party#Fourth_Labour_Government; it should be condensed if a fuller article is written, with a link to the new article. Links also from the 41st New Zealand Parliament, New Zealand general election, 1984 etc. and Timeline of New Zealand history. Some material at Helen Clark and articles for earlier Prime Ministers could possibly be moved to the new articles.

Since this discussion is about much more than Rogernomics, I'll add a note to WP:NZWNB pointing to it.-gadfium 07:32, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support making those articles. They really are needed, and Australia has them for each of their governments. The series by Margaret Clark on political leaders would be a good source, and Ian Grant's Public Lives as well. There will need to be some discussion on how to deal with the coalition governments - I would suggest

The Bolger National Government and National-led Coalition Government

The Fifth Labour Government in Coalition

NB, National governments have tended to be referred to as "The Bolger National Government" whereas Labour governments have tended to be "The Fourth Labour Government". --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 22:38, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had also been wondering about what to do with coalitions. I think you're right in that we need to sort of treat a series of coalitions led by one party as a government, ie now back to 1999 as the fifth Labour government rather than three or more seperate governments. There is a similar issue for governments before the advent of party politics in about 1890. Before this time 'ministries' were made up of a loose collection of individual MPs temporarily united behind a leader (the Vogel Ministry etc). These could last anywhere from a few days to the best part of a decade. My inclination is to just start the government series in 1890 and deal with the ministries seperately.

In reference to naming, I think we should be consistant one way or the other, ie name them all after their main leader, with a slash in cases of two major leaders, ie the Savage / Fraser government, or all numbered. James Belich numbers all his governments in Paradise Reforged. Personally I'm not sure which way to go. The fourth Labour government is the only one which has a basically invariable name in terms of what people call it, and 'the Lange government' sounds kind of weird. On the other hand in the early 20th century parties changed their names quite a bit and it could get confusing, whereas things like 'the Ward government' are pretty straight forward. Either way it should be consistent and the other name should direct people to the page, ie if we choose numbering than a search for 'Muldoon government' should lead people directly to 'third National government' and vice versa.

Perhaps some kind of project page needs to be set up for this. There will obviously be a lot of debate and co-ordination required, and this talk page should probably be reserved for discussion of the page it actually relates to. I have no idea how to do anything like that, so could someone arrange it? --Helenalex 01:16, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject New Zealand/governments can be a base, and discussion should probably move to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/governments. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 01:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

"from being one of the top five OECD countries to ranking 19th" would be good to give an indication in which timeframe this happened. Did the fall take 5 years? 20 years? Ingolfson 07:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Kelsey as a ref.[edit]

I've checked the OECD stats page ( http://stats.oecd.org ) and all the GDP numbers show significant increases in GDP between 1985 and 1992. The Kelsey article itself has zero refs and is published on the website of "Peace Movement Aotearoa" rather than say an academic journal. The Inflation rate quoted shows some cherry picking (it was higher at the start of the period in line with previous years, much lower at the end ( see http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/econind/ ) . The unemployment statement appears be roughly correct though. The article is also 11.5 years old, I think that due to the shaky statements we should remove statements from it and instead use something based off the stats from OECD and NZ govt sources. - SimonLyall (talk) 09:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For GDP from 85->92 it goes from 47 302.7->76 632.1 according to the OECD website, but this is in national dollars, and I know the NZ dollar value fell from something like 1.25=1USD to 2=1USD during this same time period, I just can't find where I read that yesterday and I suck at finding data on things more than 5 years old.

Oh, now I find the OECD does record real GDP growth so from 85->92(inclusive) total growth is 4.6513% for NZ and 28.2424% for the average OECD according to this data from the OECD. I got the numbers by simply multiplying the eight annual growth rates, so 1.008x1.021x1.016x0.998x1.005x1x0.987x1.011 =4.6513%. If you have a good source feel free to replace what you will. Passionless (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assumptions of reader knowledge about NZ[edit]

I added an explicit reference to New Zealand in the lede, but I still wonder if a casual reader of this article would have a hard time realizing that it was about New Zealand government, unless they had prior knowledge about the names in this article already. As a non-Kiwi user, it at least disoriented me. Joe Schmedley^T* 17:07, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the long run[edit]

An editor changed " many of the promised economic benefits of the experiment never materialized" to "did not immediately materialise."[1] His source is a NZ government report that says that economic growth returned after 1993, which would be about ten years later.

However the source makes no connection between Rogernomics and later recovery and it is synthesis to say that. If there are sources that make the connection, they should be presented. We could then establish the degree of support it has in reliable sources.

TFD (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened a discussion thread at the "No original research" noticeboard. TFD (talk) 00:43, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is this resolved? I agree with TFD that if the source doesn't establish a connection, then it shouldn't be stated. I am not, however, opposed to simply describing the subsequent historical outcomes without comment as to causation. EllenCT (talk) 19:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The IP has never responded. I do not see the point of what happened later unless some source draws a connection. TFD (talk) 20:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rogernomics. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ihc.org.nz/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=I0%2BuArQ9M8w%3D&tabid=1474&mid=2384
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130324004056/http://www.commondreams.org/views/081500-106.htm to http://www.commondreams.org/views/081500-106.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Immediate results section issues[edit]

The current "Immediate results" section does not seem neutral, reading the section you would think that there is not a person in the world with a positive thing to say about Roger Douglas. Much of the section particularly the third paragraph is sourced directly by government statistics. These sources simply record the statistics mentioned - this is original research. I am sure something more neutral can be written. Omcnoe (talk) 09:35, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]