Wednesday, 4 September 2013

The myth of deregulation, part #123

Every uninformed member of the Church of the Commentariat feels obliged at some stage in their career to get up on their hind legs to denounce the “deregulation” of New Zealand.  Such denunciation, it seems, is a prerequisite for elevation through the Church hierarchy.

The most recent application for elevation was lodged by Colin Bloody Espiner who, if you recall, denounced “the dangerous free-market hole” into which New Zealand has fallen courtesy of “the buzzwords "deregulation", followed by "light-handed regulation" and its kissing cousin "self-regulation."”

But look what Nanny did when Colon's backs was turned. Does this look like deregulation to you?


And that doesn’t even include the Building Act, the Building Industry Authority, the Department of Building and Housing, the New Zealand Building Code, and the new consent processes, District Plans and vastly multiplied inspections of Territorial Authorities that have assailed the building industry, for one.

So next time some uninformed arsehole like Colon bleats about the problems caused by NZ’s alleged deregulation, maybe begin ripping them a new one by pointing them to page 2 of the Productivity Commission’s issues paper on regulatory institutions and practices, from whence this table derives.

[Hat tip Brennan McDonald]

1 comment:

  1. They feel that constantly repeating something makes it true.

    It should also be noted their 'followers' have an IQ of about 2 and a half, so are easily able to swallow-it-whole when someone repeats "deregulation has been a disaster for New Zealand" 5000 times.

    Other examples of constant repetition making something 'true' include -

    * The ACT party: "Roger Douglas is a libertarian" (snigger)

    * "Welfare is a hand up"

    * "America is the land of the free"

    * "It's a woman's right to choose"

    * "Whiskey is worse than weed"

    * "Property developer Sir Robert Jones..."


We welcome thoughtful disagreement.
Thanks to a few abusers however, we (ir)regularly moderate comments.
We *will* delete comments with insulting or abusive language, unless they're entertaining. We will also delete totally inane comments. Try to make some sense. We are much more likely to allow critical comments if you have the honesty and courage to use your real name.