A Vote for ACT is a Vote for Rogernomics and Ruthanasia

Yes folks, Roger Reagan Douglas will be standing in an electorate seat and is keen to get on with the job he failed to complete under Labour.

Today he released his repackaging of the same old tired bullshit, calling it "Vision without limits" he laid out his new plan to overtake the Australian economy by 2020. Fortunately one of the key factors to the full implementation of any such devastating economic reforms would be that ACT be the Governing party, which by the looks of the polls, would require odds larger than that which brought about evolution.

So lets take a look at what is Rogernomics. What do we know about this political ideology.

Rogernomics: "...cutting agricultural subsidies and trade barriers, privatising public assets and the control of inflation through measures rooted in monetarism"

What is monetarism? Well its an economic theorem based on the, 'Quantity Theory of Money' which was developed by Simon Newcomb, Alfred de Foville, Irving Fisher, and Ludwig von Mises, later to be ripped off by ultra right free-market nazi Milton Friedman.

Rogernomics supporters saw the layoffs of 87,000 workers in the late 80s as necessary evil for right wing libertarian (U.S version of) economic reforms, many of these same people also saw Pinochet's totalitarianism as necessary to bring about said reforms in Chile, case in point - Trevor Loudon.

One of the reasons totalitarianism would be necessary to Rogernomic libertarians in today's climate is due to globalisation. If say NZ was to convert to a full blown U.S styled libertarian economy employing the invisible hand as a check and balance to prevent say monopolies from forming, what is then stopping another country or external corporation with the means and capacity to buy New Zealand out several times over with their chump change, from doing so.

Can you depend on inter country agreements to prevent mega corporations from doing so, when it is the power of central government, now largely diminished, in fact the whole premise of a country would be largely irrelevant that currently is the preventer.

What you end up with is the same scenario that Trotsky surmised about. The need for the spread of their 'ism' to other countries, in order to ensure the validity of the invisible hand as a check and balance. In Trotsky's era that meant adjoining countries, but in todays economic and geopolitical climate and conditions, geography is irrelevant.

The U.S version of Libertarianism is still a theory yet to be proven, and we all know that people support the idea of free trade until a competitor comes along and cleans up, then corporations will bandy together to create a quasi-state federations in an attempt to protect their assets and profit margins, and you are all back to square one, except of course with a corporately elected state.

Big corporate giants don't give a rats ass about U.S styled libertarianism unless it can make them more profit and the workers are not particularly interested in the political meanderings of their bosses. This type of Libertarianism has not taken history into account, is not based on reality, but on a set of fantasies of middle management and small businessmen set about to grant themselves unrestricted access to a bigger market and to expand their fledgling businesses into unaccountable corporations.

And the person to open those doors for them, their economist Saviour, is Roger Douglas with his sidekick list of small businessmen and raft of delusional economic reforms in tow.