Our Economy - Politicians need to act

This appeared on Facebook recently, written by Aindriú Macfehin

Apart from the tragedy that is neoliberal capitalism itself, is the fact that Friedman was considered a fringe economist until stagflation in the 60s. Then neoliberalism was adopted as the form of capitalism (as opposed to previous Keynesian economics) that could “cure stagflation” because God forbid capitalists lose even a part percentage point of profit. 40 to 50 years of hardship, homelessness, etc and a yearly GDP growth rate in Western countries that could hardly be called spectacular (at times bordering on shutdown) we find ourselves in the world on the brink of……Stagflation.

So, all the pain for the working classes, all the middle class becoming working class, all the hospital closures and grief, all the end of workers’ rights and young people unable to buy homes etc etc was all for NOTHING. NOTHING.

We should be telling our collective politicians to get out and making our feelings felt. We should abandon the system that allowed this to happen. We should discredit the intellectuals that cheered this system on. We should never again allow businessmen to make social and political decisions. We should never ever let anyone in power ever say again, “Yes, but what’s the business case for this?”

I read last week this article https://nataliaalbert.substack.com/p/when-the-left-advocates-right-leaning?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2rhiv&triedRedirect=true written by Natalia Albert deputy leader of the TOP party. I enjoyed that it slaughtered many political talking points which have clouded proper debate for decades under the camouflage of economic purity. Here’s the last few paragraphs.

In New Zealand, we’ve become comfortable labelling policies as “progressive” or “conservative” based on rhetoric, rather than their actual effects.

This isn’t just a theoretical problem—it shapes how we make political decisions. When we mistake market-driven solutions for left-wing victories, we limit our imagination about what’s possible. When we champion community-led initiatives without questioning whether they come with adequate resources, we risk endorsing state withdrawal under the guise of empowerment. When we defend our tax system as fair without acknowledging how it privileges wealth over work, we allow inequality to deepen while thinking we’re addressing it.

None of this means these policies are wrong. Means-testing might be the only politically feasible way to allocate resources. Encouraging homeownership might be a valid goal. Community-driven initiatives can be powerful. But if we want to make real progress, we need to be honest about what we’re actually advocating for.

Certainty feels comfortable. It allows us to believe our politics align neatly with our values. But reality is messy, and political labels often obscure more than they clarify. Perhaps the most radical thing we can do is step away from ideological shortcuts and start asking: what do our policies actually achieve?

Because at the end of the day, the real question isn’t whether a policy sounds progressive—it’s whether it actually delivers the outcomes we believe in.