5 point economic plan for New Zealand

I recognise that I am at a significant advantage in this debate, so I appreciate my opponent's courage for taking me on! Because of various time constraints I'm going to post my rounds fairly quickly. Let me now move on to rebuttal.1. Monetary ReformLast round, my opponent gave you four points (2-5) that are different ways the government could be spending more money, and one point (1) that enables them to spend unlimited money without taking any taxes. More money flowing into the economy, coupled with no extra money coming out, means that the New Zealand dollar is less scarce, without any real increase in production. That's bad for us because it means that prices will increase. Inflation is like the Darth Vader of economics. And if you think adjusting taxes will work, then think again. Firstly, having arbritary taxes every year means that money really has no guarenteed value, so people will lose faith in the dollar every time the government does anything. That's bad because you'll get several runs on the banks every day as they try to protect their savings by buying capital. It's also bad for our balance of payments, as most of the capital goods we consume come from overseas. Secondly, when you're taxing not to provide a service or a public good, you are well and truely meeting every definition of the word "stealing". Taxation is theft if the government gives you nothing in return. I don't think many New Zealanders will appreciate the introduction of serfdom in our country. Sure, serfs had low prices - but they were taxed so heavily they couldn't spend a dollar of it. In the longer term, it might be contested that some of the projects con describes as financing with monetary reform may yield some benefit for New Zealand, its people and its businesses. Firstly, that's never happened in the past with printing money. Just ask Zimbabwe, who instituted many similar reforms in the 1980s. Secondly, that presumes that the citizens will actually use their expertise here. Skilled workers leaving for overseas is already a big enough problem, with our unemployment rate and all, but my opponent plans to give them all the more incentive to emigrate, by raising their inflation rate to the point that their cost of living is such that you have to run off overseas to survive. That's no good for businesses either, because they're not going to be able to increase output until the long-term comes around. Until then, they cannot increase employee wages. So even if New Zealand does see some benefit from these plans (which I don't think they will), those that see the benefit will be those living in abject poverty. But what of the benefit? What is beneficial about thinking about what we want rather than what we can do with what we have to achieve something we want? Scarcity is a fact of life. No government can give an ordinance saying "Henceforth scarcity shall be illegal", because everyone will go to jail. Therefore we need to use our scarce resources, not the infinite hypothetical resources we wish for.2. Employer of last resort programMy opponent's plan is completely silly because nobody would be dumb enough to sign up to his program. Depending on the number of hours per week and the person's individual circumstances, the position is very likely to pay less than the unemployment benefit. More importantly, if your time is occupied building new infrastructure, you're not going to have a lot of time to apply for jobs. Anybody who has ever switched jobs will tell you that it's a very time-consuming process. I take a rather different approach to encouraging employment. Rather than forcing the government to hire all the people the private sector doesn't want, I think it's good that the government instead aims to employ the best and most qualified, just like everybody else, and only employs as many people as they actually need, giving the rest money to live on through the unemployment benefit. My approach to encouraging employment, however, is to encourage skilled people, who are likely to be the types that start businesses and provide employment, to stay in the country are study, with my fair tax policy that makes it easier for people just starting out to get by. I also help make a fairer tax system for those on lower incomes, which is unfortunately where most of our unemployment is. When the government starts making surpluses again, then we can start talking about how we can create jobs in this country - until then, let's create the best possible environment for the private sector to make jobs for us.3. Free sci/eng educationThe problem with this is that the government has to pay for this education instead. This creates two perverse incentives. The first is for students to become lifetime perpetual students and refuse to enter the workforce. The second is for universities to simply increase their prices to however much they want to be paid. The second is the worst, since the ridiclious inflation caused by con's model will mean that only those who write their own paychecks will be able to afford anything - but by writing their own paychecks they cause further poverty and inflation. So there's this big massive cycle that nobody really benefits from except this new class of academic elitists. Besides this, the plan is completely inflexible. Why only science and engineering if he wants to encourage business - surely it should be the commerce degrees that should be made free? That's where my plan is better. Make students take responsibility for their learning. If we have a skill shortage, let the market create the incentive with higher wages. No government debt. No inflation. More money for students. Fairer policies for all. Everybody wins.4. High-tech development grantsMore spending, no cuts, no taxes. The government already does give substantial R&D grants, and makes benefit payments to those from disadvantaged backgrounds who are starting up a business. And they're already doing a lot to help the high-tech sector, for instance with their recent roll-out of ultra-fast broadband internet. There are other things more in need of attention. This is an un-necessary project because all the incentives con talks about are already being created, and furthermore the project will run us into the sort of debt the US has. Rather than throwing money at our problems, my plan will get the government books in order, and when government is making a surplus, they can use that money to build our economy.5. Create domestic development bankThe reason the private sector has a large foreign debt is because most of our banks are foreign-owned, so all the debt we hold is foreign if we bank with one of those. A development bank, nationally chartered, would fulfil the precisely the same function as a regular bank, just publically owned. In fact, such a bank already exists. It's called Kiwibank. Even better, it's not only available for the private sector, but the public sector can use them too. So essentially we have all our credit needs covered. Why do we then still have a large foreign debt? Because the other banks are competitive with Kiwibank. Many businesses prefer to source their credit from one of those overseas banks, such as the deceptively-named Bank of New Zealand, ASB and The National Bank. That's good because it encourages competition, which means lower bank fees and more competitive interest rates for consumers. Establishing ANOTHER domestic charter bank with the aim of encouraging development will only be an extra burden on the taxpayer in setting up the infrastructure required. For all these reasons I am proud to propose.