I was listening to this discussion about the new zealand economy today.

• Radio New Zealand interview with Don Brash (8 megabyte mp3)

I really like the way that Kiwi academics think. It's wonderfully sensible. But I think, in this case, I see that these people are not seeing the forest for the trees.

First of all, I think it's good to think more broadly about raising the standard of living. One shouldn't narrow the discussion to macroeconomic theory. "Catching up with the economy of Australia," isn't the whole story. And if you stand back and take a broader look at things, you will all of a sudden see that there are many areas you can focus on, here.

One thing that I would suggest is that your parliament and government would consider what constructive policies they could institute which would would require no taxpayer moneys. I'm consistently saddened to read of unsafe business practices in New Zealand, even in the food sector. In places like the Usa, businesses are fastiduous with safety practices - and that's because of the threat of the lawsuit. I think that New Zealand would do well to encourage victims of poor business practices, or poor labour practices, to sue those companies.

I've also seen a lot of stories about poorly constructed or badly insulated buildings - no central heating, no double glazing. There's a free way to resolve this problem too - and that's to create better building codes. Everyone who builds a structure needs to abide by a set of regulations, which might include a central heating system, insulation, and double glazing.

Maybe you can also give certain tax incentives to the types of companies you want to set up shop in your region or in your country.

In regards to the specific things discussed, these are my suggestions, if I may be so bold:

First of all, yes, freeing up land use for industrial applications, even if that means more pollution and other things, is important if you want to develop your industry. There are costs and benefits to these things...and if you want the benefits, you'll have to pay the costs. Look at Norway for a way forward, there.

A common idea running through this interview seems to be the idea that a trade surplus is equivalent to a healthy national economy, and leads to a high standard of living. I think there's an error here. The Usa shows us how a large trade deficit - where you are the consumers of goods made around the world - is a position of power in the world. The worldwide economy just faltered in 2008 and 2009 when the usa consumer stopped spending. Also, when you have a lot of inexpensive goods coming into the country, that is in itself, an influx of wealth. Those goods raise your standard of living. So perhaps, it's better to work towards a strong NZ dollar rather than a weak one.

Finally, social programs should be drawn up so that they are secure and so that people can count on them. I am shocked that your public pension plan - the "superannuation fund" - is a thing which is set up in such an ad hoc way that an incoming administration can just gut the thing. ACC also seems to be an ad hoc system. Look to Canada for a way forward with these things - or the Usa. You have to reliably take care of the poor and needy. This gives them the ability to get their feet under themselves, and go forward and strive to become members of the middle class. The middle class - that wonderful and important block of people which makes an economy sustainable - is in my opinion, forged out of reliable social programs which assist the poor.