Bulletin 19/7/2017


There’s been a sharp increase in deceptive and erroneous tweets from National and ACT – presenting half-truths and then drawing erroneous conclusions from them.  Labour presents their budget on how they plan to spend taxpayer money.


Echo Chamber National:

(!) One of eight, not one of three.  I don’t think the person in charge of National’s Twitter account even read the whole article they linked.  Just the headline of the article lists four countries among the “stand out digital economies”:


(!) The article also says that it is due to low global interest rates and high overseas equity prices, things that are out of our control.  Our net foreign liabilities remains high by international standards, and has not changed much in real dollar terms:


A policy ad, unlisted, with about a dozen views 2 hours after being tweeted:


(!) This completely misrepresents Labour’s policies.  For numbers on where Labour plans to spend the money, see (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/94879965/labour-lays-out-financial-plan-with-billions-more-for-health-education):


Echo Chamber Labour:

On multinational tax avoidance:


On superannuation:


Labour’s budget:


Echo Chamber Green:

On poverty:


Echo Chamber New Zealand First:

On Maori electoral seats:


Echo Chamber Maori Party:

Nothing significant.


Echo Chamber ACT:

(!) This paper is not from a peer-reviewed journal.  It’s conclusion states “The existence of a temporary introduction effect and a compression effect are not supported by the data. While the results are consistent with a discretionary birth timing effect as a result of the introduction of the baby bonus, the results do not support the existence of such an effect following the 2006 increase in the value of the baby bonus, in contrast to previous literature.”:


(!) This paper notes serious limitations, including “ii) the total fertility rate has increased among low-fertility countries since 2003 and is expected to continue to increase (Goldstein, Sobotka, and Jasilioniene 2009). Therefore, it is likely that the lower fertility rate in Australia before the Baby Bonus was implemented was due in part to tempo effects; during times when the ages of childbearing increase (e.g., fertility postponement), there is a temporary depression of fertility (Bongaarts and Feeney 1998). As a result of these external factors, any delayed or long-term effects of the Bonus cannot be measured, or at least not directly.”:


(!) This paper concludes that cash subsidies do not increase total fertility, though it might encourage people to have children at a younger age. “Results indicate
that there is little ANC impact on completed fertility.”:


ACT loves rich people:


(!) Labour isn’t lying about anything, they’re clearly saying they’ll fund more superannuation by not cutting taxes.  This tweet and headline is the lie:


(!) The 40% tax is before deductions, and only for those with incomes over $150,000.  The 11% mortgage and disappearing jobs is completely made up scaremongering, no financial analysis is presented:


Echo Chamber United Future:

Nothing significant.



Author: sckchui

Aspiring author and armchair philosopher, I seek to understand the world, people, and myself. Through my writing, I seek also to share all that I've found.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s