Also, we did consider the stories mentioned by people throughout the thread – but after a fair bit of discussion around a fair few people, those were the ones chosen to leave out to keep it at ten.

The 2008 election is on there, we just decided that the loss of Winston was bigger than the election of Key. But yes, could easily have gone the other way!

Also think Sir Peter Blake’s death should be on NZ headlines.

He could show some political contriteness and think prospectively about inflation in 2010 and forwards. He could crank those interest rates up really high in 2010 and 2011, and show John Key what it feels like.

Everyone could encourage National to raise taxes and cut spending to rein in the deficit.

Maybe we can prolong the recession here long enough that Labour can roar back in 2011…

As a Democrat, I was happy in 2006 that my party took back the House and Senate after 12 years in the minority wilderness. This victory paved the way for Obama to have the massive majorities he has now.

Obama alone would not have been enough to make the changes. From a mandate point of view, he got a little fewer EC votes than Bill Clinton in his two elections (Clinton got 370 in ‘92 and 379 in ‘96, while Obama got 365 in ‘08). The real difference is the size of the majorities in Congress. Without those majorities (enough to defeat a filibuster in the Senate), no liberal legislation would pass. The $787 billion stimulus package certainly would have gone nowhere if Republicans had had a couple more senators.

2007 was when the meltdown in the US started, not 2008. Take a look at the Dow:

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=^DJI#chart2:symbol=^dji;range=5y;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on;source=undefined

In October 2007, the DJIA was above 14,000. The Fed first started dropping interest rates in September, so they knew something was up. It dropped steadily until by January 7, it was down to 12,600. That is a 10% drop in 3 months.

The Fed slashed interest rates like crazy (for their standards) in January and kept busy until rates could be cut no more. From 2007-2008, US Fed interest rates went from 4.5% to 0%.

http://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/statistics/dlyrates/fedrate.html

Notice that the Fed dropped rates 1% from September 2007 to January 2008.

My letter in the current Listener was a reminder that our own Reserve Bank was a bit misguided when he waited until July 2008 to act. By July, the Dow was down 20% from the 2007 high. By October it was down 40%. His concern with inflation early in 2008 was completely misplaced. The economy moves forwards, not backwards. He was actually 10 months behind the Fed.

http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/monpol/statements/0090630.html

Don’t think they were talking inflation in January 2008? Read this:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/our-high-interest-rates/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501157&objectid=10487335

“The Reserve Bank may be sharpening its pencil for more interest rate hikes.”

In the end, the RBNZ dropped rates by 1.5% a pop in a frantic attempt to do something. Overall, rates dropped by 5.5% before Bollard stopped. Too late–damage done. If he had started 10 months earlier, everyone would have had more money in their pockets. Mortgage holders, exporters, new businesses…

The dynamic duo of John Key and Mr Bollard did in Labour, but I suspect it was more Bollard.

2007 led to 2008.

I would bet that the top story of the twenty-tens will be the capture and/or death of Osama Bin Laden.

Bloody hell have you heard some of the comments from your party and supporters? Public failed to understand, public haven’t yet seen through slippery Key etc etc

I would say that 2002 removed any sense of “born to rule” from any National Party supporter dumb enough to believe that. It would seem that Labour is a long way from that.