Lies and more lies

He is either too dumb, or is being deliberately stupid. To think the taxpayer is paying for all those media “experts” in the behive, and he comes out with shit like this.

I asked Grok the following question; Do Indians have a higher standard of living than the average New Zealander?

No, Indians (referring to the average person in India) do not have a higher standard of living than the average New Zealander. New Zealand significantly outperforms India across nearly all major metrics for standard of living, including income, human development, health, education, infrastructure, and quality of life.

Key Economic Indicators

• GDP per capita (nominal): India is around $2,700–$2,800 USD (2025–2026 projections). New Zealand is around $49,000–$52,000 USD. New Zealanders are roughly 18–20 times wealthier on this measure.
• GDP per capita (PPP, which adjusts for cost of living): India ~$11,000–$14,000 international dollars. New Zealand ~$55,000–$56,000. New Zealand remains 4–5 times higher.
• Average/median incomes: After-tax salaries and disposable income are dramatically higher in New Zealand (often 8–10+ times higher in USD terms). Cost of living is much lower in India (India is ~57–78% cheaper overall), but this does not close the gap in real purchasing power or access to goods/services.

Human Development and Broader Metrics

• Human Development Index (HDI): New Zealand ranks in the “Very High” category (~0.938). India is in the “Medium” category (~0.685). This combines life expectancy, education, and income.
• Life expectancy: India ~67–73 years. New Zealand ~82–83 years (a 10–15 year advantage).
• Other quality of life factors:
• Healthcare, safety, internet access, education spending, and infrastructure are substantially better in New Zealand.
• Pollution is higher in India; safety, healthcare access, and overall quality-of-life indices favor New Zealand strongly.

Nuances and Context

• Cost of living adjustment: Everyday expenses (food, rent, transport) are far lower in India, so a modest income there stretches further for basics. However, New Zealand offers much higher real incomes, better public services, lower corruption perceptions, higher freedom indices, and superior outcomes in health/education.
• Within-country variation: India has a large and growing middle/upper class (hundreds of millions), with major cities offering modern amenities for higher earners. A wealthy Indian can have a high standard of living comparable to (or better than) many in the West due to low costs. But the average (median) Indian experiences far lower material well-being, healthcare access, etc.
• Trends: India’s economy is growing rapidly, and metrics like its SDG ranking are improving. New Zealand is a developed, high-income country with strong social safety nets.

In summary, by standard objective measures, the average New Zealander enjoys a substantially higher standard of living. “Standard of living” is multifaceted, but the data consensus is unambiguous.

FROM X

This is damning for Luxon, National, Act & Labour. The FTA is as bad as they are denying it is.

Footage most people haven’t seen from the India FTA select committee,reveals that FTA has duplicitous clauses that determines the NZ $ 33 Billion of direct investment into India IS an obligation. Hats off to National MP & Chair of the committee Tim van de Molen for identifying the sub clause and its implications, and for pushing back on the bureaucrats & a Labour MP.

First time i’ve ever commended a Greens MP, however Lawerence Xu Nan correctly states that the FTA will only add 0.1% ($500m) of GDP by 2046, which is 1/40th of the NZ $33 billion of investment from NZ we are expected to ‘promote’ into India.

Vangelous Vitalis (dep. Sec Trade & economic) replies that treasury traditionally understates the GDP growth in the modelling, but they expect it to be much larger than 0.1% “just like it was with china”

The problem with Vitalis reply, is that 15 years after signing the China FTA, exports to China while larger than forecast, they were just 2.5 times larger than the original forecast.

So for NZ to break even on the NZ $33 billion committed to India, Treasury’s forecasted exports would need to be 66 times bigger.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ We need to beat the forecast by SIXTY SIX TIMES. Mind blowing.

This brings us to the $33 billion dollar question – highlighted by Tim Van de Molen. In article 9.10. It allows India to take remedial measures (reapply tarrifs) until NZ meets its obligations to promote $33 BN into India.

Vitalis points to clause 9.2, which frames this as only an “aim” — a point Van de Molen accepts. However, he remains very concerned by 9.10(3), which states that if India believes insufficient progress has been made on one-way investment, all concessions can be withdrawn until NZ (specifically) delivers $20 billion US ($33 Billion) in investment.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

Three times van de Molen (a farmer) circles back t sub clause 3, Vitalis brings in his legal representative, and then Labours Vanushi Walters (a NGO Lawyer) infers Tim is reading it wrong, before concerning he is right and then says “oh it’s just poor drafting” – the whole issue is left unresolved, after Nationals Tim Costley (edited out) interrupts like a dumbo to bring up student numbers and Winston Peters – side tracking the discussion before van de Molen once again circled back to the issue before Walters again changes topic to some frivolous issue.

Tim van de Molen has his head on his shoulders and is in the wrong party.

Luxon has been conned by India – and it’s us who will pay the price.