I know that I should sell them and use that money to buy more records that I want to listen to.

But I just kind of haven’t got around to it. I think that is the gist of the PM’s argument.

The implication seems to be that New Zealand has assets like Landcorp and Kordia sitting around the back of the Treasury cupboards gathering dust like mid-tier Steely Dan albums.

Those assets might be more highly valued by some other owner.

For example, millennials seem to hold Steely Dan in much higher regard than my generation, which has pushed album prices up a lot. The Chinese seem to have a similar passion for New Zealand dairy farms.

I’m being facetious, sort of.

Landcorp is New Zealand’s largest corporate farmer, and selling it to foreign buyers seems politically unrealistic. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t talk about it.

It’s safe to say that the PM isn’t going to get a mature debate about asset sales, though.

The idea of asset sales is deeply controversial in New Zealand.

It has immediately sparked a hyperbolic reaction from the left.

I think we sold a lot of assets very badly in the 1980s and 1990s, and that has left some serious emotional scarring.

It makes the topic highly emotive.

Those involved in the sales will tell you that the country was going broke, the assets were in a terrible state, and there was real urgency to the process.

I wasn’t there, but with hindsight it looks like we could have done much better if we’d held our nerve and moved at a more measured pace.

Beyond that, there is the eternally unresolved ideological debate about the nature of government itself.

Why does the Government need to own farms? That’s a harder question to answer than: why does the Government need to own power companies? And that’s a harder question to answer than why the Government needs to own schools or hospitals.

Most people have a position on a sliding scale with regard to Government involvement in running the institutions required to maintain society.

Those on the right are fond of pointing out how miserable life was under old-school communist regimes, where the Government owned and controlled everything.

But they usually neglect to look at the other extreme.

Ultimately, the only asset a Government needs to ensure its existence is a monopoly on violence – a military or armed police force.

Life under those sorts of regimes is pretty miserable, too.

So the first thing we need to do is have a mature conversation about asset or tax or anything else to do with political policy, is step away from that kind of absurdist reductive argument.

None of our major political parties seems to be prepared to do that.

Despite the PM’s call for a more nuanced debate about asset sales, National has been every bit as hyperbolic about Labour’s capital gains tax plans as Labour has been about a review of state assets.

Both sides have argued explicitly that the softly, softly approach of the other is a ruse.

Labour is saying the PM’s talk of “mature conversation” is just a precursor to selling off major assets.

National is saying that Labour’s narrowly focused capital gains will just be the start, and suggested it will be broadened in time.

They’ve also managed to find a way to argue that our KiwiSaver accounts will fall victim to the capital gains tax.

This is technically true in the sense that New Zealand businesses will pay the tax when they sell property for a profit.

Some of those companies – especially the listed property trusts – will be included in our KiwiSaver funds. So the tax might hit their earnings and mean lower KiwiSaver returns.

But in reality, the numbers will be so marginal it is unlikely anyone would be able to measure a material difference in their KiwiSaver performance.

Most KiwiSaver funds only have about 15% of their investments in New Zealand equities. And only a fraction of that 15% is going to be materially affected by the tax.

So it’s a bit disingenuous. But it’s a great attack line.

That seems to be the way modern politics works. Especially on social media – which is sadly where many New Zealanders are now getting their information.

Political parties of all stripes only seem to want a mature debate on an issue when it is something they are pushing.

When they are opposed to something, they remain more than happy to indulge in lazy debating techniques.

I’m sure National politicians understand how KiwiSaver funds work.

I’m sure Labour politicians understand that the PM’s scope for asset sales in the next term is actually very narrow – especially if he still needs support from New Zealand First, which has been openly hostile to asset sales.

I say lazy. But I don’t think there is a lack of thought going into the media strategy on either side.

I think the parties are scared of not using bold brush strokes and simplistic arguments to get their point across.

Trump’s success in the US has been well studied. We’re seeing social media accelerate a kind of arms race of dumbed-down political debate.

The PM’s idea for a regular audit of state assets with a view to recycling them (the way it is being done in New South Wales) would fit nicely with Labour’s Future Fund policy.

Give all the commercial assets to the Future Fund. Those that aren’t performing could be sold, and the money from could be earmarked for the Future Fund to invest in new assets that would deliver more economic benefit.

Imagine a political landscape where the two party leaders had a meeting and decided the policies were complementary. No?

Sadly, I can’t either.

Liam Dann is Business Editor at Large for the New Zealand Herald. He is a senior writer and columnist, as well as presenting and producing videos and podcasts. He joined the Herald in 2003.

Catch up on the debates that dominated the week by signing up to our Opinion newsletter – a weekly round-up of our best commentary.