UPDATED: Of course The Standard embraces it, tribal like, because they see money printing as some sort of anti "neo-liberalism" project. (yes, anyone opposing the left just want to eat the poor). The intellectualism in this post is astonishing "I look forward to John Key, when he gets back from fellating Mickey Mouse" showing how asinine the debate is.
The status quo in the Western world, including all US Administrations since Reagan and UK since Thatcher, has been Milton Friedman's monetarism. That is to progressively increase the money supply regulated by interest rates set by a state central bank to manage inflation.
Hayek opposed this, Rand opposed this, Murray Rothbard opposed this. Alan Greenspan once did, and then embraced Friedman's view. Detlev Schlichter opposes it now.
A fundamental cause of the global financial crisis is the continual state issuing of new credit and new money, so that it isn't savings being reinvested, but money created from..... nothing.
Monetarism, as it is called, attempts to manage the inevitable inflation arising from this (lowering the value of the medium of exchange by producing more of it inevitably means prices rise), but ignores asset price inflation. The property and sharemarket bubbles caused by malinvestment are ignored.
It has failed.
QE has been the Keynesian response in Japan, the US, the UK and the Eurozone. The mass destruction of value due to these bubbles popping has been filled by massive money printing, yet it has not resulted in a sustained kickstart to demand for simple reasons. One is that the banks, which were the conduit of the cheap credit, have been told to increase reserves, so are filling up their reserves with freshly created cash and banks have also tightened up credit enormously, because they were told to not undertake anymore bad lending. The other is that there is a lack of confidence in the economic fundamentals. It is why gold prices have soared, as a safe haven.
It wasn't undertaken to improve export competitiveness. It has demonstrably failed to boost Japan's economy. It has created minor blips in the US economy, and nothing more.
For the Standard to say that having a consistently high dollar is about speculators making money from New Zealand is demonstrable ignorance. To think that, say cutting the value of the NZ$ by 25%, is good for the working poor (when it will raise prices of petrol, electrical goods, overseas holidays and any imported books, clothes), is bizarre.
However, socialists have long thought thieving from the mass of the population through debasing the currency was an easy path to spending more money on what they think is good for them. Easier to implement than a straight out tax, and easier for all of the elite to evade, by shifting their own savings away from the debased currency, leaving the average people robbed.