Matt Nolan

Is the business sector in retreat: An alternative view

/in /by

Business and consumer confidence is at concerning low levels. Furthermore, there is now a general consensus that we are in a recession.

However, something feels strange. A boost in petrol prices and a drought are the factors smashing our economy – the drought is temporary and people seem to be responding strongly to the change in fuel prices.

In fact, the value of fuel sales only rose 0.1% over the three months to May, while the price of petrol rose 7.3% and diesel rose 16.2% (thank you MED and Stats). The more that people can substitute away from the use of fuel, the less impact it has on their spending power.

But our focus here isn’t households, its businesses. The rising fuel, energy, labour, and other input costs must be tightening their margins. With consumer spending languishing, there must be blood on the wall – right? I currently feel that it is looking this way, but I’m going to put down a more positive alternative point of view anyway 🙂

Read more

Matt Nolan

NZ inflation hits 4% – Ouch

/7 Comments/in /by

Other people have more to say about today’s inflation result than I do (Interest blog) (the Standard) (Tumeke). Really, today’s result was pretty much what everyone was expecting – except for a stronger than expected increase in food prices (thanks to a mix of meat and fruit and veges). However, this slight uptick does make my 5% pick for September less extreme 😉

Also for all those people saying that it is only a tradable story – non-tradable inflation was 3.4%. This included some subsidies in education and health last September (so a price level shift), implying that the true rate of non-tradable inflation (growth in price level) was closer to 3.7-3.9%. Yuck.

If you have any questions about today’s inflation result, shoot – however, I won’t be checking my emails for about 27 hours from 5pm today so you better make it quick. (At least one pre-written post will magically appear tomorrow though, thanks to the magic of wordpress 🙂 )

BTW:  If you are interested in inflation, don’t forget about the inflation debate series – we are nearly up to inflation targeting, yippee.

Matt Nolan

The inflation fighting trade-off

/2 Comments/in , , /by

Note: Other posts in this discussion are available under the tag “inflation debate“.

So, after calling on you guys to give me some indication of your views on monetary policy we discussed what inflation is, and then we moved on to discussing the costs that stem from inflation. We are now ready to discuss the big topic – the trade-off between inflation and other things.

I’m glad that we managed to talk about this topic this year, as it is the 50th anniversery of the paper “the Relationship between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wages in the United Kingdom 1861-1957” written by our own Dr Phillips. In this paper Dr Phillips found that, over this period, there was a negative relationship between money wage changes and unemployment.

This was eventually broadened to a negative relationship between inflation and unemployement, which gave rise to the Phillips curve. Initially this led economists to believe that there is a trade-off between inflation and unemployment. However, the instability of the Phillips curve when policy analysts tried to take advantage of this relationship (when analysts tried to use the relationship it disappeared), and the popularity of the natural rate hypothesis (stating that there is a “natural rate” that unemployment settles at), led to a movement away from this, and the statement that there is no long-run trade-off between inflation and unemployment! (now viewed as the NAIRU)

Taking this as given, what other trade-offs are there? Read more

Will Taylor

Mallard’s Economics: Making KiwiSaver “fair”

/5 Comments/in , /by

The one thing I hate about election year is seeing policies which are put in place to win an election and no basing in economic theory.

Reading this quote from Trevor Mallarad made me angry

“…there is no way that it is fair for one employee to be paid less each week in their take home pay than an employee doing the same tasks, simply because they choose to be in KiwiSaver and the other employee doesn’t.”

Either Trevor Mallard is an idiot and he truly believes this, or he’s not an idiot and is doing this to try and win an election.

Just remember Kiwisaver savings are a form of income.  If we give both enrolled and non-enrolled people the same take home pay, then we are effectively saying that people on the Kiwisaver scheme should be paid more for the same task – explain to me why Mr Mallards concept is fair again?

Agnitio

Matt Nolan

Reply: On flat tax

/14 Comments/in , /by

Over at the Standard they are discussing the perceived inequity associated with a shift from a progressive income tax system to a flat income tax system.

This is an issue we have discussed before in this post. In the post we asked “what is the equality-efficiency trade-off” and “is the tax system the best way to redistribute income”.

The first question matters, because if we are reducing growth in the economy sufficiently by redistributing income it may be the case that lower tax cuts are parteo superior – which implies we could say they were better without having to make any assumptions (apart from the assumption that people prefer more). Even if the efficiency gains are not that strong it does imply that less than 78% of the population (the figure that the Standard states) will have a higher tax bill.

The second question matters as even if we are in a situation where a certain set of value-judgments implies that redistribution is optimal, there may be a better may to do it than through a progressive tax system.

Now even ignoring those two points we have the issue that “fairness” is a value-laden concept.

Read more

Matt Nolan

Did ANZ-National attack the public service?

/9 Comments/in , , /by

It appears that the Standard is unhappy (*) (*) (*) with the ANZ-National piece on government sector spending (*).

Now the criticisms of the ANZ-National line appear to be:

  1. Its only a 4 page insert in there weekly report,
  2. The definition of backroom and frontline is self-serving and wrong,
  3. The report relies on the belief that all spending on backline staff is waste.

I can understand the Standard’s irritation at some of the headlines that have been taken from the piece – but nonetheless I feel that their criticisms of the actual discussion that ANZ provides are off the mark, here’s why:

Read more