Better off or worse off?

Time constraints are preventing me from saying anything. However, I will link to an interesting piece by economists Chris Worthington (here, here, or here).

This piece was a rebuttal to this one, which was based off this research. Another rebuttal was found here.

For me, the money quote from Chris’s article was:

People tend to notice the price rises of things they buy regularly (food and petrol), but are less likely to notice price falls in things they buy infrequently – and it is the latter group where many of the price drops occur.

Not only do I 100% agree, but furthermore I would add that people notice price hikes more than price falls.

For example, I remember people complaining about the unbelievable petrol prices in late 2007 and so forth.  However, petrol prices only rose above the levels reached in mid-2006 in March this year – in other words even the nominal price of petrol was lower than what people had been paying up until this point, but most people felt that the prices were unheard of.

How did this happen?  People notice fuel prices rise – but they don’t notice when they fall!

Jawboning productivity?

Dr Cullen has told businesses to increase productivity. Although this sounds utterly ridiculous, given that businesses will make all profitable investment they can in order to make their output at a lower cost (unless you believe there is a conspiracy to keep wages low 🙂 ) there could possibly be some method to his madness.

Treasury has been working hard on the productivity issue this year, but it is a difficult issue. If we could costlessly increase our productivity then we would have no trade-offs, as output could become un-limited. As a result, the trade-off they have been interested in is the trade-off between current investment in productivity and the future benefits. To make matters even more difficult, the factors lying behind productivity remain somewhat of a black box – a subject where an individuals industry expertise trumps the musings of a whole team of economists.

Given that information regarding productivity is implicitly tied up in businesses and given that the choice of investment in infrastructure and R&D are often subject to positive spillovers, Dr Cullen’s strategy of Jawboning may be ingenious.

Read more

Were the retail numbers bad

Well, much in the same vein as the employment numbers:

Source: NBNZ website.

A 1.2% quarterly fall in retail volumes! A negative GDP quarter in March now seems inevitable. This one hurts!

A tax free threshold?

The support for a tax free threshold in New Zealand appears wider than for almost any other policy. The right supports it, the left supports it – then why is it not government policy, and why do I not support it?

A tax free threshold at $9,000 would cost approximately $3.5bn (according to Patrick Nolan’s NZIER tax cut calculator from November 07), and would give everyone earning over $9,000 the same chunk of money (assuming that other tax thresholds remain unchanged).

Lets discuss why the policy may be popular along the political spectrum:

Read more

How to stay hawkish in New Zealand

Hi everyone, sorry about the delay in writing this post I have had a flu and so have fallen behind in all my work including this.

The first order of business is to discuss Thursday’s employment data, something I said I would do on Thursday. However, instead of sticking to the popular indication of what it means I’m going to run with an alternative interpretation – the hawkish view of the employment data. Furthermore, I will use this to come up with a hawkish interpretation of the New Zealand economic situation.

Note that this interpretation is an exercise to make us think about exactly what is going on in the economy – I’m not saying that this is the most realistic interpretation, but it is useful to go through and discuss nonetheless.

Eric Crampton foreshadowed this potential interpretation in his insightful comment to this post. In the comment he discusses working for families and a reduction in labour supply in the economy, this is what is called an negative Aggregate Supply shock.

Read more

Were the employment numbers bad?

I’m pretty sure that this graph provides the answer:

I’ll talk about this a little more later tonight – all in all the size of the fall in employment will have surprised everyone.