goonix

Gambling at the TAB, monopolies and innovation

/13 Comments/in , , , , /by

I like to place the odd sports bet. In New Zealand I have no official option but to do this through the TAB, which is a state-sanctioned monopoly.

In other countries there are often many competing institutions offering odds on various events, including sports. In fact, there are now many companies that operate across borders in many countries. Recently the best real money casino apps for US players at www.EasyMobileCasino.com started offering sports bets as well as other online casinos.

The lack of competition in the betting market in New Zealand stifles innovation in the betting options they offer. One recent pundit proclaimed the TAB “the most conservative betting agency in the world”. Essentially the TAB has no incentive to innovate, as they know punters have limited ability to legally gamble through other avenues or https://casinos-enligne.fr/.

The TAB have started opening more interesting books on the FIFA World Cup, such as whether Lionel Messi will score more goals during the campaign than the All Whites combined (Messi the hot favourite at $1.55!).

If the gambling market were officially opened up to competition I suspect we would see a lot more of this innovation in amazing games like bar bar black sheep slots.

*I’m not sure of the legal status of these organisations in New Zealand, although I understand it is possible to open accounts with them (legally or otherwise).

Matt Nolan

Motivating effort through flagellation

/1 Comment/in , , /by

Following yesterdays brainstorm on compulsory work, another post on NZ catching Australia has inspired a policy prescription.  State funded flagellation agents for firms.

Government has set a prosperity target, to match Australia’s GDP per capita by 2025.

Efforts to increase the availability of capital for productive firms and to innovate more effectively are important steps in the right direction, but effort improvement should contribute too.

Labour productivity, the output per hour worked, is the most significant driver of a nation’s GDP per capita. New Zealand performs relatively poorly on measures of labour productivity, ranking 22nd of 30 OECD countries, whereas Australia ranks 13th.

Improving labour productivity can be achieved by improving, amongst other factors, contributions from innovation, capital and effort.  Flagellation motivates managers and workers to find ways to produce more valuable output per hour worked.

Growing New Zealand’s prosperity depends on developing successful international businesses, and businesses will only be successful if they are competitive. Achieving competitiveness, by providing more valuable products and services or by having lower cost structures, requires world-class effort.

The target to match Australia’s GDP per capita by 2025 is ambitious. Effort improvement is only part of the solution but it is very important.

On a serious note, an individual’s decision to develop skills and the such is part of their choice given the payoffs available in the labour market.  If we are going to subsidise it let’s actually try to figure out what the “public returns” are from this education – rather than spouting off truisms regarding labour productivity or flagellation.

Again, remember that the purpose of policy is to improve/maximise welfare – not to meet GDP targets or redesign the economy/society in our own image …

Matt Nolan

Compulsory 10 hours of unpaid work

/18 Comments/in , , , /by

Inspired by this post on compulsory superannuation, here is a post on “compulsory work” (eg slavery).

Without compulsory work New Zealand is destined to become an economic backwater. Our relative standard of living, particularly when compared to Australia, will continue to decline.

Two important actions can reverse our long term economic decline, effective labour market regulation and compulsory work.

Compulsory work had been an unmitigated success in the New World and has helped transform their economy. While NZ academics can argue about whether or not it has increased their overall savings rate, it is clear that it has improved the amount that is produced in the economy.

Moving back away from the sarcasm let me say:

  • Compulsory superannuation is the love child of fund managers – as they can’t see past the idea that “more savings = more funds = more investment”.
  • Even those that do see past self interest only think of “GDP”.  However, the goal of policy is to maximise welfare not output – if people want to consume they should be allowed.  Forcing people to save is abhorrent.
  • Yes compulsory saving leads to more saving, and possibly to more investment (at least to lower borrowing).  But it does this by making people credit constrained – implying that people can’t smooth consumption over time and have lower lifetime satisfaction.

To me, compulsory superannuation/saving schemes are very wrong.  The people trying to push them need to learn that the purpose of policy isn’t to increase GDP or fatten their wallet, it is to ensure that we have a society where welfare is maximised.

Matt Nolan

We need a new Green party

/55 Comments/in , , , , /by

So I’ve been told by CPW that the Green party has a new policy regarding electricity generation. I will discuss it here, and then explain why I’ve titled the post as such – overall, I do think we need an actual Green party who aren’t just redistributionists in green drag …

Read more

Matt Nolan

Drugs and anti-paternalism

/20 Comments/in , , , /by

On Saturday I had an article in the Dom ranting about how harm minimisation was a dumb goal – as there are benefits from the consumption of drugs.  This argument has been on the internet a million times (see these two searches for example), so there is no need to rehash it here.

Originally, the article was a little different.  It was a direct attack on the paternalism implicit in the policy making associated with the anti-drug crusade and the policy target of minimising harm.  Fundamentally, this is a critique of what the Law Commission has done – they are an independent body that should critique how the law differs from the target of policy (which they do well IMO) AND critique where policy differs from its practical aim (something they haven’t done).  Often the implementation of laws differs from policy because the policy is bad!

The last three paragraphs from this far more libertarian style article were:

However, why as a society are we determined to stop people hurting themselves?  Part of life is learning to take responsibility when your own choices and actions hurt you – having a government act in a paternalistic way to stop this, and make it harder for people to learn about individual responsibility, seems dangerous to me.

Even if we do have sufficiently little faith in our fellow man, and believe that the government should act like our parents, is this type of policy intervention equivalent to good parenting?  A good parent will set some boundaries, but also give a child the opportunity to learn from their mistakes, and will be there to help if things go wrong – only a bad parent would focus only on potential harm and ignore any benefit to the child when setting boundaries.  In this sense, even the most paternalistic people must agree that solely focusing on harms from any action is a poor way to ensure that we have the happiest society possible.

Ultimately, I’m of the opinion that a truly civilised society must be based on compassion, not control – it should be based on people’s happiness and freedom, not the desire of some policy wonks to create their ideal world.

Comments and criticism of this view welcome.

Update: Relevant points from Eric Crampton (Uni of Canterbury/Offsetting Behaviour) and Luke Malpass (Centre for Independent Studies).

Matt Nolan

One proviso on tax …

/3 Comments/in , , /by

Kiwiblog blogs about to a good sounding report by the Maxim Institute on tax.  I especially like this line:

We need to design the tax system so that it allows the government to take the money it requires, while doing the least amount of damage to the economy and so too our potential prosperity

However, there is a proviso that needs to be taken into account when we say this.  Any redistribution that we as a society deem is appropriate given our value judgments needs to occur through “the money the government requires”.

The tax system that is solely based on efficiency will not be a tool for redistribution.  Depending on our value judgments, we will want a certain level of redistribution, and this has to occur through the level of government spending.  The higher redistribution is, the higher government spending is, and as a result the higher the tax rate will have to be.

Yet, according to this post, the recommendations of the report switch from the design of optimal tax to the equity-efficiency trade-off associated with redistribution:

A 2001 OECD study found that about one half of a percentage point increase in government consumption (the expenditure to GDP ratio) could cause a 0.6 to 0.7% direct reduction in per capita output.

Yes, there is a trade-off.  However, the level of government spending and redistribution should be premised on this trade-off.  By saying something like “If we can limit spending so that over time it is under 30% of GDP” we are making a value judgment regarding the amount of redistribution that is in societies interest – we aren’t discussing the role of optimal taxation.

My main point here is, there are two separate issues:  Firstly, the design of an optimal tax system GIVEN the level of redistribution.  Secondly, the socially preferred level of redistribution.  The first question is easy, even an economist can answer it.  The second question is incredibly difficult.