Matt Nolan

Opinion on National’s tax policy

/7 Comments/in , , /by

I’ll be honest, I don’t think too much of it. I view tax as a structural thing that just needs to be set. Both National and Labour have this “incrementalist” view of changes taxes, which gives the potential for shifts in policy and creates uncertainty in the economic environment.

I am also disappointed that they leave the tax bands fixed – when inflation adjustment of the tax thresholds is the only way to ensure that the real tax burden isn’t rising over time.

Finally the independent earner rebate seems like an ad hoc addition that they tacked on in order to provide “$47” relief to the “average worker”. This policy does nothing to increase efficiency in the economy – the very issue that National said it was trying to chase.

The reduction of the 39c tax band makes sense – as it is a dis-incentive to save and punishes people with highly variable annual income. But reducing it at 1c a year is just too slow for a structural issue like tax policy – if it is going to grow the economy so much, why not just cut the damned thing now.

goonix

Putting your money where your mouth is

/8 Comments/in , , , , , , , /by

ISCR have just launched New Zealand’s first prediction market.

From iPredict:

Who’s going to be the next Prime Minister – Helen or John? Will the price of petrol be $3 a litre by Christmas? Will Winston be sacked before election day?

These are some of the questions Kiwis may find themselves backing their opinions on with iPredict – www.iPredict.co.nz – New Zealand’s first real money online prediction market, which launches tomorrow (9 September).

The online marketplace enables users to trade on their predictions on a broad range of future political and business events that pay real money if their prediction comes true.

Established as a research tool by Victoria University of Wellington and think tank ISCR, iPredict harnesses the wisdom of crowds via the Internet to predict future outcomes and has a strong focus on helping companies, government agencies and academics with research. …

Mr Burgess says that iPredict is like a simple stock exchange, trading real money.

“How it works is that contracts pay $1 if an event comes true – nothing otherwise – and the price these contracts trade for is the prediction. For example, you could have a contract that pays $1 if Helen Clark is the next Prime Minister, and pays nothing otherwise. If that contract trades for 60 cents, then the market’s prediction is a 60% probability that Helen Clark will stay on as Prime Minister.”

Mr Burgess says that prediction markets are the gold standard for forecasting.

“Traders on prediction markets combine information from polls, expert commentary and any other source to produce a prediction that is more accurate than any available alternative,” Mr Burgess says.

“Prediction markets work because they ask traders to put their money where their mouths are, so it pays to be honest, objective, and even do a little homework.” …

Anybody can browse iPredict and see the predictions for free by going to www.iPredict.co.nz but traders have to be 18 years and older to set up an account. Accounts are free to set up and people can start trading with as little as $5.

Get some money on your account and get predicting.

Goonix

Matt Nolan

8% weekly interest rates: What’s going on

/17 Comments/in , , , /by

Following the “revelation” that a loan shark in Porirua was charging 8% interest per week on loans, the government has offered to do nothing. Blogs on the left hand side of the spectrum were irritated by this, as they feel that people are being taken advantage of (the Standard) (Tumeke) (Frontline – prior to this incident). Lets investigate the issue.

Now I am not disputing the fact that people are, in some sense, “being taken advantage of”, however I do disagree with the solution that the other blogs follow – setting a cap on interest rates. In this sense I am in agreement with government policy. Read more

jamesz

Prices slashed on war this century!

/16 Comments/in /by

We’ve resisted talking about Iraq pretty well on this blog, unlike the rest of the internet. Unfortunately we’re suckers for a pretty picture or two, so here’s a nice one showing how much the war has cost the US relative to other wars. Note that the numbers are all inflation adjusted.
Read more

Matt Nolan

Compensation and the ETS

/4 Comments/in , , , /by

Although the blogs appear to be quite quiet about it, I’ve heard a number of people complaining about the government compensating people for the impact of the emissions trading scheme.

Effectively, people who are unhappy about it are telling me that such compensation appears to be pointless as it “cancels out the effect” of pricing carbon in the first place. Ultimately, we can discuss the issue in a little more detail then that. Lets try to figure out how it works – and discuss what this compensation implies, both in terms of achieving carbon/Kyoto liability funding goals, and in terms of social welfare.

Read more

Matt Nolan

Good question!

/6 Comments/in , , , /by

Over at Econlog Bryan Caplan asks a good question – he asks why economists who often rail against the free market will also often state that they strongly support civil liberties. Fundamentally he is asking, why do these people not support freedom to trade but do support freedom of expression.

Now I agree with Dr Caplan that economists should use the same tools to discuss civil issues as they do trade issues – any limits on civil liberties should be the result of externalities, asymmetric information on the value or relevance of ideas, or the undue power of an idea which in turn reduces social welfare (in the same way that in trade, people will rally against externalities, asymmetric information, and undue market power).

However, this does not suddenly imply that I am a stanch supporter of a completely free market – in the same way that I am not a stanch support of blanket calls to remove regulations that reduce civil liberties. Ultimately, in both cases there are trade-offs, and our ultimate goal is to maximise social welfare.

Lets discuss the “social-democrat economist’s bias” a bit more below the flap:

Read more