Japan’s economy in free fall: What does this mean for NZ?

Japan’s economy contracted by 3.3% over the December quarter – a massive fall. To put this in context, the New Zealand economy has shrunk by 1% over the past nine months (to September) on the back of a drought induced recession.

On the face of it this seems scary – Japan’s economy is falling because exports are falling, implying that “world demand” is falling.

However, then I stop and think about it. Japan produces manufactured goods – these are the things that we import. A collapse in world demand for manufactured goods will lead to lower manufactured good prices – which is an effective income boost for NZ.

Furthermore, a weak Japanese economy makes NZ seem “relatively” less risky – something that could help prevent our ability to borrow from overseas from deteriorating.

This isn’t all bad news for NZ – it is possible that global “rebalancing” could work in our favour yet …

Update:  Paul Walker rightly points out that Japan is a major purchaser of NZ products – implying that a slowdown in Japanese growth will hurt us.  This is true.  However, my view is that what matters is the “relative price” for what we sell vs what we buy.  We are a small country, so what we produce can be sold anywhere – what matters is the return.  With global demand slowing it could be the case that the price of manufactured goods falls further than the price of soft commodities – something that would actually provide an income boost for little old NZ.

New Zealand’s sovereign debt rating is tops?

Well according to Moody’s we are in the top tier of AAA rated sovereign debt (ht Market Movers).

New Zealand is “Resistant” while the USA and UK are only “Resilient” and poor old Spain and Ireland are “Vulnerable”.

Go us aye 😉

Don’t bail out F&P

Almost unsurprisingly F&P is struggling in the current environment. Given that we are experiencing a global recession there was always going to be a huge fall off in demand for appliance products (something that hasn’t really happened in New Zealand yet interestingly).

Stuff has already put up a few articles on the event (* and *) and Bruce Sheppard has suggested a bail out. Let me just say that I am completely against a bail out.

Now, if F&P is still in a position where it will be profitable in the medium term, but drastic conditions in the credit market prevent F&P gaining any finance, I could accept the government loaning money to F&P temporarily at a high rate of interest. Bailing out F&P should not be an option – after all, what is growth promoting about forcing all of society to cover businesses mistakes?

As far as I can tell they are in trouble as their debt was denominated in foreign currency and the value of the NZ dollar collapsed. Now excuse me if I’m wrong – but isn’t this just hedging on their part. A few months ago they were complaining that the dollar was too strong and was reducing the profitability of their manufacturing. Now that the dollar is weak (improving the return on what they make) they have lost out on their debt. By denominating their debt in foreign currency they were hedging their losses stemming from a high dollar – why should we be bailing them out when the tide turns?

Update Kiwiblog and Anti-Dismal more explicitly discuss the moral hazard problem.

Cartoon: Can you believe our luck!

Another quality cartoon from Mike Moreu (Cartoon’s and blog):

Awesome.  This is definitely how it feels at the moment.  Lets hope the wave isn’t that big when it hits 🙂

Average vs Marginal: The most common mistake in economics

Something I have noticed over time is that there is always a mass of confusion surrounding average vs marginal costs (or benefits) in economics.

Although there is some confusion with fixed vs variable costs as well (an issue that I believe is closely related) the issue of average vs marginal costs appears ohh so often.

Greg Mankiw mentions a case from the paper recently here.  I remember a case where it was important that was blogged about here.

Now, the difference is important as it is “marginal” costs and benefits that determine decisions (implicitly) not average costs and benefits.  However, if people are often confused between the two is it not possible that many people do make decisions based on the average?  There are a lot of interesting questions implicit here – something we should discuss over the next week 😉 – eg do people choose marginal when describing average?  does this confusion serve some “evolutionary” purpose?

Quote 14: Milton Friedman on policy prescriptions

This was from Greg Mankiw’s blog:

The role of the economist in discussions of public policy seems to me to be to prescribe what should be done in light of what can be done, politics aside, and not to predict what is “politically feasible” and then to recommend it.

If you ever get annoyed with the fact that much of what economists say is politically infeasible this is the quote that explains how we feel. When giving policy we see ourselves as describing the process “removed” from the institution of government – in many ways economists have an idealistic view of government as a body that actually functions in the interest of society.

The fact that a policy isn’t “politically feasible” doesn’t stop it being optimal in the face of more natural constraints.