The situation in the Levant isn’t going to improve soon. Does New Zealand really have a strategic interest in the defeat of Islamic State? I’m not convinced, and the softening up of the New Zealand public over the past few months for “boots on the ground” should concern anyone capable of thinking clearly.
If the risk to New Zealand is elevated because of Islamic State, then a direct military contribution will only increase that risk. The more reasonable response is to take advantage of the fact that New Zealand is a long way from the Middle East and allocate resources towards improved security within New Zealand and around New Zealand assets overseas such as embassies and diplomatic missions.
Our imminent presence on the UN Security Council doesn’t mean we have to put troops on the ground. It’s actually an opportunity for New Zealand to promote a non-crazy attitude towards foreign intervention. Even humanitarian aid in the Middle East is actually helping Islamic State – so if we are currently doing any of that, it should grind to a halt until they start acting like civilised people.
As that is unlikely to happen, the best approach is to stay as far away as possible from foreign entanglements. The rhetoric around this whole situation is concerning, the same people who lied about Iraq are talking heads on US news shows and the same people who haven’t incurred any personal costs for their mistakes are shilling for greater intervention!
Over at TVHE, Matt Nolan has a good rant about that Blue-Green thing many people on Twitter have been up in arms over recently. I don’t think there is a need for any real change in the Green Party’s positioning because demographics is destiny for the Green Party.
This really stood out to me:
How many people who accuse the “other side” of not caring about people have actually tried to understand the other sides argument? How many have actually gone through detailed empirical policy work trying to understand what trade-offs exist, and trying to figure out what we can know about social issues? I tell you what it is a lot of work to do and no-one has the hours in the day – but I find it amazing anyone can have such a negative view of others intentions after doing all this work, let alone before doing it.
My mental of politics and political activists is that it’s all about teams, policy be damned, except when it’s important. That isn’t to say parties don’t have good policies from time to time – just pointing out that confirmation bias is a major risk for everyone involved in politics. Think about how some politicians are able to reframe any topical issue in the language that appeals to their voter base.
But there is a major misunderstanding of the Green Party that political journalists are trying to project onto it – it’s member driven and simply won’t “move to the centre” because that’s not what the Green Party *is*. It should make people on the left raise their eyebrows when right wingers seem to think Stuart Nash is the right person to lead the Labour Party and that the Greens should “move to the centre”. Who really benefits from those two things happening? Bueller? Bueller?
The most important post-election documents are not coalition and supply agreements. They’re the Briefings to incoming Ministers that each government department prepares for whomever has been appointed responsible Minister for their department. That’s obviously just my opinion.
Elected governments are temporary, bureaucracies are permanent. The structural reforms in the New Zealand public sector over the past 30 years have lead to a high level of corporate-like behaviour, but there is still a major lack of understanding around how power is actually distributed in Wellington.
The shenanigans the Labour Party is currently going through around David Cunliffe are a sideshow. The election was a sideshow. Democracy itself is a side show. Every day, thousands of people go to work and open up Word documents that detail policies, regulations, interpretations and draft legislation. They do this under the nominal control of the government of the day, but no one is dictating every single word to them.
For some, this isn’t a big deal. I’m not that concerned about the public service – almost every public servant has the public’s best interests at heart. They’re not evil conspiratorial creatures, they’re just people. New Zealand has a highly competent public sector relative to almost all the others. The attacks on the public sector by the right is something I don’t understand. The changes in policy and move towards more intervention in our day to day lives didn’t just happen through legislation – it happened through substantial changes in the people who start with blank Word documents.
In Wellington Central, there is a bubble. And this bubble doesn’t much like the National government, but it is immaterial if National or Labour form the government. If Grant Robertson is the new Labour leader this afternoon, and the National party doesn’t win the next election, the bubble will be very pleased. It makes things easier if the temporary government is very much aligned with the permanent government.
Insurers are reluctant to share details on an insurance cost comparison site according to the Herald.
What are the people behind iCompare doing wrong?
LifeDirect was bought out by TradeMe if I recall correctly, and you can easily compare life insurance quotes on that site.
Refusal to give data to an independent website isn’t necessarily anti-competitive behaviour, but there are clear rents to be earned in the insurance sector.
With the move to sum insured instead of full replacement in the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquake disaster, insurance needs to be on the regulatory radar.
Most people don’t have diversified portfolios and carry debt, so any upset in their situation is tough to deal with.
Fed chair Janet Yellen was right when she said the other day that asset building is key to making households more resilient to future financial crises.
Over at Capital Ideas, published by Chicago Booth School of Business, there is an excerpt from Amir Sufi & Atif Mian’s book “House of Debt: How They (and You) Caused the Great Recession, and How We Can Prevent It from Happening Again“.
Debt plays such a common role in the economy that we often forget how harsh it is. The fundamental feature of debt is that the borrower must bear the first losses associated with a decline in asset prices. For example, if a homeowner buys a home worth $100,000 using an $80,000 mortgage, then the homeowner’s equity in the home is $20,000. If house prices drop 20%, the homeowner loses $20,000—his full investment—while the mortgage lender escapes unscathed. If the homeowner sells the home for the new price of $80,000, he must use the full proceeds to pay off the mortgage. He walks away with nothing. In the jargon of finance, the mortgage lender has the senior claim on the home and is therefore protected if house prices decline. The homeowner has the junior claim and experiences huge losses if house prices decline.
I recommend reading the full article if you have time. The reason why this makes sense is that one household’s debt is another household’s asset. A key risk to the New Zealand economy is the outsized proportion of household assets made up by home equity. A way to reduce that risk is to build up the financial assets of households. This is the real benefit of Kiwisaver and state wealth funds like ACC and the NZ Super Fund. They’re reducing the severity of any house price collapse induced recession in the future. If your household has a diversified portfolio of assets – including across asset classes – then house prices dropping 20% won’t have as much of an impact than if your household has almost 100% of its assets in home equity.
This morning the NZ Herald had an article by Simon Collins called “If you want to get married, better get a degree“.
They interviewed Paul Callister about the update to a previous paper on assortative mating called “The NZ ‘Meet Market': 2013 census update” – but they didn’t link to it. Any intellectually curious reader would probably want to have a look at the paper being discussed.
So, in 2014, a few decades since the concept of a “hyper text link” was made possible, I had to spend time searching for Paul Callister’s website, find his recent publications and they check that it was the paper being discussed in the article.
It is hilarious! Where on earth do media firms find these people who still think it’s in any way, shape or form acceptable to not link to something you’re writing about?
Close but no cigar again, NZ Herald. This article has been shared on Facebook, shared on Twitter and emailed. But you can’t link to the source document!
I’m going to suggest to readers that if you find this stuff interesting, then there is a recent paper I found by Karl Hememberg that looks at the effect of assortative mating on income inequality.
This is interesting stuff! The lack of intellectual curiosity, the fact that Simon Collins didn’t mention that because a lot of people are thinking about income inequality in the lead-up to the election that research like this could prove surprising to some people who hold those views, the lack of linking the study back to other interesting work that Paul Callister has done, is simply another indication of how low their value add to the national discourse has become.
A study of more than 1,000 members of that graduating class from 25 selective colleges found that two years after graduation, one-quarter of them were still living at home. Thirteen percent had jobs that didn’t require any college education. Most were still getting some kind of financial help from their parents.
Read the whole article over at Vox.
There is a lot of interesting literature about how graduating into a recession can have a permanent negative impact on lifetime earnings. I would add that because of the importance of the first graduate job in determining your “career trajectory”, there will be enormous long term consequences if a non-trivial amount of graduates in New Zealand don’t end up with the sort of jobs they went to university to obtain.
One of the better parts of how New Zealand does tertiary education is that student loan repayments only kick in when you earn more than $19,084 and come straight out of your wages to IRD as opposed to the US situation where some graduates may have several different student loan providers to deal with – and make payments even if their “investment” in education hasn’t earned them a dollar in return.
I’ll briefly discuss the idea that balance sheet recessions take a long time to recover from. Debt fuelled asset bubbles don’t always wind down in an orderly fashion. There are bumps along the road. In the New Zealand experience of the GFC, we entered a recession earlier than the rest of the world and now, find ourselves in the monetary tightening phase as some countries like Australia are starting to slow down.
I think that the balances sheet restructuring hasn’t gone far enough. There is still too much private sector debt in New Zealand and no one has adjusted their portfolio allocation behaviour. New Zealand obviously has way too much allocated to property as an asset class and the inability of many people to think clearly about this issue is a major risk, in fact I’d say it is a bigger risk than even officials have indicated in some works.
Whilst I’d agree that servicing ability is what matters for mortgages – I disagree with the idea that highly leveraged housing loans aren’t a key driver of higher house prices. Most first home buying couples are broke and some even need their parents to help with the deposit. That makes them high risk because with labour market insecurity, the fact that many relationships don’t last and external shock risks like another global trade slump, lending money to these people is really silly stuff.
If the loan term has to be extended to 30 years in order for a mortgage to be “affordable”, that’s nothing different to what sub-prime experts Countrywide and Washington Mutual did in the US. They’d come up with fancy interest rate reset or balloon repayment structures to make the monthly payment affordable. When interest rates rose, the music stopped for millions of US households locked into these sorts of contractual agreements some were even fraudulently induced into.
If you look at the contribution employment growth in Canterbury is making to employment growth nationally, then you can’t help but realise that we’re in another asset price fuelled mirage. The balance sheet restructuring necessary to ensure that capital shallow firms can get the financing they need simply hasn’t happened. The only “businesses” that have received funding are farms on the back of high commodity prices.
I don’t think this is going to be fun in the medium term. Constantly deferring the day of reckoning makes the inevitable reversal worse than it has to be. It’s even more worrying when you realise that NIMBY homeowners have enormous political power – the housing sector in New Zealand is basically “too big to fail” as evidenced by National’s announcement last week of more fuel on the fire for first home buyers.
I’m a bit late to the party on tax revenue estimates where Matt Nolan at TVHE and Seamus Hogan at Offsetting Behaviour both weighed in on the Green’s proposed tax changes.
I would add that although estimating tax revenue is extremely difficult, the behavioural response isn’t that complicated for many people who would be affected by the top tax rate kicking in at an income of $140,000.
This level of income is likely to be received by mid-career professionals who have fixed levels of expenditure on positional goods like school fees, automobiles and mortgage repayments. Reducing their after-tax income doesn’t reduce the level of outgoing cash flow commitments many of these households have.
When you add in the desire to maintain relative status, reducing the after tax income of some people in this category could lead to an effect rarely considered by those on the right – people working harder and billing more hours in order to maintain the same level of after-tax income that they did before the top tax rate increased.
Given that the costs of setting up a contracting structure to benefit from a lower company tax rate of 27% include having to renegotiate your employment arrangements and get your employer to incur costs in order to monitor a different type of contractual relationship, I think the level of behavioural response on this level would be a bit lower than you may think.
Of course it’s all speculation. I would point out that the risk of such a proposal is that if the revenue stream doesn’t match what was expected, something else has to come off the table. Spending some time on Google Scholar will make you realise that the literature couldn’t be easily summarised into a sound bite for Morning Report.
One of the things that Shamubeel Eaqub talks about in NZIER’s housing affordability paper is the importance of making renting in New Zealand a better substitute for owning.
The Cornwall Park situation is where 21 year rent reviews and the enormous increase in land values of the property owned by the trust has led to tenants getting massive increases in ground rent.
I don’t have much sympathy for people who entered into these sorts of property use arrangements and then, when the trust is exercising its rights, cry out to protect their “economic rent” of not paying the full cost of living in this area by attempting to stave off massive increases in ground rent.
I would have thought that a prudent property owner would have set aside some savings to offset the inevitable increase in ground rent over a 21 year period. What would a diversified portfolio have earned over that period of time with regular contributions?
The real question to ask is how many holidays and automobiles these people have taken during the inter-rent review period. I’d wager hardly any of these people have set money aside for future ground rent increases whilst they consumed the difference in cost elsewhere in their budgets.
I would argue that these sorts of arrangements are actually ideal for improving housing affordability. They are less valuable than freehold arrangements and come with more risk, but they shouldn’t be ignored as an option for improving the supply of housing.