March NZIER QSBO: Wowsers

Ok, all I can say here is that this is a really bad result.

Everyone knew March was bad, the RBNZ said they expected a bad result, but the net 45% of firms expecting a fall in their own activity is an unconscionably bad result.  I must admit that I was a little surprised.

Now, all economists expect March to be the quarter with the sharpest decline – even before this result.  However, WOW.

One positive for me is that firms expect profitability and productivity to remain low.  This may sound weird – but with cost pressures expected to virtually disappear, firms that are willing to put up with falling productivity and falling profits are firms that aren’t going to lay off as many staff.  When we are only looking one quarter ahead, this is actually sorta good news.

Rates Blog discusses the result more here.

Auckland council merger

Paul Walker and Eric Crampton are both concerned about the proposal to merge Auckland’s city councils to create a ‘supercity’. They fear that the loss of competition for residents among councils will decrease the quality of service and increase the rates. My initial thoughts were:

  1. How much of a problem is this? In any given city over 90% of residents report having the nation’s best quality of life. Given that, is there really much that a council can do to entice people away from where they are?
  2. What’s the marginal impact of rates on people’s decision about where to live? I imagine that it is one of the least important factors in deciding what area of a city to live in.
  3. Can the difference in rates be large enough to overcome the transaction cost of moving house?

Upon reading some of the links they provided I’m more persuaded that there could be an issue. Read more

The cost of sickness

The Dom Post reports that, while the cost of sick days to employers is $700 per year per employee, the loss from employees turning up and being semi-productive when sick is $900! They then recommend that employers press workers to stay at home until they’re better.

There are two problems I have with that: their assumptions and their method of dealing with opportunity cost. Read more

Does money buy power?

Dani Rodrik has interesting stuff to say about the way policy is formed. He discusses whether government policy is driven more by the prevailing ideology or by the interests of powerful lobby groups. There are two key ponts he makes:

  1. There are a lot of ways to make the lobbyists happy and many of them also help others, or fit in with the government’s ideology. Therefore it’s often hard to infer the motive from the action. I would add that the inference is often made on the basis of the observer’s personal political views.
  2. So far as he can tell, ideology is usually more important than lobbyists:

    isn’t it the case that the reason trade unions, say, have lost power in recent decades is the ideology of deregulation which swept Washington, D.C.? Or that U.S. auto makers have been unable to get large-scale import protection because this was a no-no in the prevailing ideological climate?… The fact that the U.S. wants fiscal stimulus and Germany doesn’t cannot be explained by the relative power of different groups within those countries. It has much more to do with the way in which their respective governments have defined the problem and the “lessons” of history they have drawn. Similarly, France wants more global regulation in large part because, well, France believes in regulation. Sure, Britain and the U.S. prefer a lighter touch in part because their financial sectors are more powerful–which in turn is due in part to the Reagan-Thatcher ideological revolution.

If we accept Rodrik’s argument then we must ask where these ideologies come from. In a democratic system there is no avoiding the fact that the prevailing views of the government are usually the ones voted for by a plurality of the citizenry. I’d like to think that this is the case because it would disturb me to believe that money can buy power that a democratic majority cannot achieve.

Easter and retail sales

Paymark has reported some interesting results for electronic card sales over March.

In their news story they say the food and liquor are doing well relative to March last year, travel looks soft, and if we adjust for the funky timing of Easter (last year it was in March, this year it is back to its normal April) sales are down a bit.

Now, I remember last March – and I remember Stats NZ said that it wasn’t going to adjust for Easter because, when it comes to retail sales, it isn’t clear what the impact is.

Using my poor memory and a touch of logic, I recall the timing of Easter boosting the sales of specialty foods and tourist related activities – as people were coming around to hang out with family and celebrate Easter in a different month then usual.  In net terms this lead to a movement of these types of sales from April to March.  The place where retail sales did struggle was motor vehicles and the such – however, these aren’t the sort of purchases that turn up in the electronic card numbers.

As a result, today’s figures maybe don’t show such a weak story – maybe tourist spending isn’t quite as bad as they are saying, and maybe food spending is very robust.  I wouldn’t be surprised if liquor spending is strong – as it can be relatively counter-cyclical.  However, it isn’t clear that they should be revising the figures down on the basis of Easter …

Watchmen movie: Really a critique of utilitarianism?

Yesterday I saw the Watchmen movie. I haven’t read the comics or any of that jazz, but I was told that it provided a compelling critique of utilitarianism. As an ethical theory it definitely illustrated the short-comings of utilitarianism. But in the way economists use utilitarianism – namely as a framework to hang value judgments off – the argument is far less compelling.

Note if you don’t want any spoilers don’t click the tag …
Read more