Too often investment in the energy sector, especially around low-carbon energy, is held up as a way to ‘create’ jobs for the economy. This article dispels the myth:

At the risk of being obvious: energy policy is not a jobs programme. Here are three reasons why politicians shouldn’t try to create jobs through energy policy: it’s ambiguous, it’s inefficient, and, most importantly, it’s undesirable.

In summary the author’s critiques are as follows:

1. What counts as a ‘green’ job, for example? Would that job have occurred anyway? Did the ‘creation’ of that job crowd-out another job?
2. The energy sector is typically capital intensive rather than labour intensive and hence efforts to ‘create’ jobs may be better directed elsewhere.
3. More important issues exist in energy, such as accessing cheap, sustainable energy and the security of energy supply – adding a further goal of ‘job-creation’ muddles this.

Given job-creation via energy seems such a hot topic throughout much of the world right now due to weak economic activity, elections forthcoming in the US and NZ and ongoing concern with carbon emissions and a need to ‘green’ the energy sector, it’s worth keeping in mind these criticisms.

One of the centre-pieces of the budget was the reduction in fuel tax (it has had a lot of media coverage). Not only was the fuel tax increase cancelled, fuel tax was in fact decreased by 1p per litre. According to Chancellor Osborne, this move would lead to motoring costs falling for families and businesses.

Given the budget was a fiscally neutral one, in that all additional spending/tax cuts come from spending cuts/tax increases in other areas, how is this cut in fuel tax being funded?

By an increase in taxes on North Sea oil production, from 20% to 32%.

I’ll leave it to the reader to think about what effect this increase in production tax might have at the petrol pump.

Currently a significant portion of Government capital is tied up in the SOEs, around $40 billion dollars (around four times the size of the largest projected Government deficit).

SOEs perform, as a class, very poorly. Recent reports suggest that in the last financial year they returned 1.5% on equity. This is below the risk free rate of return.

Such poor allocation has real costs to the New Zealand economy. The opportunity cost of maintaining investment in such low returning assets (as a whole) effectively amounts to taxpayer resources being wasted.

It is therefore very worthwhile that the Government looks at its investments and considers whether SOEs might be better placed in the private sector’s hands.

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).

It’s not quite certain yet what caused it, with some blaming an “erroneous trade”, possibly via human error or a computer glitch. It seems the initial fall, whatever the cause, then triggered many more sells as paranoia over the global situation, particularly Greece, grew. Crazy!

At the time National called the interest free loan scheme “irresponsible”. Since coming to power in 2008, however, they have maintained the policy, presumably for similarly cynical political reasons as led to the policy being introduced in the first instance.

As a result of the policy, students have been encouraged to borrow more and pay back less. Debt has ballooned. There are obviously other factors to take into account, such as increasing student numbers during the economic downturn. Nonetheless, it is clear that when given the option of borrowing interest free money, those with student loans have limited incentive to pay anymore than the minimum from their loan, for which they might as well borrow the maximum.

What is National’s response to the perceived student loan problem? The introduction of a $50 administrative fee that student loan borrowers must pay annually. Note that National have also provided an incentive for students to voluntarily pay back their loans through a 10% discount on their loans.

I propose a rather simpler solution. Abolish the half measures currently in place and start charging interest on student loans again. Only then will the correct incentives be instilled.

The economist is the last to claim that he has the knowledge which the co-ordinator would need [for planning].

F.A. Hayek in The Road to Serfdom, 1944

• Premier League clubs are paying almost £2 million a week to agents in commission;
• The 20 English top flight clubs disclosed they spent £70.7 million on agents’ fees last season alone;
• Manchester City were by far the biggest spenders, splashing out almost £13 million during dates covering last winter and the recently closed summer transfer window;
• Chelsea paid out about £9.5 million – the second highest – with Liverpool third on £6.7m; and
• Burnley parted with the least amount – less than £500,000.

Agents are typically paid a percentage of a player’s transfer fee. The nature of this payment structure means that agents have an incentive to encourage players to transfer regularly, as they are able to ‘clip the ticket’ each time.

Furthermore, agents have an incentive to encourage ‘high’ transfer fees, as they profit more from such moves. One common tactic from agents to try and push up the price of their players is to link them with big clubs (links which media appear all too happy to report on). Just recently, Spurs’ Russian striker Pavlyuchenko was linked with a move to North London rivals Arsenal, for example. Such ludicrous rumours are designed to wrangle more money off clubs genuinely interested in such a player, such as Zenit St Petersburg and Spartak Moscow.

Sounds like a good line of work if you can get it.

The aim of the intervention is to reduce electricity demand and hence avoid the need to build new power plants to meet this demand. In this sense, the Commission perceive the building of power plants to be a negative externality, presumably as the cost of building is reflected in the per-unit price of electricity for all users.

I take issue with this ‘externality’. For example, if a lot of consumers suddenly started demanding ‘Thierry Henry is God’ t-shirts, such that the price increased, should I feel aggrieved that the action of others is affecting the price I must pay for such a worthy product? No, that is how the market works.

Putting aside my scepticism, let’s assumes that the externality is a genuine one. What might be a superior way of discouraging consumption?

Bans are a blunt tool. From an economic efficiency perspective, you should first try and use prices to incentivise behaviour. High demand for electricity is only ever a problem over relatively short periods. For example, in New Zealand the peaks occur on weekdays in the morning as people wake up and in the evenings as people go home. In hotter climates, the peak typically occurs at the hottest part of the day as air-con works its magic. Hence one might try to charge higher prices at times of high demand to discourage consumption (and hence avoid the need to invest in new power plants). There are electricity meters that are capable of facilitating such differentiated pricing and indeed they are being rolled out in California as we blog.

Under the differentiated pricing scenario, consumers are paying the ‘true’ cost of electricity, so even if they continue to consume at high levels, one should be indifferent to building a new power station as the externality has been internalised.

The obvious perverse incentive that arises from the ban is that consumers will simply purchase their televisions out of state, knowing that they can get a better range of TVs to better suit their individual needs at more cost-effective prices.

It is far more preferable to keep consumer choice open and simply make consumers fully pay for their choice through efficient pricing (assuming that an externality exists in the first instance).

High demand events such as these are the capitalist world’s version of queuing for basic food items in a communist shit-hole. When buyers are unable to adequately express their willingness to pay, due to blunt ‘one-for-all’ pricing and an inability of the seller to price discriminate, shortage ensues.

Enter the scalper. Scalpers are typically demonised by the media in New Zealand. However, scalpers simply allow buyers to reveal their true willingness to pay. When a scalper auctions off a ticket on Trademe, buyers are able to pay exactly what they value their attendance at said event at. What ensues is the efficient allocation of resources – scarce resources are allocated to those that value them highest – an admirable economic goal. Contrast this with the lottery that is the current ‘log-in and hope’ method of ticket allocation. Rather than be vilified, scalpers should be commended for their actions that facilitate the clearing of the market!

Indeed, a commentator at the NBR goes further, calling scalpers “unsung entrepreneurs”. I tend to agree with this sentiment.

Disclaimer: I have both scalped and been scalped. Both experiences were highly pleasurable and I encourage you all to try them.