Matt Nolan

Australian government: Ideology rules over evidence?

/2 Comments/in , , /by

Now, I know we make a big deal of how Australians make more than we do.  However, it doesn’t matter how well or how poorly a country is doing – when policy is made it should be on the basis of evidence and costing, not ideology per see.  Redistribution and social goals are essential – but we should ask why we are going for them, and what is the best way to achieve them, rather than throwing ourselves around at selling points.

On that note Agnitio sent me this article.  The TVHE team is discussing it at the moment.  In the interest of having a post up today, I will put up my first response to the article.

Not fact checking properly was a pretty big fail on the part of the Economist to be honest – but I noticed that the Labour guy did not rebut, or explain why, the cost of the Australian project was 10x higher … especially given that he said the speed of the system would be the same.

And the justification may be that Aussie is much much larger – but in that case the marginal benefit associated with providing the service to low density areas would be pretty low.  It is useful to use a market mechanism in help figure out what the underlying value really is.

And that is where the Economist article was probably right with its “right-wing dogma”, and where the Australian government keeps messing up – along with setting maximum calorie counts on meals, and forcing power companies to pay above the price they can charge to households selling back to the grid 😉

If the Australian government is determined to keep implementing poor policies that directly lower the welfare of their citizens, then we probably won’t have to worry about New Zealanders continuing to flood over there will we.

Note:  I believe that a number of the reasons why Aussie is more affluent than Australia stem from their sheer advantage in terms of scale, their earlier TOT increase, the fact they are closer to their markets, and the fact that average tax rates are in fact lower over the ditch.  Given all this, I don’t see why catching Australia should be a goal for policy – simply making the best society we can, given what the members of society value, appears to be the only sensible target for policy right?

Matt Nolan

Rough 2011 predictions

/9 Comments/in , , , , /by

I suppose I should make some falsifiable predictions for the year ahead – so I can explain at the end of the year why I was so wrong 😉

Lets go (note, these are my rough picks – they aren’t associated with anyone else, and they definitely don’t exist in a professional capacity) :

  • NZ GDP growth will near 4%pa by the end of the year.  Inventory accumulation will be a major contributor.
  • Consumption growth will be weaker than economic growth – but will accelerate during the second half of the year.
  • NZ unemployment will hold above 5% – but will be in the lower 5’s.
  • The housing market will remain weak.
  • The Reserve Bank will remain dovish on rates over the first half of the year – but then start hiking in June.
  • Farmers paying down debt on the back of high commodity prices, combined with increasing risk taking/confidence by investors, will see interest rates fall over the first half of the year.
  • National and Labour will compete over “savings plans” which will involve far too much in the way of distortions, compulsion, and poor “incentive” programs for my liking.  As a result I will post on them constantly.
  • National will win the election with effectively the same coalition government as we have now.
  • Aggregate commodity prices will peak in March, but will not decline significantly.
  • Oil prices will rise 10-15%.
  • Australian growth will fall slightly below trend.
  • The US recovery will be lower than expectations in the early stages of 2011 on the back of a slight run down in inventories – however, underlying activity will pick up sharply from the middle of the year.
  • The Fed will not lift rates or cut back on QE.
  • Israel will attack Iran to destroy any nuclear capabilities – and nothing will come from it (have put an entire dollar on this on iPredict – with an order to buy another 100 stocks)
  • Chinese growth will slow to 8%.
  • Portugal will teeter, but the essence of the debt crisis will be forgotten again over the year.
  • Japan will tighten policy too early.
  • Subsidies for solar power will become a more common policy around the world.
  • An international mission to Mars will be announced.
  • Update: India will win the Cricket World Cup.
  • Update:  France will win the Rugby World Cup after disappointing in group play.
  • Update:  Gold price will fall – say it will be lower on December 31 2011 than it was in December 31 2010 in US dollar terms
  • Update:  The NZ TWI will be volatile, but on average unchanged!
  • Update 2: Arsenal will win the PL in 2010/11
  • Update 2: LFC will be top of the PL in 2011/12 at Christmas (but will end up coming 4th)
  • Update 2: Wellington Phoenix will come in sixth in the regular season – but will make a semi final.  They will be in fourth place by the end of December 2011.
Matt Nolan

A step too far: The case against pursuing direct capital/trade/currency controls

/12 Comments/in , , , , , , , , /by

To start off with I have to admit I like Bernard Hickey.  I like the fact he has got out there, written about New Zealand economic issues, and pushed to add an open debate type platform to the discussion regarding the New Zealand economy.  As a result, I may have not been critical enough when I read his posts in the past – as I did not see this coming.  In truth, the calls for exchange rate, trade, and capital controls is a massive step too far in what could well be the wrong direction.  Let me talk about the points Hickey has raised:

Read more

Matt Nolan

A note on GDP

/in , , /by

Anti-Dismal points out the fact that Colin James seems to have run into a little confusion around the GDP statistics.  Now, I can understand this confusion AND I agree that we need to think more sensibly about what income is before we run around making comparisons.  In this sense, all I want to point out is how the confusion came about.

Now it is true, Australia releases production, expenditure, and income measures of GDP.  However, I would note that they set the chain volume measure of these indicators equal with a “statistical discrepancy” figure.

In New Zealand, our statistics department releases production and expenditure GDP, but does not force them to be equal.  They state that they believe the production figure is more reliable overall – and that is why people discuss this figure.

Of course, GDP misses many “non-market” forms of value-added, it is a measure of “production” so misses the fact that a higher terms of trade increases NZ’s implicit income, furtermore it misses “international transfers” which are highly negative for an indebted nation like NZ.

Furthermore, we have to ask why we are looking at the figures.  Is our concern that someone in the same role gets more $$$ in Aussie and so has the incentive to move over there?  If that is the case, why not just compare the PPP adjusted wages for those professions?  Simply looking at GDP misses the fact that our two economies produce different things, and hire different types of labour.

I am not a fan of cross-country comparisons at this type of aggregate level, and I think we should be thinking carefully a little more carefully about what our concerns are regarding the NZ economy directly – rather than focusing on the arbitrary target of our relative living standards compared to other nations.  I realise these relative standards might give us some information on “what we could do” – but unless we are careful when looking at the NZ economy they will lead us towards policy mistakes.

Matt Nolan

Three open economies walk into a bar …

/34 Comments/in , , , /by

There has been an interesting discussion comparing the recession in three open economies, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.  It started with the Canadians, but a couple of New Zealanders then became involved.

The facts are that:

  1. Headline inflation in all three countries is currently close to target (implying that we all made our inflation targets),
  2. New Zealand experienced the largest declines in GDP – Australia the lowest,
  3. The relative price of NZ housing declined, it was stable in Canada, it rose in Australia (all three countries were seen as “over-valued”)
  4. Canada hit the “zero bound” on monetary policy, and it didn’t seem to matter.  New Zealand had room to move, but we stopped and got beaten around the head.

This list of facts suggests one of two things to me:

  1. Demand management in NZ was poorer then in other countries
  2. NZ faced a larger supply shock.

Now, I’m willing to rule out the first one – as we did keep inflation near the target band, and to be honest inflation expectations have held up a little too well …

So this implies that NZ had a larger supply shock.  Here are some reasons I think was the case:

  1. New Zealand’s recession started with a drought, and the required restocking of agricultural breeding stock following the drought.  This was a pain.
  2. New Zealand’s national net debt position is worse than the other two countries (Note:  In NZ when I say national debt I mean private debt + public debt).  With a lot of our debt on a relatively short maturity this was problematic for a few quarters there.
  3. On that note NZ’s financial sector was more strongly hit than the other regions.  It started back in 2005/06 with the “finance company collapse” and got heavy just before our drought induced, striking in late-2007 (here and here).
  4. Terms of trade:  New Zealand’s terms of trade fell to its lowest level since 2004, Australia’s fell to its 2007 levels.  I do not know about Canada – however, the decline in our terms of trade can be seen as a massive supply side shock.
  5. Trade exposure:  Here I am conjecturing, as I am tight for time, but it is possible that NZ could be more trade exposed then the other countries.  If NZ is, it would only be a minor matter anyway I suspect.

Now while these factors explain why NZ declined more sharply than other countries, I don’t think they explain why we are still lagging behind.  Our TOT is recovering fast – it will be back at its peaks mid year.  The drought is over and restocking has been completed.  And our debt position is less of a hazard than it was 12 months ago.  Interesting.

If NZ doesn’t recover to trend (which is very much the consensus forecast out here), it is because New Zealand faced a permanent supply side shock BEFORE the global crisis – we were struggling before things hit the fan overseas, with only a strong lift in the TOT saying us.  When that flooded out at the closing stages of 2008 New Zealand dropped like a stone.

So for Australians and Canadians looking for a point of comparison with New Zealand, just remember that NZ faced a few other issues 😉

Matt Nolan

Globally contracting money stocks

/2 Comments/in , , /by

In a chart on the Rates Blog today they point out that the money stock (note not really the money supply, depending on how you define it) in the Euro Zone is declining.  The indication then is that “Europe looks bad”.

However, the money stock is also dropping in Australia and New Zealand.  If there were figures for the US, I suspect we would see some contraction there as well.

Does this mean economic activity is taking a sharp turn downwards?  Not necessarily – we may be seeing a sharp uptick in the velocity of money or a movement in reserves as global interest rates tick up.  Furthermore, remember that growth in the money stock in many countries ACCELERATED in the middle of the great financial crisis – so to be honest, it is hard to tell exactly what is going on with these figures.

Overall, falling money stock (in conjunction with an easing in borrowing statistics) suggests we should be cautious – it looks like deleveraging is happening.  However, it is not a clear indicator of where the economy is directly going – if relative prices in the economy are adjusting then activity could still be rolling along nicely.