Red Alert

Posts Tagged ‘economy’

Telco Hearings Set for Stoush

Posted by David Cunliffe on March 15th, 2011

Clare Curran did a great post on Steven Joyce’s abuse of the parliamentary process with the Telecommuniations Amendment Bill. 

The FEC is meeting Wednesday and potentially Thursday this week to try to ram through all the submissions in one week!  

Paul Brislen, CEO of the Telecommunications Users Assocaiation, was rigthly outraged.

Clare and I put out this release today.  We believe this Bill will take the telecommunications industry back to the bad old days of the 1990s, when market dominance was the norm and the consumer got screwed.

The government’s proposed 10-year regulatory holiday is a complete crock.  The Commerce Commission would be prevented from doing its job of ensuring fair access for competitors, while ensuring investment works in the long term interests of end users. 

Those gains were hard won in the last decade.  The industry does not need a leap backwards.

The design of the proposed structural separation of Telecom is uncertain and implies real risks.

The weak, vague and ill-defined form of “equivalence” in the Bill provides little reassurance to retail competitors and consumers.

Crown Fibre holdings is deeply conflicted as both market player and front line regulator.

Ironically, this could all chill investment in a market NZ desperately needs as it seeks to become a hig-value, knowledge economy.

That doesn’t mean Telecom should not be allowed to structurally separate.  Done properly, that could be a win-win.

But it does mean the legislative processs should be careful and thorough, as billions of dollars of taxpayers funds and private equity are at stake. 

Why is the government so determined to ram the Bill through and pto try to stifle legitimate parliamentary scrutiny?

Could it be that their $1.5 billion with a commercial rate of return is insufficient to stimulate the broadband rollout the government promised in its slogans – and that the only way to square the circle is for the poor, dumb consumer to pay too much for a decade to come?

Could it be that after dithering for two and a half years, Steven Joyce is just plain desperate to make something – anything happen, even at the cost of serious damage to the industry’s future?


The Debt Deception

Posted by David Cunliffe on March 8th, 2011

As this is my first blog post since the quake, can I preface my comments by acknowledging the devastating loss suffered by too many Cantabrians and their families, of ther lives and homes shattered, and our shared determination to everything necessary to support their rebuilding and renewal.

In this immediate post-quake period we are all exercising restraint – both in the quantity and tone of poitical comment.  But the debt question has in fact been brought into starker relief by the quake, so I am moved to observe the following.   

Before the quake, National would have you believe that New Zealand had a huge international debt problem, and that the solution to that was for the Government to compress spending and services to pay down this debt. 

It was always a half truth: 90% of that debt is private debt and only 10% of it is public (government) debt.

The second deception was that this high debt was “Labour’s fault”.   The facts are that in 2008 net debt (including NZ Super Fund assets) were in surplus to the tune of 4.7% of GDP.   Virtually no government in the western world saw the collapse coming in advance, but at the least the former Labour Government had the books in strong shape.

Post quake, we are all confronted by huge costs. Families have lost loved ones.  Homes and businesses destroyed will take time to rebuild and renew.  Infrastructure is hugely dislocated.  Much of the CBD will have to come down.  Hopefully there will be proper consultation and an eye to the heritage that makes Christchurch unique.

The financial costs are also huge – in Treasury’s February Indicators, around  $12 billion (later estimates put it around $15 billion),  of which some $5 will fall to the Crown because it is not covered by EQC, its reinsurers or private insurance.  Around a further $5 billion in lost Crown revenue will occur due to the reduced tax take from decimated business activity and personal earnings in Christchurch.  (I will blog further on the “growth gap” shortly).

So, to use the PM’s very round numbers – there is $10 billion for the public to find over the next four years or so. 

Some of that can legitimately be redirected from other investments – for example the “holiday highway” north of Auckland - to help fund Canterbury roading costs.

Mssrs Key and English believe the rest can be borrowed – that is, placed on the international debt pile – and say that is now acceptable becasue it is a “one off”.   They are so far dismissing suggestions of any additional support for Canterbury through the tax system.  (Raising the EQC Levy only restores its capacity to deal with future disasters, rather than this one).

Why then was the international debt pile so huge that reducing it by slashing Government spending and prolonging the recession was necessary a month ago, but borrowing the lot is no problem now?

Forgive me, but could it be that the answer is not economic but political?  Could it be that reducing government expenditure pre-quake was the price of Budget 2009 and 2010’s - largely upper income – tax cuts; and that even Canterbury’s needs have been trumped by the need to protect National’s traditional voter base from even a temporary reduction in these tax breaks?

I feel unclean even thinking that.  But the question has to be asked: why not expect the whole community to share part of the cost through the revenue system?  Even the NZ Herald agrees with that.


A clear dividing line

Posted by Grant Robertson on January 26th, 2011

From time to time someone will ask me if there is any real difference between Labour and National. For me the answer has been, and is, obvious. But the last two days should leave no one in any doubt.

From Phil, on behalf of Labour we saw yesterday a vision for an economy where we all pay our fair share, combined with a plan to actually grow the economy through a focus on R and D, skills, savings and protecting our assets and where government works as a partner with businesses.

Today from John Key we have seen a retro 90s style recipe of asset sales and slashing government spending. As my colleague Moana Mackey said if a definition of madness is doing the same thing over again but expecting different results, then John Key and National are positively bonkers. As another colleague Charles Chauvel said this morning, there is no plan for increasing Kiwi wealth, just for selling off what we already own.

It was interesting today another leader gave his State of the Union Address. There were lots of interesting lines in the Obama speech. His call to respect the teaching profession being one. But I was also struck by this

Cutting the deficit by gutting our investments in innovation and education is like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine. It may feel like you’re flying high at first, but it won’t take long before you’ll feel the impact.

To extend the metaphor further than it probably should be, John Key’s plan is to remove the engine and sell off a wing and half the seats and hope that the plane keeps going, ours is to fix the engine, make the plane fly higher and faster and make sure there are seats on it for everyone. That’s the difference.

The test is how the public will view these different visions. Interesting to see that as at early this afternoon the (obviously highly unscientific) Herald and Stuff on-line polls which do not tend to favour Labour were 2/3rds against asset sales and 2/3 for first $5000 being tax free respectively. It’s sure going to be an interesting year.


It’s the little things that count…

Posted by David Cunliffe on December 7th, 2010

Sometimes it’s the little things that tell a big story.

Parliament is sitting in the press-Xmas period under the shadow of urgency to pass a rush of “priority legislation”. 

Guess what one of the top priorities is?  Abolishing gift duty.

That’s right, at a time when Kiwi families are doing it bloody tough, when the recession is biting this year worse than last, when top earners have had two rounds of generous tax cuts, and when the government is confronted by evidence of large scale tax avoidance, their priority is abolishing gift duty.

Making it easier to transfer assets to the trusts or the kiddies (on lower tax rates) above the existing threshhold of $27k each per annum.

Surely not a prioirty in the Mana electorate, not a priority in New Lynn, nor quake-ravaged Christchurch.

Surely not an example of personal responsibility – where everone pays their fair share.

Surely not bringing relief to the squeezed middle. 

For National it is clearly a prioirty to bring yet further relief to the top. 

Sometimes it really is the little things that count.


S&P: National on negative watch (part II)

Posted by David Cunliffe on November 23rd, 2010

Part one of this post showed that S&P placed NZ on negative watch because of the savings gap, the huge (mainly private) net international debt and our under-diversified export profile (and consequent vulnerability).  It all adds up to lenders perceiving potentially greater risks and seeking compensation through higher interest rates.

How did the Government react to the news?  Did it front the issues and explain its “plan”?  Not in your life.

Alex Tarrant at interest.co.nz did a great job of covering John Key’s rather bizarre, meandering post-Cabinet press conference here.  Interest.co.nz’s coverage if the political debate is here.

Mr Key manages to contradict himself three ways in two paragraphs:

“Nothing has changed from our point of view, in fact if anything, our position looks stronger from our point of view (really?)…

We accept that we’ve had to take the earthquake on our balance sheet, accept tax revenues have been a bit weaker this year than we had anticipated…(corporate was 22.4% below 2010 forecasts, gst 15.8% below!)”

So… nothing has changed, we are stronger, but we are weaker.  Classic.   He must have been eyeballing three different journos and guessing they wanted three different answers, so why not try to please all of them at once?

The coup de grace is his attempt to pass it all off as Ireland’s fault.  True, the Irish are in a bit of a bog, but lets assume S & P can tell the difference between the land of the long white cloud and the emerald isle. 

Back in the real world, one thing is for sure, S&P won’t be amused if Messrs Key and English try to talk their way out rather than addressing the fundamental issues: how about trying to grow savings, diversify and lift exports, and reduce private international debt?  Who knows, they could even turn it into a plan?


S&P: National on negative watch (part I)

Posted by David Cunliffe on November 23rd, 2010

National’s counter-spin on yesterday’s placement by Standard and Poor’s of New Zealand’s sovereign credit rating on negative watch shows increasing desperation, the latest of a torrent of bad economic news.  I comment in two parts: the announcement and the counter-spin.

First the announcement’s overview:

  • “We perceive New Zealand’s projected widening external imbalances and the country’s weakened fiscal flexibility as increasing risk to the sovereign.
  • New Zealand’s vulnerability to external shocks, stemming from its open and relatively undiversified economy, also raises risks to the country’s economic recovery and credit quality.”

The S&P Report’s rationale makes the drivers even clearer:

  • widening external imbalances
  • weakened fiscal position
  • under-diversified economy
  • high external liabilities
  • a return to high current account deficits averaging 5.9% of GDP over the next three years.
  • and crucially, that “net external liabilities … predominantly reflect dependance by households on foreign capital to fund consumption and property investments”

In other words: New Zealand does not save enough, it has too much private debt, and that debt was used to fund the wrong things (property speculation not real business investment).  New Zealand’s exports are under-diversified and New Zealand will continue structural bleeding on our external accounts after the immediate recession.

The logical repsonse to these problems should be;

  • strong action to close the savings deficit (if possible by building good household saving behaviour)
  • diversify and increase exports (presumably moving beyond a narrow range of bulk commodities)
  • managing the fiscal position to encourage sustainable growth, employment and healthy tax revenues without blowing the fiscal deficit.
  • ensuring monetary policy supports the direction of reform rather than acting against it.

It obviously should NOT include:

  • borrowing more for tax cuts to upper income earners that neither create powerful stimulus nor correct the underlying imbalances
  • reinforcing exisitng bulk commodity exports while reducing investment in innovation and R&D to divesify and add value to the export base
  • cutting back Kiwisaver; cancelling prefunding for the NZ Super Fund; and taking two years to set up a Savings Working Group (and even then proscribing a range of strong policy options)
  • pretending monetary settings are ideal when exporters face extreme currency volatility

Bill English and John Key declared S&P lifting their previous negative outlook as a” verdict’ on Budget 2009.

They should be straight-up enough to accept that S&P has now reversed its verdict.

After 18 months of National Government policies National can have only itself to blame.

In part II of this post we’ll check whther their rhetoric matches this reality.


Currency Wars: Seismic Shift Approaching?

Posted by David Cunliffe on November 18th, 2010

There is a very interesting article carried by today’s Dom post from Edmund Conway at the Telegraph: “Lurching between extremes at epoch’s end”

Conway argues that the failure of the recent G20 meeting to resolve the current impasse on currency imbalances might be seen as an important marker point of the century -a moment when the global financial system tipped from order to instability.

Underlying this are several crucial factors:

  • US and Chinese inability to see a middle path on quantitative easing (”QEII” -driving down the value of the dollar to rebalance the US economy away from its yawning trade deficit) vs Chinese determination to hold the value of the yuan down to maintain export competitiveness (and the resulting buildup of surpluses available for reinvestment in Western assets).
  • The increasing strain faced by the largely (but not entirely) free floating exchange rate system as more countries explore altrernatives.  Conway likens this to the end of the Bretton Woods system – a once-in-50-year-shift.
  • The underlying shift in economic power from West to East, from the US toChina.
  • The increasing polarisation in US politics as it tries to cope with adjustment – notably the anti-free trade positioning of the Republican Right “Tea Party”.

He predicts two possible endgames;

  • another financial crisis leading global leaders to forge a new economic concensus (a ‘coherent international monetary system”).
  • or a period of chaos as “hegemonic stability”underpinned by the US breaks down.  That would indeed make the GFC look like a tea party.

If Conway is right, and there is a non-zero chance that he is, then New Zelanders must ask the question “what is our plan B” on international finance?  What if the assumptions of normality no longer hold?

Labour has already proposed a moderate but definitive programme of monetary reform, including a rewrite of the Reserve Bank Act, complementary monetary policy tools and more tactical exchange rate intervention (a “dirty float”).  This is predicated on continuity of something like current international conditions.

If chaos breaks out and the tradeability of our dollar is in jeopardy, or if there were huge capital flows into NZ (as a safe haven or a punt outside the USD), or of capital flight as risk averse traders retreat to the greenback or gold, what forward planning has been done to anticipate this?  I would guess, none in the Beehive and not much at the RB.  At the very least some transparency would be helpful.

Once again it looks like it is left to Labour to ask the tough questions and come up with some answers.


Currency intervention: Two clips

Posted by David Cunliffe on November 11th, 2010

As the Kiwi dollar rises past 80c US and  70c TWI to unsustainable levels, the debate about currency intervention will become white hot.  Our manufacturing exporters are being killed out there.   Here is John Walley (MEA CEO) from TV1 Breakfast this morning.

Labour is calling for the Govt to get off its butt and use its armies of bureaucrats to get thinking about options.  It is not OK to cry “TINA” – ‘there is no alternative’.  There has to be, or manufacturing is finished in New Zealand and farmers are in for a rude shock when the commodity price spike ends.  

In this interview on TV1 Business (at the bleary hour of 6.10 this morning!) I advocate for tactical currency intervention by the Reserve Bank to knock the top off the spike, and monetary reform to help chart a manageable adjustment path.  That must be done alongside a clear stratagy for domestic industry adjustment – investment in the jobs of tomorrow and transitional assistance for displaced workers.   I wouldn’t usually post one of my own clips, but as no-one watched it and at that hour and as TV1 called it a stinging attack, RA viewers might find it interesting…


How to invest?

Posted by Raymond Huo on October 27th, 2010

Investing is all about taking the safest option, right? Well here is an interesting thought from the founder of Sun Microsystems, Vinod Khosla:

I like technologies that have a 90 per cent chance of failure, because a 10 per cent chance of making 100 times your money is better than an 80 per cent of doubling your money.

I wonder what ‘Red Alerters’ make of this quote? Can this idea be used to help form a green and sustainable economy?


More bad economic news

Posted by David Cunliffe on October 21st, 2010

No amount of National trying to reinvent the historical record can detract from the ongoing evidence that the “recovery’ is in trouble and that they have no plan for growth and jobs.  Here’s the latest data:

“Consumer confidence has fallen in the latest ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence survey and a nosedive in confidence has been recorded in responses to a question regarding whether it is a good time to buy a major household appliance.

The survey’s main confidence measure eased three points to 113.6 and its current conditions index dropped 11 points to 92.3.

The current conditions index has dropped below the 100 mark for the first time since December 2009 and is at its lowest point since August 2009….”


Judicial Inquiry into SCF now urgent – NZ Herald

Posted by David Cunliffe on October 20th, 2010

Fran O’Sullivan has written a very strong opinion piece on SCF in the  NZH here.

“The credibility problem that Feeley faces is that after four months investigating Hubbard’s smaller entities, he has still to make a decision on whether to file fraud charges against the SFO founder on that score.

When Feeley announced his initial Hubbard probe he went in with all guns blazing. But after several weeks of saying the SFO was close to making a decision, nothing has materialised.

Hubbard has major beefs with the process.

He has also taken issue with the way the statutory managers who have control of his own affairs as well as Aorangi Securities and other small entities are managing affairs. “It is like the way the Nazis treated the Jews; they grabbed all their assets under trumped-up charges. You have to wonder who the National Government will pick on next.”

There are too many layers of regulators, too may issues around the statutory management process, too many issues about the role of the Securities Commission, and frankly too great a contrast between the government’s handling of SCF and the plethora of other finance company failures, many with much more obvious concerns apparent to all.

One commentator to Fran’s piece says as follows:

“Just as intriguing. Why isn’t Feeley taking the same approach to Hanover, BridgeCorp, Hanover, Blue Chip, Hanover, Strategic, Capital & Merchant, and . Hanover? These are all prima-facie, far more obvious instances of self interested activity and related party dealings. Keep up the good work Fran.”

Or  is there something else going on?   Selective leaks from inside sources to settle old scores?  A sad attempt to bury a frail old man while he is still alive?

Of course we cannot know everything about SCF.  No-one does. 

Only a full, independant judicial inquiry can answer these questions.


Cactus Kate on FDI

Posted by David Cunliffe on October 20th, 2010

Two good posts yesterday from Cactus Kate here, and  here, explaining why John Key’s response to NZ’s new foreign investment policy on land sales is nonsenisical.   (Acks to Les for the heads up).

” So what Key is saying is that his policy is to avoid anything that does not keep land prices as high as they are even at the moment (forgetting the peaks of two years ago) to avoid negative equity situations. Same with residential housing as well we can assume because we wouldn’t want the market to move up and down would we?

Little wonder New Zealanders keep buying more land. There is absolutely no risk attached to it when the leading politician comes out with intentions such as that. Where is Key’s worry about negative equity when it comes to SME’s? Silence.”

We need an export led economy and an ownership society.

Just ask any sharemilker wanting to work their way into owning their own farm.

Little wonder a poll running on interest.co.nz is showing a healthy majority of support for the policy.


Truth, English and Growth Stats

Posted by David Cunliffe on October 13th, 2010

Truth is the first casualty when Bill English tries to reinvent economic history. 

This afternoon at question time Bill English claimed that the NZ economy has grown more in the last 9 months than it did in the full four years from Sept 05 – Sept 09.

The figures compare growth rates between quarters as opposed to annual changes.

English claims growth between the Sept 2005 and 2009 quarters was 1.0%, and 1.7% between September 2009 and June 2010. 

English’s figures aren’t cumulative and so aren’t particularly representative of what happened.

When you compare GDP annual figures you get different results:

For the years ending Sept 2005 to Sept 2009: GDP growth was 2.5%.

For the years ending Sept 2009 to June 2010: GDP growth was 1.1%.

If you take a more representative time period of years ending Sept 05 – Dec 08 then the GDP increased by 4.4%.

Point is, here we have a Minister of Finance who repeatedly shows he is willing to twist, misuse and abuse data for political point scoring. 

New Zealand deserves better than that!


Unlocking Our Potential

Posted by David Cunliffe on October 4th, 2010

The Canterbury Earthquake, terrible though it was, reminds us of the courage and resilience of New Zealanders in a crisis. 

 If only the same courage and strength could be tapped as part of our normal ‘economic development’, NZ would be able to unlock enormous untapped potential.

 That same courage was evident in many of our forebears: those who voyaged to NZ by waka or ship, and those hacked down the bush to form arable pasture (often on slopes so steep it should not have been touched, but their courage was undeniable).  

 Tapping into that same strength of character to unlock future potential is part of the task that lies before us. 

 Our world is changing.  The old solutions will not work for tomorrows problems.  The old certainties have gone.   The era of guaranteed markets in the UK for our sheep and beef has gone.   The era of free and easy credit has now gone.  

 We are told we face a ‘decade of deleveraging’.  All around us we see growing signs of despair.  

 Just as in the 70’s we were called upon to diversify our markets, in the 80’s to deregulate our economy, and in the 00’s to rebuild our torn social fabric, Labour is now called upon to rise to a new challenge in a new era. Just as Mickey Savage did in the 1930s, we are being called upon to find a better way.

 NZ is currently meandering through the aftermath of the global financial crisis.  We are beset by malaise.  We lack confidence.  We appear unable to define our own future, and even lack awareness of our own potential and character.

 So NZ falls back passively on its proximity to larger Asian growth centres, its traditional bulk agricultural base, and its relationship with its nearest neighbour Australia.

 These are undeniable strategic advantages, but if any are a substitute for owning our own future, they will ultimately undermine our national wellbeing and identity.  

 Our relationship with foreign investment has to change.  As it stands we are becoming more and more deeply indebted to foreigners.  We have been through a phase of selling state assets to cover the interest.  We are now selling our land at the rate of dozens of rugby fields a day.  But still our national debt keeps rising. 

 It was not primarily ‘the government’s’ fault.   Most of this debt is private debt.  Most of it fuelled the private binge on property consumption (it was never really ‘investment’ despite the temporary up-cycle in which much of it happened).

 That we need more foreign investment is undeniable, but it must be channelled into genuinely value-creating and productive activity and not simply transfer the ownership of existing assets to foreigners making our future income deficit worse.   

 A new conversation must begin – one that starts from the proposition that we wish to own and govern our own affairs.


Systemic Market Failure?

Posted by David Cunliffe on September 22nd, 2010

When this country is in recession and Kiwi families are doing it bloody tough, I cannot bear to stand by and see rich and powerful private interests – whom I will not name at this point and this post is not about SCF – rorting the rules and using their clubs and networks to finesse processes.

It makes Godzone look like “the coldest banana republic in the world”.

For goodness sake interests associated with the Natural Dairy Crafar farms bid (potentially with Nat links) reportedly gave $200,000 to the National Party while the Natural Dairy application was still before the OIO and while National has a ministerial policy review underway. 

National should IMMEDIATELY reject that bid – otherwise what is left to separate this from complete corruption?  Brown envelopes?  Is David Garrett really the only sick or crooked puppy on the Govt benches? 

Was it OK for the OIO-overseeing Minister of Finance to lease his (trust’s) house to the govt for a staggering ministerial rent, or accept hours of free TV for his “Plain English” ads?  Isn’t it time we Kiwis stood up and demanded that the tories do sweat the small stuff like the rest of us?  Isn’t it time John key held SOMEONE to account for SOMETHING rather than smile, wave and make excuses?

The Fendalton and Queen St methods are different from the Crafar one but they are even more dangerous and subversive: very polite circles of influence in the clubs and boardrooms - with massive flows of funds through anonymous trusts that violate the intent of the Electoral Finance Act.  Prestigious law firms and lobbyists.  This is up with the worst sort of influence peddling  I saw in Washington D.C. -  One dollar one vote:  permanent plutocracy unless we fight back.

Beyond political donations, look at the ability of the rich and powerful to get their way while the poor and middle struggle: $2 billion a year of tax avoidance through LAQCs and trusts that National in government has refused to touch.  Half the top 100 welathiest NZers are still not on the top tax rate!

This post is not about SCF, but researching that issue has opened my eyes to the complexity of the company and accounting structures in daily use around the markets.   One prominent international investment broker told me he tells his clients never to invest in NZ other than through an ASIC-regulated (Australian) vehicle, because our market is a wild west.

Well what is the point of getting our savings rate up (and asking hard working families to go without consumtion) if the investment vehicles we need to get the money to our struggling firms are being milked and siphoned by fees and sweet deals to the cronies in the markets?  Why would any sane Kiwi sweat 80 hours a week to build a real business here?  Where will our kids choose to live?

We are talking the need for a full scale root and branch reform.  For example, is the Trustee model not a fiction?  Issuers want tame trustees; trustees want clients.  How do you prevent a race to the bottom?  I will wager now the FMA Bill will not do the job.  We have BIG problems here folks. 

It might have been cool to point the finger at Labour when the champers was flowing during the bubble hype days; but corporate influence peddling is about as attractive as a bucket of sick in the middle of a recession.

There is a real risk of systemic market failure in the NZ financial markets.     They remind me of telecommunications markets in the 1990s – time for a big cleanup.

It is not right and not fair on the silent majority who play by the rules and who are getting absolutely screwed. 

It will only get worse until we have a Govt with the guts to stand up to it.   The smiling millionaire from Bankers Trust is hardly likely to do that!


Mr Botherway Must Step Aside

Posted by David Cunliffe on September 21st, 2010

The Chair of the Financial Markets Authority Eastablishment Board, Simon Botherway, now has no choice but to step aside pending the outcome of the Ombudsman’s inquiry into the mangament of his potential conflicts of interest in placing Allan and Jean Hubbard into statutory managment.

The public cannot understand how the Securities Commission took this step reportedly on the basis of a single anonymous complaint, timed shortly after Mr Hubbard transferred the bulk of his remaing assets into SCF to protect investors.  

Further, the Ombudsman must widen the terms of its inquiry to include questions around any potential or perceived conflicts of interest around Mr Botherway’s long standing business relationships with Mr George Kerr, Director of Torchlight Fund, one of the primary beneficiaries of the taxpayer funded bailout of South Canterbury Finance depositors.

These associations are reportedly of long standing and reportedly included at Spicers Portfolio Management and at Brook Asset Management, as well as in relation to several other funds.  Mr Kerr is also a Director of Pyne Gould Corporation, which has announced that it is seeking to set up a “heartland bank” centered on rural South Island lending. 

It must be totally transparent that neither Mr Botherway nor any of his interests have any ongoing relationship whatsoever with this proposed new bank.      

In short it is imperative that if wide ranging financial markets regulatory powers are to be concentrated in the hands of a single regulator, the holder of that office must be beyond reproach, with an impeccable record, and no possible or perceived conflicts of interest with former, current or potential business associates.

Mr Simon Botherway, who was John Key’s former Deputy at Bankers Trust, must now step aside from from the FMA Establishment Board Chair pending the outcome of a broadened Ombudsman’s inquiry.

Furrther, the Key Government cannot now clear the air on SCF withut a full and independant judical inquiry into the circumstances leading to its recievership and New Zealand’s largest investor bailout.


The curious case of the missing recovery

Posted by Darien Fenton on August 31st, 2010

Not much good news around about the NZ economy.

Standard & Poor Chief economist David Wyss told Auckland economists yesterday that there is a one in three chance of another crash and while the “recession is over”, it’s a very fragile recovery. NZ businesses say they cut too deep in the recession last year and are struggling to rebuild because many of the skilled workers they laid off have gone elsewhere – and who can blame them?  Tens of thousands got the chop with no redundancy pay and NZ wages and conditions are falling further and further behind Australia’s.  Confidence is faltering and today, our government will fork out around NZ$1.6 billion in taxpayers money to 35,000 depositers in South Canterbury Finance that were covered under the extended guarantee scheme.

The best our government can come up with?  Cut workers’ protection against unfair dismissal, restrict their access to union advice, cut their meals and rest breaks and put their holidays up for grabs.

You don’t have to go far to find some pretty grumpy voters. And they’re set to get a lot grumpier come the 1st October when GST goes up and most find that their tax cut has already been eaten up.

This clip from Jim Stanford (aka Lieutenant Stanfordo), who wrote “Economics for Everyone” has parallels, and also some warnings.  Paula Bennett’s Welfare Working Group has been promoting unemployment insurance, but look what happens to the workers who are laid off in this video.  Compulsory savings is an attractive idea, but without government guarantees, workers can end up getting nothing.  I hope someone makes a NZ version.


Tony Judt is dead; his ideas arn’t.

Posted by David Cunliffe on August 12th, 2010

Few writers have impacted me as much as Tony Judt in his recent book “Ill Fares the Land“.  He died last Friday, and I mourn his loss.

Ill Fares The Land picks up where The Spirit Level leaves off: asking why equality and social democracy have declined as drivers of political change. 

Judt suffered from the rare Lou Gehrig’s disease, and Ill Fares the Land was dictated literally from his sick bed.   It is not a robust peer reviewed academic treatise, but in places it is pure inspiration.  Read it.  Buy it.

He traces the crises of the early 20th century – two world wars and Great Depression.  he charts the rise of post-war Keynesian economics and the politics of social democracy that were determined famine and war should not again stalk the earth.

He  notes the rise of Hayek’s Austrian economics – and its Western political manifestations in Reagan and Thatcher’s administrations. 

He notes the rise of the Third Way under Blair (and by another name under Clinton, and could we add locally Clark/Cullen?)  as a triangulated response against the rise of right wing political hegemony.    

He argues that with the end of those administrations the ideas of the Right once again hold sway.  He asks what is worth saving of the social democratic project, and what is now to be done.

He concludes that nothing short of a strong and clear reclaiming of the values of equality, community and social democracy will equip the Left for the fight it must now win.

He notes that genuine politics must take place alongside those it seeks to serve, and I am sure that he is right about that.  

Ill Fares the Land is  far from a perfect work.  (And for the trolls out there, I did not agree with every word).  But it is a poignant lament for the decline of values most Kiwis treasure, and a challenge to us all to fight for a better future. 

RIP Tony Judt.


The Naked Economist; Part 3

Posted by David Cunliffe on July 28th, 2010

Part 1 of this post noted the end of the “Washington Consensus” in economics. Part 2 noted that newly naked economists need some new clothes. In this part I want to stimulate discussion about priorities for the NZ debate going forward.

In the 2010 Budget debate I reckon Labour won the argument that average Kiwis will be worse off after 5.9% inflation next year devours their “tax switch”.

The next stage of the debate will focus on which policies deliver on rebalancing our economy and leaving NZ families better off.

Let’s cut to the chase on “rebalancing”.

The NZ economy is “unbalanced” because:

  •  we borrowed too much from overseas lenders, building a huge national debt
  • we spent it on bidding up property prices, not making things we can sell
  • we export too little and keep bleeding on our current account
  • we are slipping behind in innovation, technology and productivity

The heart of the rebalancing process therefore requires:

  1. lifting savings
  2. growing exports
  3. innovating more
  4. reducing (mainly private) international debt

Policies that would logically achieve that include:

  • boosting (not cutting) Kiwisaver and other savings vehicles
  • pre-funding (not suspending) the NZ Super Fund
  • monetary reform to improve exports (not over reliance on the OCR)
  • modernising and strengthening (not cutting) economic development
  • comprehensive innovation policies (including R & D tax credits)
  • fiscal responsibility and credibility (not more borrowing for tax cuts)

We need a government that has a credible and coherent economic strategy. Confidence is eroded by stop-start, poll-driven initiatives.

Our future is weakened by an underlying agenda that will worsen inequality, driving wedges between Kiwis, their communities and their environment.

Time for a reality check.  This is not only a government that has no coherent plan to credibly achieve the rebalancing NZ needs. 

Its short-termism and flip flops mask  an underlying  agenda – whether made explicit or kept implicit – that is individualistic and materialistic. 

It does not reflect the Kiwi way, nor embody our highest aspirations.

Their policies are flawed.  Their vision is narrow.  Their time is limited.


Economics for Everyone #3 – economics is work

Posted by Darien Fenton on July 7th, 2010

We spend a lot of time talking about economics, but Jim Stanford’s book argues that fundamentally, economics is work.

In Chapter 3 of his book called “work, production and value”, he argues that the stereotype of a worker as someone who performs menial tasks on an assembly line is badly outdated and that workers today perform a wide variety of functions, many of them requiring advanced skills.

But they are still workers, as long as they perform the work for someone else in return for a wage or salary. This also includes many “self employed” workers and dependent contractors, because they perform their labour in return for money and they do not significantly own or control the organisation which they work for.

Some workers who are paid a “salary” assume that they must belong to a higher class, but Stanford says this is wishful thinking. They are still paid by someone else, still dependent on the decisions made by someone else and in some ways, more exploited that so-called “wage labour”.

Many salaried workers don’t have fixed hours of work and work unpaid overtime when required. The expectation of them as “professionals” and the pressure of the corporate world can mean that they will do more than they are paid for.

Similarly, some management, such as low level supervisors and technicians are really glorified wage slaves as well. They follow orders given by those in seniority to them, they are not expected to question them, they have little say in the running of the company and they are paid a fixed salary. Even although they can boss around underlings, they are just as dispensable as other wage workers.

The only positions that aren’t wage slaves are those at the very top. Sure, they work long hours and work hard. They have unique control over the operations of the company and their income depends on the profit of the company.

“Their direct and substantial economic stake in the profit of the enterprise and their unique control over its activity fundamental distinguish these top managers from other less powerful staff. But only a tiny share (perhaps 2%) of all work in the economy consists of this type of work.”

Then there’s the self-employed who work (nominally) for themselves. Often these workers see themselves as a step above wage labour. We so often hear the mantra about “small business being 95% of NZ business”, but the truth is that they are workers too, often being used by larger companies to avoid labour costs and benefits.

Modern corporations have found it profitable to shift (outsource) so-called “peripheral” service functions to outside contractors – from cleaning to transport to accounting. But in reality, these workers are not much different from workers performing similar functions who are on the company’s payroll. They still depend on the large company for their jobs and income but truthfully, their total income is often less than directly employed workers. They have no employment rights, they don’t get paid holidays or sick leave and they have no rights to minimum wage.

Interestingly, under ILO coventions, “workers” are more broadly defined beyond  ”employees”, as in NZ’s national law and practice – and fundamental rights are supposed to extend to all workers.

Then there’s unpaid work. Household work, child rearing, caring for dependent family members and supporting the community. Not included in GDP statistics, mostly performed by women, but essential to our individual and collective well-being.

So, most work consists of wage labour (50%), top management and owners are only around 2%, self employed 10% and unpaid workers around 40%.

What does this all mean for policy making?  I’ve long been an advocate for thinking beyond the traditional employer employee relationship and trying to consider how we extend both rights and recognition to all of those who work in our society. But there’s a significant debate to be had about unpaid work as well – how we value it, how we provide for it – and how we calculate (and compensate?) for the impact on lifelong economic well-being, especially given that most unpaid household work is still performed by women.

But there’s a whole other chapter on this!