Wednesday, March 30, 2011

The Imagination Deficit

This government is so devoid of imagination that all they can think to do is cut the public sector.

Cutting the public sector will see a short term gain, due to a reduction in government expenditure. But the negatives are fairly obvious: more unemployment, and a reduction in the quality of public service delivery. We don’t have a particularly large public service, having privatised almost everything that moved under previous administrations.

Some people would say that the government making more people unemployed during a time of recession is plain dumb economics. The orthodox thinking is that in a recessionary time you try to stimulate the economy. Cutbacks can potentially deepen a downturn, because they take money out of the economy. Pumping more money through the economy is the rationale National gave for the tax cuts. So why stimulate on the one hand and cut back on the other, unless you’re barking mad?

In the end this is more about ideology than economics.

Loss of livelihood is a thing more destructive to a person than having to pay another few dollars a week in tax. But this government doesn’t like public servants, and would rather screw the economy than allow public servants to feel secure in their jobs.

The government can always find money for its friends, like the $4 million it gave to AMI Stadium because the owner didn’t want to pay for insurance. And the tax cuts have gone mostly to people like me who really didn’t need them. It seems pretty clear that there is no plan for our economy other than “wait and pray for some sort of recovery.”

But waiting this out probably won’t work. We are a commodity-exporting nation, and at the moment we’re receiving record high prices for our goods. Imagine how bad things would be if commodity prices were not so high. When they go down again (and history tells us they will), we will see a reduction in government revenues and more stress on its books. The inevitable response will be cutbacks and a potential deepening of the downturn.

Despite the fact that commodity exports, while important, are not going to be a high growth industry for the nation long-term (we can only ever farm so many cows), there’s next to no planning underway to look at alternatives. There’s been tinkering with our science and innovation sector, but little in the way of bold vision. And tax incentives continue to encourage investment in low-growth areas of the economy, like property speculation.

Maybe this will dawn on the Nats one day (to be fair, I’m not sure that Labour gets it either). No doubt their response will be to cut taxes further.

12 comments:

  1. Nail. Hammer. Head.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Less succintly, I have the view that politics in NZ is stuck in Groundhog Day where it is perpetually July 1984 and Lange has just won the election. Either that or we're at the end of Animal Farm where the animals can't tell the difference between the Pigs and the Humans. Either way the answer to every problem seems to be the same as in 1984. And that's done wonders for NZ's indebtedness and productivity eh?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Please, "we don't have a particularly large public service"...

    45% of GDP is government spending.

    That is insanely stupid. New Zealand suffers from way too much bureaucracy; all these councils, all these rules, all these raparts, all these bureaus who make reports, all these rules that demand reports.

    The more bureaucracy, the more corruption.

    http://www.superinvestor.com.au/articles/new-zealand-is-in-a-dangerous-debt-spiral-139.html

    ReplyDelete
  4. There is plenty of evidence that cutting government down to size increases national wealth. Singapore, South Korea etc.
    Or-when Thatcher came in and slashed and burned it stoked a huge increase in UK wealth and she is fondly remembered over there. Where on earth has keynsian economics ever succeeded ? Obama is doing it and running a 10% defecit and the US is growing at 3% with 9% unemployment.
    Joyce however is spending 1.5 bilion of our money on UFB yet has been sitting on a report that justifies reducing interconnection rates from 17 cents to 4 cents for cellphones. He is supposed to be a buisinessman in government and even he cant figure it out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. John Van Zeist has got his facts wrong. In his speech on Tuesday, English said that the public sector is about 30% of GDP, not 45%. By international standards, NZ's public sector is modest-to-average sized - 9th lowest in the OECD on public spending as a percentage of GDP. Even Standard & Poors stated recently that the public sector was a realistic size. And NZ is currently top rated for lack of corruption on the Transparency International index.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Last year I read somewhere about the State Sector figures which showed that in early 1990s there were about 50,000 employees. Later in 1990s Bill English slashed the numbers but re-employed many as highly paid consultants. Labour came in and rebuilt the State Service to about 38,859 full-time equivalent positions by December 2008. That number has dropped to 36,973 as of December 2010. Some expert (I'm just going from memory) might explain the oft quoted figures of this huge "blowout" by Labour was still only 80% of what it was in the early 90s. I'm sure there is a story there somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
  7. JvZ,
    have a look at this chart
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:New_Zealand_overseas_debt_1993-2010.svg

    It seems to be the private debt rather than public debt that is growing faster than GDP.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Or-when Thatcher came in and slashed and burned it stoked a huge increase in UK wealth and she is fondly remembered over there

    Oh I did laugh at that, having lived for a few years in the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is plenty of evidence that cutting government down to size increases national wealth. Singapore, South Korea etc.

    There's plenty of evidence that pouring enormous amounts into R&D and innovation increases national wealth. Singapore, South Korea etc.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I really don't understand why National ditched Labour's R&D tax credits...

    Government debt is relatively low, private debt is high, government expenditure as a proportion of GDP is relatively low, but our productivity is poor and GDP growth is poor.

    It's almost like the facts are refuting the argument for slashing government spending and that there needs to be more to economic policy than tax cuts and deregulation.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I really don't understand why National ditched Labour's R&D tax credits

    I don't know why my cat hollars at me to open the wardrobe door of an evening just so that it can proceed to wander off outside and start fights. It's just what it does.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ah, that clears things up: I am looking for an explanation for behaviour that is fundamentally primal.

    Is the answer to why National are implementing retrenchment policies despite all the lessons of the 20th Century the same?

    ReplyDelete

I welcome comments, but I ask commenters to follow a few simple rules:

1. I delete anonymous comments. Please use either a name or moniker. I am not asking anyone to reveal their secret identity. Just don't call yourself "Anonymous".
2. Please don't abuse or defame others.
3. Moronic or nonsensical comments may be deleted.
4. I don't often exercise the heavy hand of censorship, but I do reserve the right to delete any comment I don't like, for any reason.