When I last sent an article to the Herald critiquing the RBNZ, the editors changed this line, "So what has been driving the RBNZ? Populism. Incompetence" to read, "So what has been driving the RBNZ? Populism", censoring the word "incompetence". It's funny when a former prominent RBNZ board member used exactly that word, "incompetent", to describe the present-day Bank to me (in writing). I don't choose words lightly, and usually have "deep throat" sources to back them up. What's more, I'm neither a politician nor in business, so have no private political or commercial (vested interest) reasons for making such comments.

At the same time, how come our national press let other commentators, like Shamubeel Eaqub, freely call the Leader of a Party (David Seymour)"economically illiterate" who "just tells lies about what is going on in the economy" ? I wrote to Newshub's Standards Committee to find out their "logic". They said, "Eaqub’s comments about Seymour are clearly identifiable as his opinion, Newshub did not make the claim that Seymour is a liar, it quotes Eaqub .. On the basis that the Article does not breach the Media Council Principles, Newshub will not be issuing an apology or retracting the Article". A fellow academic economist told me how the Herald turned down his opinion pieces relating to Covid as they didn't fit the government's preferred narrative. He's one of NZ's highest ranked academics.

How come the Media Council "principles" are applied to some people & not others? After all, my Herald article had the capital letters "OPINION" at the top. Seems some folks have the freedom to express opinions with words like "liar" and "illiterate" whereas other folks who use the word "incompetent" are censored.

Further, after my RBNZ article was published, I noticed a tsunami of media articles defending the Bank. There were so many, I was suspicious. Then this news broke, “The Reserve Bank has more than tripled the number of communications staff, up from six in 2013 to 20 today".

Whenever I've written an article which the government doesn't like, swathes of spin doctors, Comms and PR staff who are employed full-time to protect the "brand" jump into action. One staffer told me how their job is often to ensure the story doesn't "get legs" and goes away quickly. The Comms staff regularly ring up their former work colleagues & friends in the media to insert counter stories. At present, they're desperately trying to get headlines saying the RBNZ is "hawkish" on inflation. The idea our RBNZ has been hawkish on inflation this past year is ridiculous.

All in all, it makes the job of holding to account big organizations like the RBNZ, Treasury & Productivity Commission (where no serious economist wants to work anymore), let alone our major political parties, next to impossible, since the Comms machinery that has been put in place to neutralize the truth and "change the narrative" has become so huge.


As the country grapples with a huge outbreak of youth offending, coming in the form of ram-raids and such like, our two major political parties, as usual, waffle on without providing any simple, clear cut, empirically proven way of solving the problem. ACT Leader David Seymour has advocated for electronic monitoring which entails youth offenders wearing ankle bracelets. He has been attacked from all sides for coming up with such a sensible idea. Labour wont contemplate it whilst the Nats blame school truancy. Truancy problems will not be solved overnight - so that focus is unlikely to offer any immediate respite.

So is there evidence from the world's top economics journals to support Seymour's idea? Yes. It's found in an article called "Criminal Recidivism after Prison & Electronic Monitoring" in the Journal of Political Economy. The very real problem youth offenders pose is that incarceration would likely turn them into even worse offenders and life-time hardened criminals after being released. So the difficulty is how to punish & stop them from offending whilst at the same time avoiding the disastrous long-term consequences of incarceration.

The article above finds that "treating individuals with electronic monitoring relative to prison" causes a reduction in "criminal recidivism" and the size of effect is "large".

It's a shame that the government endlessly touts the idea of "following the science" when it comes to our Covid-health response, yet when it comes to proven ways to reduce crime, how to run a Central Bank without causing rampant inflation and a raft of other issues carefully studied in economics, the science is thrown out of the window.




Thanks for submitting!


Robert MacCulloch