top of page
Search

PM Luxon has made "economic growth" his sole objective in 2025, having spent his first year in office arguing about how he supports, and doesn't support, at the same time, ACT's Treaty Principles Bill. How is he going to increase economic growth? It all comes down to more investment, according to Luxon & Finance Minister Willis. NZ desperately lacks capital - whether it be for business start-ups, infrastructure, hospitals - and practically everything. It needs to be more "capital intensive", according to the PM and Willis. I agree. When there is abundant capital compared to labour, wages are high. The mark of a poor country is the opposite - tons of people and scarce investment.


The only thing is, although National is talking big, the talk is not backed up with practical economic solutions that actually may work. The National Accounts tell us that investment in a nation must be financed by savings. To be more precise, there is a famous "accounting identity" which must always be satisfied. It goes like the following:


Private Domestic Savings + Foreign Savings = Investment + Government Deficit


This may be a technical Blog, but its important. It proves the PM and Willis are all talk. Why? NZ has one of the lowest domestic household savings rates in the developed world. Of the foreign savings that are currently being pumped into NZ due to our trade deficit, most are going into buying government debt to finance the huge fiscal deficit, which is bigger now than the last couple of years of the previous Labour government. Consequently, given low private domestic savings, and foreign savings going into funding the deficit, there's little left over to fund domestic investments. That is a fact as per the above equation. It explains why plummeting investment has been driving NZ's stagnant economy. I remember as an academic adviser to Finance Minister Bill English how dismissive he was about Kiwi Saver. Luxon's Economic adviser, Matt Burgess, who was English's Chief of Staff, and National Party Think Tank, the NZ Initiative, both loathe Kiwi Saver. National stopped contributions to the Super ("Cullen") Savings Fund when Key was PM. National & ACT have no interest in supporting the savings needed to fund investments in NZ. Where do they hope the money will come from? Foreign investors. Their position is to rely on foreign savings, not our own.


Will the PM be successful in solving NZ's lack of capital investment? Can they increase productivity by relying on foreign savings? No way. Should Luxon or Willis care to do some economics, rather than personnel management, they should read, "Foreign savings: No gain, some pain", by Berkeley economist Barry Eichengreen, which states "Foreign finance does not appear to be the cure for countries with low domestic savings". For 10 years, former Finance Minister Sir Roger Douglas and I wrote articles that we handed to National and ACT on how to increase domestic savings in NZ. The articles touted mandatory savings schemes like the ones in Australia (for superannuation) and Singapore (for health-care and super). To say the Nats and ACT spat on those articles is an understatement. Now the PM says he wants NZ to be like Singapore, with tons of investment. But the entire Singapore model is built on mandatory savings accounts, which both Luxon and Willis personally hate.


National's leader and Finance Minister have become hot air, all talk, no delivery and shallow slogans. None of their proposals have been worked through. None add up. What were they both doing for six years in Opposition? Why didn't they implement a plan to put the economy on a more solid footing back in 2023 when they won the election?




Budget 2025 should be the austerity budget that Finance Minister Nicola Willis didn't have the guts to deliver in 2024. Instead, her lame first year Budget prolonged New Zealand's economic stagnation (of course, former PM Hipkins and Worst Finance Minister Ever, Grant Robertson, bear most responsibility). The problem is that Willis doesn't want to associated with former National Party Finance Minister Ruth Richardson, who cut government spending by over 5% in her famous 1991 Budget. However, that problem is easily solved.


Here's how. First, we need to go back in time and see what the indomitable Ruth, who I've met a few times, got right, and what she got wrong in the early 1990's. What can we learn from those times? In a line, her cuts were good in the sense of returning the government budget to surplus, and prompting the biggest pay-down in public debt ever in NZ history. However, they were bad because a bunch of the cuts hurt low earners. Macroeconomics has moved on since the 1990s. It recognizes now that cutting benefits in times of recession (and 1991 was such a time) hurts struggling families when they need help the most. After all, it was in the aftermath of the 1929 Great Depression that countries around the world set up welfare states, including unemployment insurance, to help folks who lost their jobs through no fault of their own. Even in the US, benefits are made more generous in times of recession.


So what's the lesson for NZ and Budget 2025? Public debt is currently getting back to 1991 levels, when Ruth did her austerity budget. Instead of cutting benefits for the poor, the New Coalition should slash welfare transfers, but targeting high earners. What are examples? High earners get Kiwi Saver subsidies, totaling $1 billion. They get winter energy subsidies. High earners' children attend University at greatly subsidized rates, whereas low earners whose children leave school to start a business get no such help. The world's 2nd richest man, Jeff Bezos, gets subsidies from Kiwi taxpayers, due to Amazon's movies in NZ. It goes on. How do I know about them? Together with a former Finance Minister, we went through each of them - the total comes to between $10 billion and $20 billion per annum. GDP in NZ is $400 billion, so 5% of that number is $20 billion - a percentage similar to what Ruth cut by in 1991. My preference is for most of the funds to be put in personal savings accounts for all Kiwis, making us less dependent on the government in the future, relieving pressure on public welfare outlays & avoiding the introduction of new (capital) taxes.


Whatever the details, the cuts outlined above would set NZ public debt on a declining path similar to what Ruth kicked off in the early 1990s. Public debt plummeted from 55% in 1993 to 20% of GDP by the end of PM Bolger's government in 2000 (see graph below). Ruth was his first Finance Minister, from 1991 to 1993. Her mistake was targeting low earners for cuts. The New Coalition must, in 2025, target high earners. Or is Willis so determined her four children will go to University without her paying - each receiving a subsidy of $50,000 per year - coming to a total of $600,000 for her own family ($50,000*3 years*4 children) that she will refuse to yield? For NZ, its either the policy we've outlined above, or capital gains taxes in a few years time. Take your pick. Will Willis put her own private needs above the nation's?


Net core Crown debt


Sources:

My famous paper (!) "The Determination of Unemployment Benefits", in The Journal of Labour Economics, which started a large field. It was refereed by Thomas Piketty, who is now a world celebrity on the back of his book "Capital in the 21st Century".

SUBSCRIBE

Thanks for submitting!

CONTACT

Robert MacCulloch

Home: Blog2
  • Facebook
  • YouTube

©2020 by Down to Earth Kiwi.

Proudly created with Wix.com

bottom of page