Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: A Big Idea, in reply to BenWilson,
25 basis points is the standard OCR move. Not 'massive'. I can't remember any moves of less than .25% but maybe that's common too.
How much effect you'd get from an equivalent "VSR" hike is moot. But I think the 20:1 ratio you use is on the high side. One of the bank economists on MR guessed 10:1. I'd imagine in a compulsory scheme (which might well include the self-employed) it could be considerably more effective. But I don't think we really know.
Surely worth trying, though.
Most of the screeching I've so far read that it's a flat tax, which will impact disproportionately on low incomes, looks like concern trolling to me. It's not designed to help people on low incomes, except maybe to build better jobs here, via a lower dollar and more investment. But I'm expecting Labour to have other plans for that, starting with a raise in the minimum wage. -
Sobering thoughts. Thanks Greg, for putting it so well. We’re in the lucky basket. But there’s a nagging feeling Christchurch is being hammered and the ‘rebuild’ botched. Even for those in fairly good circumstances, it’s hard to be around. Being on the blunt end of it must be horrible. Best wishes.
Hope the sun keeps shining.
ETA: yeah, Susy F IV with Dalziel was horrible this morning. Stupid interviewing- couldn't hear what either of them were saying. And as it happened, I wanted to hear Lianne. -
It’s a great idea, and great to see a strong new initiative.
How effective this is at controlling the confluence of inflation, house prices, and the exchange rate is something only implementation will show. Suggestion on Morning Report that raising Kiwisaver 1% would be the same as raising the OCR .1% is probably a stab in the dark, but it’s reasonable to think it’s going to have an smaller effect in some proportion.
But it’s absolutely worth trying. Decent upside (better NZ savings and a lower exchange and interest rate than we’d otherwise have) and minor downside (implementation will take work; people who need every dollar immediately will need to compensated.)
And Ben: I agree with cathy – it’s silly to call compulsory retirement savings a tax.
ETA: but the vital thing is: can Labour sell the idea? This plus a CGT could (over time) put NZ on much stronger economic footing. But we need a change of govt first. (And calling this a 'tax' isn't going to help that ... ) -
Great piece. Thanks :)
-
Te Tai Tokerau. Kelvin is currently a list MP. If you are enrolled there you can vote Hone for the electorate and labour party and get two reps :)
-
Speaker: The purpose of science and its limits, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Gah. That’s all I’m going to say. There’s just too much to rant about.
Make a submission to the select committee here: AcademicVoice
(Only takes a couple of minutes ... and if you can stomach it, tick the option to be heard. You can change your mind on that, but the more voices in front of the select committee the better.) -
Hard News: The Language of Climate, in reply to Bart Janssen,
Such changes in the past appears to have occurred over a very long time frame – time for adaption to occur.
Not sure this is right either :)
There was a good NYer article by Elizabeth Kolbert, about 5 years ago, about
greenland ice-core drilling, and what it could reveal about climate change going in and out of the last ice age.
And there seemed to be good evidence of wild swings (up to an alarming 8 degrees year to year) in average temperature as glaciation retreats and advances.
Her conclusion: an uncontrolled experiment in changing global climate is a massive crapshoot with no idea the odds. -
I’m with Luke and Gordon Campbell et al here. Labour needed this more than the Greens. Because the perception is they are timid and divided and unclear what they stand for. Whereas the Greens (even if their actual policy is ‘incompetently written and uncosted’ – can’t comment on that) come across clearly. You feel you know what they’re for and against.
In that sense, Labour could realistically fear being out-shone by a far smaller but better focussed partner.
An informal arrangement is best, for sure. But it should be tight, with no surprises. The fact this is public and a story is another stumble. And that narrative – of gaffes, fumbles and own goals – has plenty of legs.
A determined and ferociously well-managed change of story could kill it. This could have been the story that did. In the meantime, the zombie stumbles on. -
Hard News: The perilous birth of the…, in reply to Russell Brown,
It’ll be nice to bring some data to the party.
Is that even legal? :)
-
We may need to re-think some parts the city.