According to that always accurate source of info Wikipedia, New Zealand has one of the lowest tax rates in the world. We're right up there with that exemplar of the market in action, Korea.
I think this is a little misleading though. It doesn't count GST, for a start. Secondly, our income tax is pretty highly progressive, meaning that while many members of society are paying 12.5% or not much more, a smaller number are paying almost 3 times that. So the average is low, but it is probably not what you would call highly free market.
A Tiny Bit Radical?
The fact that the following quote didn't get wider coverage is perhaps indicative of how much attention is payed to parliamentary maiden speeches. It is from Metiria Turei of the Greens.
That's right, she uses her maiden speech to approvingly quote Chomsky on a method of abolishing the state. Also from her personal profile:
Now I am no statist, and I think a healthy degree of scepticism towards state expansion should be a requisite of any sensible political philosophy. And I think that you will find it present in some form or other in most modern thinkers. However (and this is characteristic of left-anarchists) Turei (via Chomsky and some South Americans) sees this scepticism as consumated in first an expansion of the state (ie through massive restructuring of the market-based system) and then its abolition. So the scepticism towards the role of the state is an 'I could do it better' scepticism. In that sense it is no scepticism at all, merely a distrust of the current administrators.
I think that the powerful parties in New Zealand (and the developed world) have a shameful record of environmental degradation. But if the Greens keep finding people like this who are more about nostalgia for 60's-era political radicalism than saving the environment, they can count on me not touching them with a barge pole. I prefer coherency in the political beliefs of my elected officials, insofar as I can get it.
Through their support for inititiaves like the Buy New Zealand Made campaigns and their bafflingly rabid opposition to giving poor Chinese workers jobs through trade deals, the Greens are already one of the most (perhaps, to be fair, inadvertently) racist parties in parliament. They are already smuggling in radical political views on the back of people's genuine concern for the enviroment. If the retirement of the highly respectable Jeanette Fitzsimmons causes them to further venture down this road, they should be repudiated by any voter with an ounce of empathy and sense.
Transcript located here."Prof. Chomsky went on to describe the Brazilians analysis, he said and I quote: "We know we're in a cage. We know we're trapped. We're going to expand the floor, meaning we will extend to the limits what the cage will allow. And we intend to destroy the cage. But not by attacking the cage when we're vulnerable, so they'll murder us. You have to protect the cage when it's under attack from even worse predators from outside, like private power. And you have to expand the floor of the cage. These are all preliminaries to dismantling it. Unless people are willing to tolerate that level of complexity, they're going to be of no use to people who are suffering and who need help."
We too, in Aotearoa, live in a cage. We are caged by the State, a political and economic system that relegates basic human needs and ecological integrity to the fringes of our existence."
That's right, she uses her maiden speech to approvingly quote Chomsky on a method of abolishing the state. Also from her personal profile:
"My personal political journey has led me to the reasonable conclusion that the
present state has no legitimacy..."
Now I am no statist, and I think a healthy degree of scepticism towards state expansion should be a requisite of any sensible political philosophy. And I think that you will find it present in some form or other in most modern thinkers. However (and this is characteristic of left-anarchists) Turei (via Chomsky and some South Americans) sees this scepticism as consumated in first an expansion of the state (ie through massive restructuring of the market-based system) and then its abolition. So the scepticism towards the role of the state is an 'I could do it better' scepticism. In that sense it is no scepticism at all, merely a distrust of the current administrators.
I think that the powerful parties in New Zealand (and the developed world) have a shameful record of environmental degradation. But if the Greens keep finding people like this who are more about nostalgia for 60's-era political radicalism than saving the environment, they can count on me not touching them with a barge pole. I prefer coherency in the political beliefs of my elected officials, insofar as I can get it.
Through their support for inititiaves like the Buy New Zealand Made campaigns and their bafflingly rabid opposition to giving poor Chinese workers jobs through trade deals, the Greens are already one of the most (perhaps, to be fair, inadvertently) racist parties in parliament. They are already smuggling in radical political views on the back of people's genuine concern for the enviroment. If the retirement of the highly respectable Jeanette Fitzsimmons causes them to further venture down this road, they should be repudiated by any voter with an ounce of empathy and sense.
New Zealand still dominates Oscars
Not really. But according to Stuff, this is what host Hugh Jackman had to say:
I promise I will cease posting quotes soon, I know it antagonises Udayan. But I thought that was worth sharing.
"Everything is being downsized because of the recession," said Jackman, the star of recent film Australia.
"Next month I'm starring in a movie called New Zealand."
I promise I will cease posting quotes soon, I know it antagonises Udayan. But I thought that was worth sharing.
Deficit Maths
From BBC news:
Obama has inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. So this would mean reducing Government spending by $.65t total over 4 years. However, Obama has also just signed into law a roughly $.79t stimulus package. So the deficit will increase, meaning he has to cut Government spending by $1.44t.
According to my research (aka google) the US Government spends roughly 29.6% of US GDP. US GDP in 2008 was just over $14t (Excel), so the Government spends just over $4t.
So to cut the deficit like the official says in half Obama would have to cut Government spending by over 35%, or increase taxes by the same, or a combination of the two. The former would make him more right-wing than Reagan.
He also won't make any steps toward doing this in the next few years (other than perhaps by making US income tax more progressive), obviously his rhetoric at the moment is all about stimulus and increasing deficit to prop up the economy. Because of this I would be mightily surprised if Obama actually plans to pull this off. More likely it is the official running his mouth off, or, and I consider this unlikely, a politician making an ambitious promise they are unlikely to fulfill.
Any corrections to my maths would be welcomed.
An unnamed US official was later quoted as saying Mr Obama intended to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term.
This would be done by scaling back on the war in Iraq, increasing taxes on those earning more than $250,000 a year and making government more efficient, the official said.
Obama has inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit. So this would mean reducing Government spending by $.65t total over 4 years. However, Obama has also just signed into law a roughly $.79t stimulus package. So the deficit will increase, meaning he has to cut Government spending by $1.44t.
According to my research (aka google) the US Government spends roughly 29.6% of US GDP. US GDP in 2008 was just over $14t (Excel), so the Government spends just over $4t.
So to cut the deficit like the official says in half Obama would have to cut Government spending by over 35%, or increase taxes by the same, or a combination of the two. The former would make him more right-wing than Reagan.
He also won't make any steps toward doing this in the next few years (other than perhaps by making US income tax more progressive), obviously his rhetoric at the moment is all about stimulus and increasing deficit to prop up the economy. Because of this I would be mightily surprised if Obama actually plans to pull this off. More likely it is the official running his mouth off, or, and I consider this unlikely, a politician making an ambitious promise they are unlikely to fulfill.
Any corrections to my maths would be welcomed.
Good Quote
From Megan McArdle:
It makes more sense in context.
Assuming that we are indeed facing, in large part, a crisis of confidence, would this crisis be solved more quickly if we stopped nattering about the banking system and simply burned us some witches?
It makes more sense in context.
A Four Day Week?
One of the ideas being floated at the NZ Government 'Job Summit' is a version of a four day week. Essentially, the idea would allow firms to reduce a reduce a worker's hours to fill only four days a week, and pay them accordingly. The drop in the worker's weekly salary would be matched (to the worker) by the Government. They would be required to do some community work or training on the fifth day each week.
When first informed of this idea, Ella was highly unimpressed. But her main (coherent) aversion appeared to be philosophically to the concept of Government intervention and welfare.
That topic I will not touch in this post. But I am interested in the economic consequences of what this act would be, given the circumstances of economic recession.
I see them as follows.
1. Reduced stickiness in the labour market. In the face of declining demand for their goods firms would be more likely to reduce the hours worked more gradualistically (as otherwise they would be laying off individuals). If you read the article I linked to you should get a good idea of why this is. Keep in mind that this move has received wide support among unions to date. This is more efficient in the short term, as firms will adapt more precisely to the trend in demand. Furthermore, it will reduce transaction costs of buying more labour when the recession ends.
2. A fiscal stimulus style prop to aggregate demand. Firms will scale back production. But this, to an extent, ceases any multiplier effect of this by ensuring a more constant amount of income for workers, slowing any downward spiral.
3. As people will be training in their time off (rather than looking for jobs), productivity will increase.
4. Government debt will increase by a decent amount. Not every firm will do this, but enough will for it to be a substantial fiscal burden on the Government. This is probably not unequivocally bad in a recession.
As such, I tentatively support the idea, providing it was removed when economic growth resumed.
When first informed of this idea, Ella was highly unimpressed. But her main (coherent) aversion appeared to be philosophically to the concept of Government intervention and welfare.
That topic I will not touch in this post. But I am interested in the economic consequences of what this act would be, given the circumstances of economic recession.
I see them as follows.
1. Reduced stickiness in the labour market. In the face of declining demand for their goods firms would be more likely to reduce the hours worked more gradualistically (as otherwise they would be laying off individuals). If you read the article I linked to you should get a good idea of why this is. Keep in mind that this move has received wide support among unions to date. This is more efficient in the short term, as firms will adapt more precisely to the trend in demand. Furthermore, it will reduce transaction costs of buying more labour when the recession ends.
2. A fiscal stimulus style prop to aggregate demand. Firms will scale back production. But this, to an extent, ceases any multiplier effect of this by ensuring a more constant amount of income for workers, slowing any downward spiral.
3. As people will be training in their time off (rather than looking for jobs), productivity will increase.
4. Government debt will increase by a decent amount. Not every firm will do this, but enough will for it to be a substantial fiscal burden on the Government. This is probably not unequivocally bad in a recession.
As such, I tentatively support the idea, providing it was removed when economic growth resumed.
The Aesthetic Atheist
Hardheaded atheism of this kind has become quite a publishing phenomenon over the last few years. Many, including myself, have enthusiastically jumped on this bandwagon, believing the time was ripe for a concerted effort attacking the excesses of organised religion. Rhetorically, these books are marvellous, whether it be the passionate and literate vitriol of Christopher Hitchens or the measured and witty analyses of Daniel Dennett. Strangely, I find myself retreating more and more from the postitions these authors espouse.
Make no mistake, my disbelief hasn't taken any body blows. I have yet to be assailed by visions of eternal damnation or blessed with divine revelations. But the more I think about the standard arguments against the existence of god, the more obvious it becomes that ultimately, atheism itself isn't a bastion of undisputed rationality.
Take the standard 'prime mover' argument. This holds that every effect must have a cause, but since this would imply an infinite regression of causes with no coherent beginning. But something must have set this chain of events in motion, and this first cause is god. The usual response is "But what caused God, silly?", normally given with various degrees of exasperation. Positing god as a first cause without explaining what gave rise to god himself is taken to be an act of desperate intellectual dishonesty. People who believe it are tarred as irrational fools.
I'd like to suggest that this is a mistake. I too, have little time for this argument, but if I was pushed on the ultimate metaphysical caustation of the cosmos, I would be thoroughly stumped. In fact, I don't think I am uniquely stupid on this point - the majority of well-educated atheists would be equally unable to 'rationally' trace their argument back to its philosophical foundations. Why then, do we atheists have such a strong conviction that we are right?
The answer for me, lies in an aesthetic preference. I find it remarkable that order arises out of the chaos of quantum theory. I marvel at the power of natural selection to blindly design mechanisms of incredible complexity. My exposure to these scientific disciplines gives me faith (!) that a similar process will be found to solve the causation problem, largely because I think it would be more elegant that way. But this of course, opens the door to believers. If some conception of beauty motivates my position, I can't scoff at those who would find this explanation ugly and the idea of a cosmic designer more attractive.
We can discuss why people might vary so dramatically in their preferences, but this requires abandoning the idea that atheism is simply more rational than religiosity. The more salient issue to address, is how the virulent aspects of religion can be shorn away, regardless of whether the faith at its core persists. An aesthetic perspective on belief can go some way to defuse the anger which tends to stymie this sort of discussion.
Make no mistake, my disbelief hasn't taken any body blows. I have yet to be assailed by visions of eternal damnation or blessed with divine revelations. But the more I think about the standard arguments against the existence of god, the more obvious it becomes that ultimately, atheism itself isn't a bastion of undisputed rationality.
Take the standard 'prime mover' argument. This holds that every effect must have a cause, but since this would imply an infinite regression of causes with no coherent beginning. But something must have set this chain of events in motion, and this first cause is god. The usual response is "But what caused God, silly?", normally given with various degrees of exasperation. Positing god as a first cause without explaining what gave rise to god himself is taken to be an act of desperate intellectual dishonesty. People who believe it are tarred as irrational fools.
I'd like to suggest that this is a mistake. I too, have little time for this argument, but if I was pushed on the ultimate metaphysical caustation of the cosmos, I would be thoroughly stumped. In fact, I don't think I am uniquely stupid on this point - the majority of well-educated atheists would be equally unable to 'rationally' trace their argument back to its philosophical foundations. Why then, do we atheists have such a strong conviction that we are right?
The answer for me, lies in an aesthetic preference. I find it remarkable that order arises out of the chaos of quantum theory. I marvel at the power of natural selection to blindly design mechanisms of incredible complexity. My exposure to these scientific disciplines gives me faith (!) that a similar process will be found to solve the causation problem, largely because I think it would be more elegant that way. But this of course, opens the door to believers. If some conception of beauty motivates my position, I can't scoff at those who would find this explanation ugly and the idea of a cosmic designer more attractive.
We can discuss why people might vary so dramatically in their preferences, but this requires abandoning the idea that atheism is simply more rational than religiosity. The more salient issue to address, is how the virulent aspects of religion can be shorn away, regardless of whether the faith at its core persists. An aesthetic perspective on belief can go some way to defuse the anger which tends to stymie this sort of discussion.
In Case You Didn't Know
New Zealand won the World Schools Debating Championships.
Congratulations to the team.
Congratulations to the team.
Questions
Is there any legitimate argument against gay marriage that couldn't be slightly re-phrased to be made against civil unions?
And if there isn't, why do we have civil unions in New Zealand but not gay marriage?
That is to say, are there people out there that support the former but not the latter for other than political motives? Presumably there must be, but I am at a loss as to why.
Perhaps people o
ught to engage in more reflective equilibrium.
I wonder how he knows?
And if there isn't, why do we have civil unions in New Zealand but not gay marriage?
That is to say, are there people out there that support the former but not the latter for other than political motives? Presumably there must be, but I am at a loss as to why.
Perhaps people o
ught to engage in more reflective equilibrium.I wonder how he knows?
Ideological Intuitionism
David Farrar believes that probably half the Labour caucus would support marijuana decriminalisation. This is good news, even if they are too timid to do anything about it.
The issue of marijuana is an interesting one. Opposition to its criminalisation generally comes from groups associated with the political Left. By contrast, opposition to the anti-smacking law came from the Right. At a superficial level, criminalisation of mariujuana seems far more paternalistic, so you might expect it to be the other way around.
There are several possible explanations for this general intuitional inconsistency (although it may be logically resolved within individuals), but what follows is what I think is the best one.
Firstly, people often behaviourally reflect people they respect. We see this in language, but we also see it in certain beliefs - someone is more likely to be persuasive if they are likeable and appear knowledgeable. This, I think, explains why self-identified conservatives in New Zealand support relatively limited Government, even though New Zealand does not really have a tradition of this. In America, the level of political discourse is much higher, and they really do have a rich tradition of constitutionally limited authority and relatively small Government. So it makes sense that conservatives here will adopt these views to a certain extent.
Secondly, since the 60's, the smoking of Marijuana is associated with a counter-culture image, one of rebelling against established traditions and norms. I would argue that this image has faded somewhat now, but it is still perhaps strongest among the most vociferous opponents of its legalisation. It is this that makes it intuitively grate against the sensibilities of the older and/or more conservative populace of New Zealand.
I believe this is inconsistent. Just as a progressive should allow people the opportunity to experiment with their bodies without respect for the sensibilites of the easily offended, so too should a conservative rail against this arbitrary state intervention into the lives of others.
The issue of marijuana is an interesting one. Opposition to its criminalisation generally comes from groups associated with the political Left. By contrast, opposition to the anti-smacking law came from the Right. At a superficial level, criminalisation of mariujuana seems far more paternalistic, so you might expect it to be the other way around.
There are several possible explanations for this general intuitional inconsistency (although it may be logically resolved within individuals), but what follows is what I think is the best one.
Firstly, people often behaviourally reflect people they respect. We see this in language, but we also see it in certain beliefs - someone is more likely to be persuasive if they are likeable and appear knowledgeable. This, I think, explains why self-identified conservatives in New Zealand support relatively limited Government, even though New Zealand does not really have a tradition of this. In America, the level of political discourse is much higher, and they really do have a rich tradition of constitutionally limited authority and relatively small Government. So it makes sense that conservatives here will adopt these views to a certain extent.
Secondly, since the 60's, the smoking of Marijuana is associated with a counter-culture image, one of rebelling against established traditions and norms. I would argue that this image has faded somewhat now, but it is still perhaps strongest among the most vociferous opponents of its legalisation. It is this that makes it intuitively grate against the sensibilities of the older and/or more conservative populace of New Zealand.
I believe this is inconsistent. Just as a progressive should allow people the opportunity to experiment with their bodies without respect for the sensibilites of the easily offended, so too should a conservative rail against this arbitrary state intervention into the lives of others.
Short Story Hot Tip
At Overcoming Bias an author has just published a short story.
Unlike many short stories, it includes interesting thinking points on game theory, evolutionary biology, meta-ethics, death, and a whole lot more. I really enjoyed it. The discussions below each chapter are also of really high quality.
Check it out.
Unlike many short stories, it includes interesting thinking points on game theory, evolutionary biology, meta-ethics, death, and a whole lot more. I really enjoyed it. The discussions below each chapter are also of really high quality.
Check it out.
A bit of shameless name-dropping at the Standard
From the Standard:
The first time I read this I thought it was a pretty transparent attempt to bask in the reflected glory of someone famous.
In hindsight though, it is pretty cool.
As Helen put it in a txt (I asked) - she is unsure what’s happening...Referring of course to Helen Clark.
The first time I read this I thought it was a pretty transparent attempt to bask in the reflected glory of someone famous.
In hindsight though, it is pretty cool.
Ambitious use of 'arguably'
From Frogblog:
That is indeed arguable.
The ubiquity of massive over-generalisations like this (if you've ever thought to yourself 'the Right just want to look after their rich cronies' or 'the left are economically illiterate' then you too are guilty) lend a lot of support to the idea that political ideologies are (partly) signalling devices, and built around evidence-resistant commitment. This is something I will perhaps develop into a more in-depth post at some point.
Arguably, this is the way of the world. The Right is wrong and the Left gets to clean up.
That is indeed arguable.
The ubiquity of massive over-generalisations like this (if you've ever thought to yourself 'the Right just want to look after their rich cronies' or 'the left are economically illiterate' then you too are guilty) lend a lot of support to the idea that political ideologies are (partly) signalling devices, and built around evidence-resistant commitment. This is something I will perhaps develop into a more in-depth post at some point.
The Paradox of Stimulus
The Senate Democrats are hinting that they will cut non-stimulatory aspects of the stimulus bill.
Times are good for any elected Democrat right now. Traditionally the party of higher spending (although Bush challenged that legacy), the massive size and scope of the stimulus gives them the opportunity to tack on all their pet projects they've been saving up for the last two terms, be it long term funding for contraception, the arts, or special interest groups.
These may be laudable aims but if so, they should stand or fall on their own merits, not dishonestly tacked onto other packages so that they may pass with less debate.
That said, it is not a clear-cut issue. What actually consists of stimulatory spending is difficult to judge. If you start offering up billions of dollars, every private firm and every state suddenly has pressing projects that just need a little bit of capital to provide eternal happiness. Check out stimuluswatch.org to see some of the (more than a little pathetic) begging going on, for what is basically using public funds for private benefit.
Herein lies the paradox of stimulus. It has to be done fast, to have any counter-cyclical effect. But how to spend the money has to be carefully and prudently deliberated on, or it will just be siphoned off to the loudest interest groups and pet causes of persuasive politicians, in a way that won't provide the most benefit to the most people. This deliberation should be done very slowly.
You see the problem.
A State Owned Bank?
What a crazy idea. But they are possibly trying it out in Britain.
It's also, to the unitiated, quite a weird idea. The popular arguments for Kiwibank are (in decreasing order of popularity):
1) It introduced competition and thus drove down rates.
2) It stops profit going offshore to the Australian-owned banks that otherwise ply their trade in New Zealand. The popular image is one of the banks 'siphoning' money out of our economy.
3) It provides a bank that looks after Kiwis and has our natural interest at heart.
Taking them in a completely different order to which I listed them:
3) This is ridiculous, of course. The Government mandate of any SOE is to maximise profit. This is the only way for it to be feasible in any way. That said, obviously Kiwibank has an image to maintain. But so does any firm that hopes to sell goods in New Zealand.
1) This is true, it did. But any marginal benefit to the consumer has to be weighed up against the massive opportunity cost of all the capital required to start something like this. Kiwibank may come out in the positives in this respect, I don't know. But the cost is something frequently ignored by people like, say, the Labour Party. When it comes down to it, would you prefer a little bit off your mortgage or millions of dollars more funding for schools, healthcare or education? We do have to make these tradeoffs, and is it deceptive to pretend they don't exist.
2) Consider first that these banks employ thousands of New Zealanders. Huge proportions of any money they make goes directly into the pockets of New Zealanders. Secondly, Australia has massive amounts of trade with us. It's ridiculous to suggest that the money is somehow gone forever. Thirdly, it's more than a little racist to suggest that people don't deserve to profit off giving you a service because of where they happen to live. In my mind, this is at the root of a paradox unique to certain elements of the left - they propose that our business should only be restricted to those who are from the same country as us, but then have the audacity to claim anti-racism as a cause for their 'side'. Please.
Here is an IMF working paper on bank privatisation. I like this quote.
I cannot think of any way in which this is groundbreaking. As you will know, Kiwibank is already state owned, and uses the network of post offices. Like most banks, it also offers a full range of financial services.
A groundbreaking "people's bank", offering a full range of financial services and using the UK network of 12,000 post offices, is being promoted by Peter Mandelson, the business secretary.
It's also, to the unitiated, quite a weird idea. The popular arguments for Kiwibank are (in decreasing order of popularity):
1) It introduced competition and thus drove down rates.
2) It stops profit going offshore to the Australian-owned banks that otherwise ply their trade in New Zealand. The popular image is one of the banks 'siphoning' money out of our economy.
3) It provides a bank that looks after Kiwis and has our natural interest at heart.
Taking them in a completely different order to which I listed them:
3) This is ridiculous, of course. The Government mandate of any SOE is to maximise profit. This is the only way for it to be feasible in any way. That said, obviously Kiwibank has an image to maintain. But so does any firm that hopes to sell goods in New Zealand.
1) This is true, it did. But any marginal benefit to the consumer has to be weighed up against the massive opportunity cost of all the capital required to start something like this. Kiwibank may come out in the positives in this respect, I don't know. But the cost is something frequently ignored by people like, say, the Labour Party. When it comes down to it, would you prefer a little bit off your mortgage or millions of dollars more funding for schools, healthcare or education? We do have to make these tradeoffs, and is it deceptive to pretend they don't exist.
2) Consider first that these banks employ thousands of New Zealanders. Huge proportions of any money they make goes directly into the pockets of New Zealanders. Secondly, Australia has massive amounts of trade with us. It's ridiculous to suggest that the money is somehow gone forever. Thirdly, it's more than a little racist to suggest that people don't deserve to profit off giving you a service because of where they happen to live. In my mind, this is at the root of a paradox unique to certain elements of the left - they propose that our business should only be restricted to those who are from the same country as us, but then have the audacity to claim anti-racism as a cause for their 'side'. Please.
Here is an IMF working paper on bank privatisation. I like this quote.
The paper finds that countries with higher levels of state-bank ownership tend to have lower levels of per capita income, underdeveloped financial systems, interventionist and inefficient governments, and poor protection of property rights.Obviously the causal relationship is the other way around. But still, heh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)