What is the Real Economy?
The ‘Real Economy’ is made up of the farmers, manufacturers, tourist operators and service providers that sell to the world and generate New Zealand’s external income. As Angus Tait once said, “There are three ways to generate wealth; you farm things, you make things or you dig things up.” That is the essence of the real economy.
[ read more ]



mist Posted:
Perhaps IMF formulas are not accurate for this area.
(view article + comment)
mist Posted:
" tax increases in one area supports decreases in another is correct" it can only be correct if it is true. Observation and repeated sampling has proven that the hypothesis is faulty. Tax increases in one area are not causally linked to decreases elsewhere - not "possibly", not "it adds up". "Philosophically" it _might_ but testing proves it does not. One could even say "it should" but we both know an equivalent term for "it should" is "doesn't" What drives taxes down is political advantage. If a political party has an agenda they don't want the public to look at too closely, then sweeters (aka "bait") is put forwards. Tax decreases is a classic. This can be achieved because the tax increases and tax decreases are not linked. They're not zero sum nor do they have causal or proportional connection. This is because the "buffer solution" in the middle is that endless hole. tax increase means more spending. tax decrease means more government borrowing. The in/out relationship is decoupled, through size and power in the marketplace (financial economy). The abysmal productivity is because of the massive overheads from doing business in NZ. personal taxes double the rates of the US, huge taxes on goods and services, massive levies on critical imports, price gouging in the energy and communications markets, interest rates 300 to 500 times that of the US!, and not nearly the number of cost writeoffs either (subscriptions, training, vehicle rebates). Nor would get the 401k option either, of rebuying into the same market and not having to pay CGT. Oh and horrendous ever inflating local rates, again much much higher, for less, than our foreign counterparts (excepting Scandinavian countries). Our "abysmal production" is a result of this overtaxation being sand in the gears of the economy, wearing it down and rubbing out real growth. Putting CGT makes that problem worse!! And to sum up... your last comment.... O.M.G. You think that improving our situation, of people not wanting to save or invest in government buggered industry is to bugger up the ability to accumulate equity in useful assets??????? Where do you think people are going to get savings or capital to do anything??? (including retiring when their earning ability is severely reduced!) Put it in finance companies???????????? Buy the oh-so-excellently-performing NZX? In the few companies squeaking by?
(view article + comment)
John Walley Posted:
I think we agree on the lending without security issue. It might well be that the intent to change the source of tax and not increase government spending is fictitious, however given the provision that government spending does not change the statement that tax increases in one area supports decreases in another is correct. The broader point is demonstrated by the Romney situation where he pays tax at half the rate of his salaried staff - and in the USA capital gains carry a 15% tax rate - it will be interesting to see how that one pans out. For New Zealand the economic distortions supported by the complete absence of capital gains tax are clear from our abysmal productivity record. Why save, why invest in production (taxed interest paid or via the income statement) when money can be made without tax from passive asset appreciation.
(view article + comment)
carl Posted:
"a Capital Gains Tax means less tax in other areas or lower borrowing for the same amount of government spending. " Only in your wildest dreams, mate. a drip or a bucketful does not change an infinite hole. The only reduction in tax you would see is short-term, and done to create a perception. Once the elephant was sold it'll be put back up, often with extra claw-back clauses to catch more cash. And Banks do lend for shares - but at lower rates of coverage. 50% for business assets is rule of thumb, 80% for first mortgages, 20-25% for basic unencumbered share parcels. with additional security and reasonable ability to cover debt servicing compliance. That's the ball. So why's the man (original poster) running with such blatantly obvious fouls????
(view article + comment)
DGS Posted:
SEE ABOVE
(view article + comment)


Recent News

BusinessDesk: "US economy remains vulnerable to shocks from Europe" - Interest, 3 Feb 2012 Tweet It's been a great start to the year and investors found little reason to change much today, ahead of January's US jobs report due tomorrow. While Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told lawmakers there were signs of improvement in the...

Oi! You’ve missed a bit... - Economist - Babbage, 3 Feb 2012 HOW much easier it would be to locate and repair damage to bridges, wind turbines and other dumb objects if those objects could tell you what the problem was. Researchers at the University of Strathclyde, in Britain, led by Mohamed Saafi, are therefore trying to give them a voice, by devising a...

Survey of Banks Shows a Sharp Cut in Lending in Europe - New York Times, 3 Feb 2012 The figures raise concern that Europe is on the verge of a credit crunch that would cause a deeper recession than had been expected.

TYSON: America’s Three Deficits - Project Syndicate, 3 Feb 2012 TYSON: America’s Three Deficits The US faces painful choices about how to close its long-run fiscal gap, and a credible plan should be decided now and implemented promptly – but only after the economy has recovered. For the next few years, the priorities of fiscal policy should be jobs,...

Dollar hampers 'knowledge intensive' exports - Stuff, 2 Feb 2012 The strong kiwi has stymied growth of high value exports in "knowledge intensive manufacturing", according to briefing papers from MED.


MED report highlights problems for high value exporters http://t.co/VoLBDWMv
3/02/2012 12:37 p.m.
Sales bounce at year end http://t.co/VtI5uuSq
3/02/2012 9:56 a.m.
Monetary policy matters http://t.co/45wTSnWd
2/02/2012 1:25 p.m.
New RBNZ Governor and prospects for policy change http://t.co/TiVh9HQY
31/01/2012 2:25 p.m.







The Real Economy


The ‘Real Economy’ is made up of the farmers, manufacturers, tourist operators and service providers that sell to the world and generate New Zealand’s external income. As Angus Tait once said, “There are three ways to generate wealth; you farm things, you make things or you dig things up.” That is the essence of the real economy.

In the tradeable economy, firms compete with others anywhere in the world in any market to sell their goods and services. The domestic market in New Zealand, for most goods and services, is small. Firms here must compete locally and in export markets to have an expectation of earning sufficient returns on their often sizeable investments to make those investments worthwhile. Without sustained investment in innovation, research, product and process development, and more generally productivity improvements competitive advantage will lost as others improve what they offer to their customer.

This competition on a global scale brings many additional dimensions to the competitive framework. When a local firm competes with another local firm monetary and fiscal policy settings, regulatory requirements, finance costs, health and safety, compliance costs or even carbon costs are not competitive dimensions, they are the same for all competitors. Once competing in New Zealand against imports, or in offshore markets, these matters become a critical competitive concern.

These additional concerns show themselves as competitive disadvantage in terms of cost generating lower returns on the effort expended. In this way Government policy choices have a significant bearing on firms’ success.

So the non-traded economy might just shrug and say fine we only compete with locals so we don’t care what the policy framework might be as it is the same for everyone. That is correct to a point, but policies that hold up interest rates in the name of pressing back against inflation overvalue the exchange rate make imports and foreign holidays cheaper in the short term, but damage the ability of exporters to earn a living. That, ultimately, threatens the sustainability of the economy as a whole.

Unfortunately, in the short term the objectives of the tradeable and domestic economies are in conflict (high exchange rate and low cost imports vs low exchange rate and better returns from exporting), but in the medium and long term, the domestic economy can only be successful if the tradeable economy can function effectively. To compete globally good returns from exports are necessary to fund the product and process development necessary to remain competitive. Large investments in intellectual property and new machinery need higher returns to fund them.

Without investment and development the tradeable sector falters, jobs are lost or never come into being and demand in the domestic sector falls. Think of the whole economy as a table, the four legs represent the export sector (primary, processed primary, manufacturing and services) the domestic or non-traded (the tabletop) economy is supported by the export sector (legs). The domestic economy can only grow sustainably if the legs can provide adequate support.

Wealth transfers to the top of the table (domestic economy) from the legs (our exporters) via an overvalued exchange rate are a problem that threatens the economy as a whole. Our choice of policy settings for the past 20 years or so has consistently overvalued our currency; change is needed to rebalance our policy settings and arrest the decline of our export sector and more broadly, over time, the decline of our whole economy.