@bryce_edwards New Zealand’s war on the poor – a fact check
15 Dec 2014 Leave a comment
in economic history, income redistribution, labour economics, Marxist economics, politics - USA, technological progress Tags: Bryce Edwards, Leftover Left, poverty and inequality
Bryce Edwards has shown in today’s column that he knows nothing about inequality in New Zealand, despite the statistics being at his fingertips:
Under capitalism there’s always going to be a war against the poor.
The process by which we divide up the resources of any society normally involves exploiting the majority for the benefit of the minority.
It’s called inequality. And this is how it is in New Zealand: those who have the most power look for ways to extract that money for themselves, or at least retain the status quo.
Against this are those who want to have a more equal society. It’s an age-old political issue, and one that has traditionally been at the heart of the left-right political divide.
In 2014 this concern about inequality has been a key feature of politics, underpinning much of what has occur…
Although the rich appear to have been winning for three decades in their ‘war against the poor’, perhaps the tide is turning?
There’s still every indication of severe poverty and inequality in this country.
Firstly, inequality has not increased in New Zealand for at least 20 years when either measured in figure 1 by the Gini coefficient or in figure 2, the top 1% income shares. Both the Gini coefficient and the top 1% income shares have not risen for 20 years.
Figure 1: Gini coefficient New Zealand 1980-2015
Source: Bryan Perry, Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2013. Ministry of Social Development (July 2014).
Figure 2: Top 1% income shares, USA, New Zealand and Australia, 1970-2012
Source: top incomes database
Secondly, the benefits of the economic boom that lasted 15 years from the early 1990s until the onset of the global financial crisis would spread broadly across all sections of the New Zealand community. As shown in figure 3, both before and after housing costs increased. As shown in figure 4, real household incomes increased pretty much evenly across all of the 10 income deciles between 1994 and 2013.
Figure 3: Real household income trends before housing costs (BHC) and after housing costs (AHC), 1982 to 2013 ($2013)
Source: Bryan Perry, Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2013. Ministry of Social Development (July 2014).
Figure 4: Real household incomes (BHC), changes for top of income deciles, 1994 to 2013
Source: Bryan Perry, Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2013. Ministry of Social Development (July 2014).
Thirdly, as shown in figure 5, between 1994 and 2010, real equivalised median household income rose 47% from 1994 to 2010; for Māori, this rise was 68%; for Pasifika, the rise was 77%. Median household income increases of nearly 50% in 16 years should be celebrated.
Figure 5: Real equivalised median household income (before housing costs) by ethnicity, 1988 to 2013 ($2013).
Source: Bryan Perry, Household incomes in New Zealand: Trends in indicators of inequality and hardship 1982 to 2013. Ministry of Social Development (July 2014).
The massive improvements in Māori incomes since 1992 were based on rising Māori employment rates, fewer Māori on benefits, more Māori moving into higher paying jobs, and greater Māori educational attainment. Māori unemployment reached a 20-year low of 8 per cent from 2005 to 2008.
Over the last more than two decades in New Zealand, there has been sustained income growth spread across all of New Zealand society contrary to the warmed over Marxism of Bryce Edwards. Perry (2014) reviews the data every year for the Ministry of Social Development. He concluded that:
Overall, there is no evidence of any sustained rise or fall in inequality in the last two decades.
The level of household disposable income inequality in New Zealand is a little above the OECD median.
The share of total income received by the top 1% of individuals is at the low end of the OECD rankings.
Bryce Edwards’ analysis was in the typical Marxist tradition – it had no gender analysis. He failed to mention that New Zealand has the smallest gender wage gap of all the industrialised countries.
As he did not notice these great successes in household incomes, incomes of every decile, Māori economic development and the empowerment of women, Bryce Edwards had nothing to add in terms of either consolidating or improving on them.
Warren Buffett – green rent seeker extraordinaire
15 Dec 2014 Leave a comment
in energy economics, environmental economics, environmentalism, rentseeking Tags: corporate welfare, green rent seeking, Warren Buffett, wind welfare
Abe’s snap election pays off with big win for LDP | The Japan Times
15 Dec 2014 Leave a comment
in economic growth, macroeconomics, politics, Public Choice Tags: Edward Prescott, Japan
the ruling bloc secured a two-thirds supermajority in the 475-seat House of Representatives, giving it the power to override the Upper House.
When I arrived in Japan in 1995, the LDP was out of power and written off.
The LDP were true stayers in politics. They managed to get back into power soon after the 1995 general election by forming a coalition with the Socialist party.
The Socialist party leader was initially the Prime Minister then he resigned later and was replaced by an LDP Prime Minister.
The grip on power of the LDP was consolidated by the great competence of the Koizumi administration.
Source: Edward Prescott
The LDP lost power again in about 2007 but regained power in the next election through the extreme incompetence of their opposition.
In the current election, the main opposition party were unable even to put up enough candidates to actually win a majority.
The key contribution of the main opposition parties in Japan was well stated when they last won an election in 2007. They have shown that they can actually win an election when the LDP performs poorly. That is an important discipline that may not have been there in the 1980s.
via Abe’s snap election pays off with big win for LDP | The Japan Times.
Global warming – where there is and is not a consensus to deny | Ordinary Times
14 Dec 2014 Leave a comment
in applied welfare economics, climate change, environmental economics, environmentalism, global warming, Karl Popper, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: climate alarmism, expressive voting, global warming
The motte for climate change activists are the following:
- Global temperatures are rising.
- Greenhouse gases lead to increased temperatures.
- Greenhouse gases emitted by humans have led to measurable increases in temperature beyond what would have occurred without any humans.
The above points are highly defensible because Science. I believe they are true (though I do so only via trust in others rather than having evaluated any of the research involved personally).
Activists, however, do not sit in this motte for long. They often go on to make a lot of other claims in the bailey:
- Long-term projections of the Earth’s climate are accurate.
- Catastrophe will result in a few decades due to human carbon emissions.
- Nuclear energy is not a viable alternative to fossil fuels.
- Carbon capture is not viable.
- Geoengineering is not viable.
- Unilateral subsidization of renewables by Western industrialized nations is an effective way to reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases.
- Subsidies of energy-efficient products are a better use of resources rather than research and development.
- Subsidizing vehicles that pollute less than other vehicles will provide a net reduction in greenhouse emissions.
- LEED-certified buildings are more energy-efficient than old buildings.
- Building new LEED-certified buildings reduces net greenhouse emissions relative to not building them.
- Sending oil by railcar will result in less net emissions than sending oil through a pipeline (e.g. the Keystone pipeline).
Not all activists make all of these claims, but I think most make at least some claims that are less defensible than those in the motte.
The end result is that anyone who opposes any of the views, even questionable ones sitting in the bailey, can be branded an anti-science denialist. Strictly speaking, this is unfair since there certainly isn’t a scientific consensus on questions like whether it makes sense to spend thousands of dollars subsidizing Chevy Volts while taxing bicycles and safety helmets at 8%.
via An Example of the Motte and Bailey Doctrine | Ordinary Times.
Utopia, you are standing in it! 
Recent Comments