Anti-science Left alert: the Greens on GMOs and vaccines
15 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in health economics, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA Tags: anti-GMO movement, Anti-Science left, anti-vaccination movement, GMOs, green hypocrisy, Green Left, Greens
Join the calls of NZ MPs to ban Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)
15 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in health economics, politics - New Zealand Tags: DHMO, science awareness
In 2001, a staff member in New Zealand Green MP Sue Kedgley’s office responded to a request for support saying she would be “absolutely supportive of the campaign to ban this toxic substance”.
Otago Labour Party MP Jacqui Dean wrote to New Zealand’s Associate Health Minister Jim Anderton in 2007 asking if the Expert Advisory Committee on Drugs had a view on banning DHMO.
Ask your local MP now to join the global movement to ban DHMO.
Sam Peltzman on Teacher’s Unions
15 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of education, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, unions Tags: School choice, teachers unions, union power, union wage premium
An alternative to the no fault Accident Compensation Scheme in New Zealand
13 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in health and safety, labour economics, law and economics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, property rights Tags: ACC, accident compensation, right to sue, workers' compenstaion, workplace fatalities
New Zealand has a unique government monopoly since 1974 which provides compensation for personal injuries from accidents wherever they may occur in New Zealand.
The right to sue in court under tort law was abolished. Instead, there is a lower but more certain right to be compensated for loss of income and medical expenses and various other losses. The scheme is funded by a levy of about 1.4% on incomes earned, insurance premiums paid by employers and levies on motor car registrations.
The scheme essentially folds no fault workers compensation and no fault car accident insurance into a scheme that covers you for all other accidents.
What is peculiar is the abolition of the right to sue in court for ordinary damages. I never liked this taking away of the right of vindication in court.
In Australia, they have a much simpler system in some states. You can sue for personal injury under the common-law, but any damages you might win for loss of income, medical expenses and other losses is deducted dollar for dollar from any of damages you might be awarded under the compulsory insurance scheme for either workplace or car accidents. This system allows everyone to be compensated to some degree and protected against judgement proof employers, car owners and other wrongdoers. It also saves on legal costs.
The Australian dual system both gives people the right of vindication and allows those who are poorly compensated by the government monopoly to continue to be compensated for losses. For example, the compensation for lost income under the government monopoly is based on your last 12 months income rather than prospective income. This seriously disadvantages young people and students in particular at the start of their working lives and mothers who are out of the workforce.
Another thing I like about the Australian system and deeply dislike about the New Zealand system is you do not have the right to sue cowboy employers to bankrupt them.
The system of funding in New Zealand is simply a flat rate premium applies the different occupations. Premiums do not increase for high risk employers or employers who repeatedly have accidents because they are careless or negligent. This increases the number of accidents and deaths. The penalties for workplace accidents and deaths under New Zealand workplace safety regulation are rather weak. Reckless employers are fined, no one is bankrupted nor goes to prison.
The government monopoly insurer of personal accidents in New Zealand also doesn’t pay for pain and suffering. Initially it did, but that right of compensation was taken away as a cost-cutting measure about 20 years ago. Prior to that pain and suffering compensation was initially limited to $10,000, then increased to $17,000 before it was abolished.
This lack of a legal remedy for the pain and suffering from a personal injury is a grave injustice. The courts were pretty stingy on pain and suffering, so the government monopoly has taking away what was a pretty limited right anyway, but a very important right nonetheless. That common-law right was to be made whole again after being injured wrongfully.
Further proof of the Only Nixon could go to China (mandatory sentencing reform) Theorem
12 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in comparative institutional analysis, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, Public Choice Tags: ACT party, decriminli, medical marijuana, Only Nixon could go to China, right to die, Tyler Cowen
Right-wing politicians can sometimes implement policies that left-wing politicians cannot, and vice versa under Cowen and Sutter’s only Nixon can go to China theorem:
The point is that politicians with a previous record of opposing a policy shift are often the only ones who can bring it about, because their policy support provides a credible signal of policy quality to the relevant interest groups who would otherwise oppose the policy.
Contemporary wisdom has it that only Nixon could go to China and make a deal because his decades of fierce anti-Communist stance gave him credibility with fellow conservatives and shielded him from any domestic attack.
Cowen and Sutter say that a policy could depend on information – on which policies or values everyone could potentially agree, or on which agreement is impossible.
Politicians, who value both re-election and policy outcomes, realise the nature of the issue better through inside and secret information and superior analytical skills (or access to those skills), whereas voters do not have access to such information base or skills.
Only a right-wing president can credibly signal the desirability of a left-wing course of action. A left-wing president’s rapprochement with China would be dismissed as a dovish sell-out. Nixon must be going to China because that is the best possible policy choice and he would never do so otherwise giving his previous record of firm anti-Communism.
Left-wing parties adopt right-wing policies because they are good ideas that will get them re-elected. Bob Hawke, Tony Blair, and Bill Clinton were centre-left economic reformers who can credibly signal the desirability of their economic reforms because of the brand name capital they invested in distributional concerns and protecting the poor.
Only right-wing Republicans such senators Rand Paul and Ted Cruz can introduce mandatory sentencing reform without been accused of being soft on crime. They must be doing it because it is right and just.
The same goes for marijuana decriminalisation, the decriminalisation of medical marijuana and right to die bills in the New Zealand Parliament.
Only a right-wing party, a party perceived as extreme right wing, and tough on crime such as the ACT party can introduce such bills and win a majority.
Although the ACT party is proudly and consistently socially liberal, the voting public does not perceive this and only sees it’s tough on crime image.
Taking advantage of that misperception will allow many National party MPs to vote for such bills introduced by the ACT party MP, David Seymour, without looking like a selling out to the Green Left who just want to smoke dope under the pretext of medical marijuana. Only ACT can win enough votes in the New Zealand Parliament to pass bills to decriminalised medical marijuana and allow the right to die.
The media market works: US media is slightly to the left of centre
12 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in economics of media and culture, industrial organisation, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, survivor principle Tags: demand for social insurance, gender wage gap, media bias
As discussed before, to survive in a competitive market, media outlets must serve that market as best they can.
The reader or viewer that is most likely to turn off or otherwise switch to another activity are women, often mothers. Women tend to be to the left than me because of their greater demand for social insurance.
To keep their most marginal viewers, media outlets pitch their stories slightly left of centre, aimed at women who are most likely to switch off if they are not seeing what they want to see.
Every national and local government should include this pie chart with tax assessments
11 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
GDP per New Zealander remains well below leading OECD economies due to a large shortfall in labour productivity
10 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in economic growth, macroeconomics, politics - New Zealand
Economics New Zealand: Did we move too quickly?
09 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in macroeconomics, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA Tags: monetary policy
The first Paul Krugman on efficiency wage arguments for a higher minimum wage
09 Feb 2015 Leave a comment
in labour economics, minimum wage, politics - Australia, politics - New Zealand, politics - USA, poverty and inequality Tags: George Bush derangement syndrome, living wage, Paul Krugman, public intellectuals
HT: economistsview
Should car insurance be run like earthquake insurance in New Zealand?
07 Feb 2015 1 Comment
in economics of natural disasters, politics - New Zealand Tags: Christchurch earthquake, disaster relief
Would you think it is a good idea that you have two car insurers if and only if your car is hit by a pink car? That’s how they run earthquake insurance in New Zealand.
This is how the system of earthquake in insurance in New Zealand would run for a car: if your car is in an accident with a pink car, the first say $2000 of the damages is paid for by a special insurer. After that, your normal car insurance policy applies.
I don’t know of anyone who insures their car with two different people depending on the probability of different events, possibly because I don’t know that many people who are extremely stupid.
In New Zealand, the first $100,000 of earthquake damage is insured by a government insurance company called the Earthquake Commission. After that, your normal homeowners insurance covers the rest of the earthquake damage. The premium for the earthquake insurance with the Earthquake Commission is collected as part of your normal insurance premium to your home insurance provider.
Fortunately for you, if this scheme of insurance applied to your car, the repairs are not delayed for several years with High Court litigation over whether the Christchurch earthquake was a single event or a succession of separate earthquakes. If the two major earthquakes in Christchurch together with the thousands of after-shocks was a succession of separate earthquakes, the first $100,000 of damages for each of these several thousand after-shocks is the responsibility of the Earthquake Commission, not the normal insurer of the house.
Would it make sense to insure cars in the same way earthquake insurance is run in New Zealand? The answer is no. Any sensible person buys their insurance from one company and lets that insurance company sought out reinsurance of major and rare events with the global reinsurance pools.
With global reinsurance pools, there is no reason for a separate government insurance against earthquakes in New Zealand. The Earthquake Commission and its separate scheme of insurance for earthquakes should be abolished as superfluous and a magnet for litigation over insurance company liabilities in the case of major earthquakes.
Recent Comments