Before the earthquake of February 22nd I had been working on an outline for where I saw NZ today and where I believed it could be in 2025. It’s very much a hi level view but it’s a starting point. Though things have changed since the big shake my vision hasn’t. If anything it has simply reinforced my thoughts. Over time I will flesh out the different ideas and hopefully make it more accessible to all. In the meantime feel free to think about where you believe we can be in 2025.

As Yogi Berra said, “if you don’t know where you are going, any road will lead you there”.

I’ve finally finished wading through the paperweight (as is the norm) aka the Savings Working Group report. Having read the initial commentary, I wasn’t that excited about the prospect but often in these reports there are useful nuggets of information. The main noise is around saving more and adjusting savings incentives especially to promote Kiwisaver.

What is not clear though is to what extent we have an actual savings problem. Our gross saving is at the low end of the OECD with Portugal and Greece below us along with two nations that might surprise: The US and the UK (page 121). There is also difficulty in analysing the differences between household and business saving. NZ is a country of small businesses and often business and household financials are closely interlinked. There is no definite conclusion around this issue and the report asks for further research into this topic, especially around data collection.

The macro level is really where the problem can be seen. When looking at the growth in national wealth, it’s clear to see that housing revaluations are the key driver (page 127) of growth since 1999. In fact “property revaluations explain nearly all changes in household net worth since 2001 (page 130). This is another way of demonstrating that we haven’t actually created any productive wealth: we’ve simply revalued our housing base and used that to fund increased consumption. That consumption has been funded by debt and that is why we have a serious debt problem.

So can we save our way out of this problem? Looking at the data on household incomes one would have to say “no chance”. Market incomes have fallen (yes fallen) for the bottom half of the population between 1988 and 2007 (page 140). That is simply astounding. This at a time when house prices have risen 490%. This is the cause of the deepening inequality between the owners of property and the renters. Even with benefits added in income for the first four deciles has remained largely the same (page 141).

Poor choices? Or simply no income with which to save. I think we must face the fact that half of our population is existing on meagre income. They cannot save and are likely to be in debt simply by virtue of not having enough cash to afford purchases or expenses outside of the simple basics of living. Those who have managed to get on the property ladder have prospered primarily because their asset has risen substantially in value. That is where their  savings lie. It should be noted though that, for many, this increased wealth is purely on paper.

At this point it might be worth looking across to data from Australia (page 128. Aussies actually have more of their wealth in residential property than Kiwis do (50% vs 46%). Investment in shares in much the same (8% vs 9%). The big difference is in long term assets. Aussies have 19% in Pensions and Superannuation whereas Kiwis have 2%. To balance that out Kiwis have 22% in business and farm assets against Aussies holding just 9%. So for Kiwis businesses and farms are their pensions. This is not an exact comparison but it’s clear that there is not much to separate the two countries other than Aussies invest in public companies and Kiwis keep it private. It also shows that Australia may have the same debt problem we do though they have benefitted more from the commodities bubble than NZ.

The oft quoted statement (from Ministers, the RB and other officials) that Kiwis should save more is somewhat optimistic. Save more from what exactly?

So what can we do? Well we can look at the other side of the savings coin and that is our expenditure. As a country we have essentially borrowed our GDP for the last 20 years. This is reflected in our current account position which has left us with a Net Foreign Liability (NFL) of 85% of GDP. Poor investment and low labour productivity (not sure where the NZBR gets its numbers from) has left is with nearly 40 years of negative current account balances (pages 20-24). The simple explanation is that we have consumed more than we have sold (plus all that accumulated and compounding interest). This consistent deficit should have seen NZ with a consistently weak currency (to allow the balance of payments to correct) but this has not been the case. NZ’s high real interest rates have been attracting overseas investment looking for a high yielding home (page 26). NZ is seen as a safe place to invest and, in an era of low global rates, has seen major inward flows which have not just funded the current account deficit but also the major revaluation in house prices.

The accumulated current account deficit has pushed interest rates thus forcing up the currency . This in turn has made imports even cheaper fueling the spending boom and embedding the circularity of higher prices in the economy (page 39). The bottom line here is that our currency is too high. This has been noted for some time but successive governments have chosen to ignore the problem, hoping that regular comments will help keep a lid on its appreciation. A 2010 IMF study estimated “that stabilising NFL would require the real effective exchange rate to depreciate by 20%”….that’s to just keep NFl where it is now. To reduce “NFL to 75% of GDP over 15 years would require the real effective exchange rate to depreciate by 25%” (page 36).

That would put the NZ$ at between $0.55-0.60. Ouch!

That is the real story to come out of this report. To summarise:

- We don’t save much because half the population has had no increase in income for 20 years.

- The other half have increased wealth due to large revaluations in house prices.

- The top 2 deciles have seen increases in wages and this is where most of the real saving is coming from (if any).

- Debt funded consumption has seen interest rates rise thereby sucking in more investment flows and boosting the currency.

- We have borrowed to live and really have no spare cash to save.

- The best form of saving is paying down debt, both private and public.

- The only way to improve our position is to export more and import less.

- The primary way to export more and import less is to engineer a significant and lasting depreciation in the currency.

- The second option is to develop and invest further in export based industries.

Adjusting tax incentives and boosting Kiwisaver are not going to help us out of this malaise. Only strong and decisive action can help us from here. So what would I recommend? That’s too much for this post but at a high level some of the following (most of which I have written about previously).

- Lower the exchange rate by direct intervention.

- Cut interest rates as well as bringing down the cost of mortgages which are still very high.

- Restrict bank credit by raising asset requirements.

- Build a self-sustaining energy sector.

- Introduce a basic income to replace welfare and superannuation.

- Liquidate the overseas portion of the Cullen Fund (now whilst markets are at 30 month highs).

- Invest more in the productive export sector.

- Oh and let’s have a land tax whilst we’re at it (this was ruled out by the government in the terms of reference!).

Next week: The Welfare Working Group reports…..can’t wait!

Thank you to Jason for alerting me to the new Zeitgeist movie: Moving Forward  (ZMF) which was showing in odd spots around the world recently. It’s now available online and is highly recommended (if not compulsory viewing). I would advise you to see Zeitgeist Addendum (ZA) first (I have posted that up in a previous blog) as that is more focused on the monetary aspects of our societal dysfunction. So here’s the promised review of the film.

The film follows the theme of the previous two movies, namely the issue of debt slavery and the monetary system that underpins it as well as the Venus Project (TVP) which envisions a different societal structure. What is different to ZA is the structure of the film: it splits into four parts: human nature, the market, inequality and the resource based economy. This gives the film, and ultimately the proposition, more depth and more connection for viewers. I know some people still grapple with the explanation of the money system (though my 16 year old son saw the logical answer as quite obvious: why doesn’t the government create the money. doh!) so a look at our innate and determined nature helps to provide some context to the discussion.

Why do we behave the way we do? Does poverty, racism, inequality drive our behaviours? Is our society sick from its institutions and structures? Why does the monetary-market structure treat the well-being of society as irrelevant. Going back to Locke and Smith we see that racism and inequality within the market system was well anticipated. The drive to individual success at all cost (especially social and environmental) was paramount as a system based on cyclical consumption and demand for product was created.

The film posits, quite correctly, that we are stuck on a spin cycle of consuming to be happy even though we must work like slaves to be in this position, that slavery defined by the debt we must accrue in order to enjoy the products paraded before us. That the production process is almost anti-economy, building in obsolescence and focusing on the short term simply puts my pressure on both resources and available money. In essence product sustainability is inverse to economic growth. Yet politicians keep saying they will speed up economic growth. They never say we will build a more healthy society. Perhaps that is because they have swallowed too many blue pills.

So if efficiency, sustainability and preservation are enemies of the current economic system the we have a problem. Crime, war, terror are positives for the economy. Does any of this make sense? Certainly it feels like the US has been gutted by the corporatocracy and inequality is at an all time high. ZMF draws a picture showing how our monetary-market system and socio-economic structure has raised inequality to never before seen levels. The rise of the super-elite is complete.

So far so good. I don’t disagree with anything in this film. In fact I’ve been aware of it for many years now….so whilst I appreciate the diligent work that Peter Joseph has done on these films, what do we do about it? The answer, as alluded to in ZA, is The Venus Project. TVP lays out a move to a resource based economy with no institutions, laws, money and a world based on abundance for all based around the very smartest of technology. Think of it as a techno-utopia. It’s certainly visionary and I leave it to the individual viewer to imagine it and see for themselves. It’s certainly not unachievable.

My main question would be “how do we get there?” This isn’t dealt with in the film but the general suggestion is to somehow opt out of the current system and to move to a more localized and transition based economy. This is all good stuff but the most important message of the film for me is still that we must take back control of our money supply and issue it interest free.

That is the first and most important step on the road to a people centered world.

Today John Key revealed the policy what we have all been waiting for: privatisation or, in his words, partial asset sales. Let me be clear that I am not against privatisation as a whole but certainly I am very concerned about the sale of key and core infrastructure assets. I also noticed how John trotted out the “TINA” message: there is no alternative otherwise S+P will downgrade us. Expect to hear this being repeated as some kind of mantra…..otherwise saying we are dependent on the opinion of the same guys who rated dodgy Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs) as AAA.

There are some key human requirements for any society. We are lucky to be blessed by all of them: plentiful water, energy generation and food production. Any decent society with these assets should be able to provide them to all people at the lowest possible cost. Why? Because it can.

We are already well into a fight over NZ’s water assets and consumers are paying through the nose for basic food items especially dairy in which we are global leaders. Energy is also costing us more and more each year as the dysfunctional electricity market continues to fail.

Contact Energy has already been sold off to foreign investors with Australian energy company Origin owning 51%. Expect more pain in the pricing policy we have witnessed since this company was first floated. I have never understood the need for energy generation (water is even more inexplicable) to be a competitive process between private companies. Deregulation has not delivered cheaper prices and yet more privatisation is on the cards.

The deregulation of the 80s made was driven by a desire for greater efficiency and more dynamic management as well as the demand from financiers for new investment prospects. But change could have been brought about in different ways such as simply instituting new management, guidelines etc. It would be very possible to run a state owned company focused on providing electricity, in all forms, with the sole focus of the customer.

So instead of selling off more energy assets we should be thinking about changing the model. I favour looking at some form of  quota based allocation which comes at the cheapest possible price (a break-even number) with market pricing on top of that. These quotas could be traded (as in DTQs 0r Domestic Tradable Quotas) as part of a generalised carbon trading scheme. But the important issue is that energy is a basic human need and in New Zealand this can and should be provided at the cheapest possible cost. I do not believe, and have seen no evidence, that the current system delivers this.

We should also address the silly argument about “mum and dad” investors. Please no more of this patronising label. Lots of people are investors, not just these mythical and no doubt unsophisticated “mums and dads”. But let’s point out the very obvious hole in this argument. We already own these companies, yes us taxpayers, mums, dads and bubs…we own it already so why do we need to re-buy into it? plenty of money for the investment banks involved in the float (they have been pushing this for ages). More importantly there will be losers: low income people who simply could not afford to buy into the share bonanza….it’s just another process for transferring wealth from low to high income earners. This will look great for some but ultimately we all lose in the end and inequality is further increased.

Privatisation is only going to make things worse. It’s time to put people before profit.

Sorry John, there is an alternative.

Greetings earthlings……i was wondering how to kick off 2011 but was a bit stumped. I mean what’s new? Same old, same old. So i had a look back at my first post of 2010 and figured I’d say the same thing again but maybe add some colour this time. So here was my conclusion a year ago:

“When I look back over the last decade and forward to the next, it seems as if the same themes will recur:

- Financialisation of Economies: Can we remove the yoke of derivative financial instruments from the real economy?

- Technology: Will social media enable the development of a networked based economy?

- Global Politics: Can we move to a multi-polar world without the necessity of the United Nations as a de facto world government?

- Climate change: How do we manage the change in our climate and the resulting shifts in population and its attendant baggage?”

So we saw the Fed continue to print new money and hand it to the banks so they could pay out decent bonuses again. All that new cash managed to pump up the stock markets to new highs and generate hot money flows into commodities and emerging markets thus creating quite nicely the set up for new bubbles. What could the Fed have done? Just directly credited the bank accounts of every citizen thus boosting bank deposits and giving people money to actually spend into the economy or pay down debt.

Oh well, maybe next time.

2010 has seen China flex its international muscles and appear more focused on international relations. And of course Vladimir Putin has been flexing his too but that’s more for Russian domestic consumption. But clearly there’s been an acknowledged shift in influence with the BRIC countries all putting their hands up. Europe has been a huge mess with Auntie Angela having to clear up after the  big party. 2011 will see more shifts as power moves from the USA and spreads all over the globe. I guess it doesn’t help when you national debt is $14trln and rising (great site by the way). How this all plays out will be very interesting but I imagine we will see another crisis within the US insurance market and more derivative catastrophes. There will be huge write offs and if someone owes you a lot of money you may be collecting thin air…..that’s the problem with land…you can’t take it away.

And 2010 was officially rather hot. Well tied with 2005 and 1998. Weather was quite unpleasant all around and the severe flooding in Pakistan, China and now Australia and Brazil. Don’t mention the big freeze in the US and Europe. There’s no answer to this really. Either we bite the bullet now and take action or we’ll just have to adapt and buy a Sealegs amphibious boat (dec: I am a shareholder in Sealegs).

So I think really it’s more of the same for 2011. It’s going to be a year of adjustment before the big one in 2012. We have an election here in NZ in November which might be interesting if we can get financial reform into the debate. Maybe all the politicians should have to watch this film and then discuss (more on this in my next post). Buckle up!

Non-stop media coverage aside, it does feel like we are experiencing more frequent natural disasters. . Perhaps we should call them natural events since they seems to happen with such regularity that we should be very well prepared and learn to live with them. It was somewhat ironic then that the city of Christchurch should receive an international Civil Defence Award prior to the recent 7.1 earthquake. The response to the earthquake was very impressive from the Civil Defence HQ downwards into the community. Of course nothing is perfect and it’s probably telling about our level of expectation that some were unhappy about how the council handled things. The fact that no one died is quite incredible, due to a combination of strict building standards, low population density and the time of the quake. But what was of interest to me was how the city residents responded. There was a definite feeling of everyone looking outwards and willing to help. The fact that the city could get back on its feet so soon was testament to the resilience of its people.

So what makes systems resilient? Simply the ability to bounce back from a shock or unexpected event. Generally this is applied to ecosystem shocks: the ability of ecosystems to regenerate. But people can be resilient, in the way they respond to shocks such as the loss of a loved one. Communities can also be described a resilient if they can recover from an event which effects the whole community. More and more resilience will become a major part of any community planning scenario. Christchurch has done well in this area and I am sure lessons will be learnt from recent events.

When we look at building resilience into our systems it’s worth looking at the key stress points. During the earthquake a couple of these stressors became clear: one was money and the other was the exchange of  services. People needed to buy stuff yet with power down there was no way of paying via the usual channels and many people didn’t have cash on them. Also people needed to exchange goods and services but again there were problems with communication, power and availability.

It’s at a time like this that we see the promise of local community currencies come to the fore. One such system was the Lyttleton Timebank which operates in a small and geographically constrained community. This is a perfect setup for a successful community system. More and more these type of systems will become part of the fabric of a successful and resilient communities. Watch a story about them here