Combining resource (including land) taxes, monetary reform and basic income is the political challenge of our time

Posted on by
Reply

My name is Deirdre Kent and I am the co-founder and co-leader of the New Economics Party New Zealand.

We have been working for three years to try and design a new economic system which is going to work for all life on our planet and in our country. We have decided we need to bring together three different movements – the monetary reform movement, (including reforming the national currency and having a whole range of complementary currencies), the tax reform movement to move towards land and other resource taxes and away from income tax and sales tax, and thirdly the movement for a basic income, giving an unconditional, basic income to all people where paid work may not be available for all people.

So – how do we do this? Well you can’t actually do one thing then do another and then do another because everything is interconnected. So we have to think about it as a whole system. A whole system hyperconnected globally. And we are saying that you have to look at the two things which change the system most, where you get the greatest “bang for your buck” by tweaking it just a little bit. We are saying you have to change the money system and the tax system. Those are the two paradigms we have to change. Secondly we have to change the goal of an economy. The goal of an economy is not just ‘to grow’, which is impossible on a finite planet and we all know that. And now we have got climate change because we have been so foolish.

So pulling those three things together we decided we would end up leaving the current system alone. We have got a very bad tax system. Over 80% of our taxes are on labour, enterprise or sales. Nonsense! Those are things we want to encourage as long as the goods are the right sort for a post fossil fuel age. So that is a major change in our tax system.

Secondly we want to change the money system. How on earth do you do that when we are so dependent on banks and banks are so powerful? So we are saying leave the current system alone. It is going to fall over, it is going to decay. It’s unstable, we have got deflation coming, huge debt. Goodness knows what is going to fall over next and what is going to trigger the next Global Financial Crisis.

We are saying you have to start a second national currency in parallel. But this one is designed differently. It is spent into existence at local level to buy land, and then the revenue stream from the land rental (which is quite significant) will be passed to higher levels of government and occasionally it is shared with the all citizens over a year old through a Citizens Dividend.

Right at the very start of this new currency we would pass a raft of new tax laws governing it. A full land tax, a full carbon tax and full mining tax. So it would be ruled by a different set of tax laws.

And this new economy would grow in an entirely different way. It would be a thriving dynamic economy for a post fossil fuel age.

Now we realise this is almost a preposterous proposal. And yet in Germany when they had a crisis in 1923 they set up a new national currency and it was backed by land. Ours is an improvement on theirs because we are putting it into existence without interest. It you allow the banks to create the money as interest bearing debt, then you are always going to have a growth imperative built in. It’s a mathematical certainty that you have to keep growing the money supply, and growing the economy and that causes a growth imperative leading to climate change.

And we have to stop it. We have to design an economy not dependent on a growth imperative and that is for the sake of our children.
So Germany successfully stalled their huge crisis in about a week. The farmers released their food for the towns and social unrest stopped.

Now we went through several stages and you can see that on our site. We went through the stages of covenants on land, we went through various names for the new currency. But on this site you will see plenty to read.

We ask you to join us in thinking and working to design a sustainable economic system.

We are going to have a conference on the last two days in May and the first day of June in New Zealand and we invite you to come. More information on the website soon.

So thank you very much and good luck!

Surpluses mean unemployment and deficits bring employment

Posted on by
1

It’s a strange paradox. There is a professor of economics John T Harvey who writes a lot on the fallacy of “getting rid of the deficit.” It seems it is his mission in life to educate politicians that the government’s budget can’t be likened to a household budget and that it shouldn’t be a government’s aim to get a surplus. He writes in Forbes magazine on why you should learn to love the deficit.

But how little progress he is making! I don’t know if he has an equivalent academic in New Zealand, but Australian Professor Steve Keen who now works in UK is also doing his bit. Hs latest article last week was entitled Beware of Politicians Bearing Household Analogies. Then there is a Professor Randall Wray of the University of Missouri and Kansas City doing the same thing.

Despite the shortfall this year, Treasury still backs Mr English to pull the country into the black over the next few years – predicting a $565 million surplus in 2015/16 and $4.1 billion in 2018/19.

Read more: http://www.3news.co.nz/nznews/dont-blame-deficit-on-tax-cuts—english-2014121709#ixzz3M73GczGY

Russel Norman blamed it on 2010 tax cuts and the fact that the Govt borrowed $5b in 4 years.

Treasury’s predictions Budget time: $372 m
Election: $297m
Dec: $572 million

(To year to June 30, 2015)

L Randall Wray:
Whenever a demagogue wants to whip up hysteria about federal budget deficits, he or she invariably begins with an analogy to a household’s budget: “No household can continually spend more than its income, and neither can the federal government”. On the surface that, might appear sensible; dig deeper and it makes no sense at all. A sovereign government bears no obvious resemblance to a household.

Surpluses cause a fall in your net assets. Deficits create private sector wealth while surpluses deplete it. If Government takes in $1000 taxes from private sector but doesn’t spend any of it and they had $100 of their own earnings, their total intake is $1100. The private sector has gone into debt of $1000. Government deficits create private sector wealth while govt surpluses drain it. Learn to love your deficit.

But in New Zealand, as in Australia and no doubt Canada and UK, politicians all believe in surpluses. Here’s the current petty interchange from our country.

On Dec 16 on Yahoo the headline was “Don’t blame deficit on tax cuts says English”

“The Government believes a surplus is achievable this financial year despite the Treasury’s latest forecast,” Mr English said.
“Previous forecasting rounds show the outlook can change significantly between the half-year update and the final accounts.”

Opposition parties were quick to describe the forecast as proof of a broken promise.
“Bill English’s face is redder than the crown accounts,” said Labour’s finance spokesman Grant Robertson.
“This is the political test he set himself, and he has failed… the government owes New Zealanders an apology.”

The Greens say National’s economic credibility is on the line and NZ First’s Winston Peters believes the government has been cooking the books for years.”

In Australia we see the headline “Australia budget deficit to hit $40.4 billion” with all the accompanying handwringing and blaming of the opposition. And it is the same in the UK.

New Zealand is in dire need of a professor of economics who makes it his (or her?)mission to educate our own politicians on the topic of deficits and surpluses.

And in an interview with Professor Steve Keen on the Greek issue, he said as one of the conditions of the loan, the Greeks run a surplus of 4.5%. That means you take 4 and a half percent of money out of the economy every year and Europe keeps asking why they can’t grow. That is cruel and ignorant. Tortuous terms. No wonder Yanis Varoufakis the new Greek Finance Minister would prefer to meet with politicians than the Troika. The Troika says they have to keep on going but it is obviously not working and causing a heap of pain.

Bubble finance, junk energy bonds, oil derivatives being neglected by mainstream media

Posted on by
Reply

Those who still think the plummeting price of oil is a good thing for the economy are taken in by PR spin or the simple lack of coverage in the mainstream media. It is not about consumers having lower petrol prices and more in their pocket. It’s not even about the energy. It’s about the money, the financial structure of the oil industry, particularly for the wildly speculative ventures like shale oil extraction. Environmentalists will see low oil prices as bad news for climate change but they need also to look at the way these energy shale firms are financed and learn about things they don’t want to know about, like junk bonds, leveraged loans and derivatives. It causes more immediate pain and must be survived first.

WTI to 12 Dec 2014The relentless slide continues. As of Monday 15 December in New Zealand the price of WTI oil was $56.73, down over 47% since June this year.

Unfortunately in New Zealand we are being shielded from all this bad news. Bubble finance is not a sexy topic for a front page. During the last week the Dominion Post, national radio, Sunday Star Times had nothing, and a business programme on Radio Live on Sunday touched on everything but the junk energy bond issue or the derivative issue. The programme gave the impression the only place to invest was in shares, bonds or fixed interest. When the derivatives market is so enormous, this is a major omission. It’s not as though the media believe the public won’t be able to understand junk energy bonds or derivatives. The corporate owned media only gives us bad news when it is about crime.

OK let’s try and explain it.

There are four major risks of plummeting oil prices. The first is the risk to junk energy bonds held by pension funds, mutual funds and governments. Second is the secondary oil market, including the risk associated with a variety of oil derivatives contracts held by big banks. The third is the social unrest in oil exporting countries like Venezuela, Russia. And a fourth is the ongoing and contagious decline in prices of a range of other commodities – iron ore, copper, milk powder. Let’s just deal with the first two, though the fourth one is dealt with in passing.

1. Junk energy bonds. What on earth are these, you might ask. They are the risky bonds that energy companies sell to help finance their operations. The bonds give you high returns but they are also high risk as they are unsecured loans. That risk-taking now comes home to roost. For a new venture now the bank will lend you less because the oil in the ground as their security is now worth less. In December 2014 the oil is worth only about half what it was six months ago. So you have to get more of your funding from junk bonds. You end up shelling out more in interest and what’s more you get less in revenue from the sale of your oil.

Michael Snyder says “The impact of lower oil prices has been felt directly by high yield energy bonds and since September they have posted a return of -11.2%. J P Morgan has warned that if oil prices stay at $60 a barrel for three years 40% of the junk bonds could be facing a default.”

Of course other companies finance themselves using junk bonds (as well as bank loans at a low interest rate and their own revenue stream). The energy sector accounts for over 17% of the high yield bond market (junk bonds) and when these are hammered apparently a stock market decline always follows. It’s not a small sector either. Analyst Wolf Richter says there are $210 billion of them.

So they have to sell more bonds. Unfortunately now fewer investors want to buy the risky bonds so that means the yields go up to make it more tempting for investors. As the debt markets dry up and profits fall due to cheaper oil, the funding gap widens.

It was all beautifully explained in October 2014 when oil prices were $85/barrel here

Who loses from this? The investors. And those employed in the oil industry as smaller or more indebted firms are less viable than others. And that is just the start.

But it isn’t only junk energy bonds being affected now. As the Financial Times told us on December 12,
“Investors are fleeing the US junk debt market as a selloff that started in low-rated energy bonds last month has now spread to the broad corporate debt market amid fears of a spike in default rates.” Woops, that wasn’t meant to happen.

2 Oil derivatives. Like other industries over the last few decades of financial wizardry, the oil industry has been financialised.

Remember when housing debt was bundled up by the banks, securitised, divided into tranches according to risk, and sold off? It was to increase the profits of the banks. You just pass the risk on. The bonds are sold to unwary buyers who don’t realise the risk for massive losses. The whole process was enabled by rating agencies who rated junk bonds (the risky ones have high returns) as A++. A great movie explaining all this was The Inside Job.

Now we have version 2 of the same script. Instead of CDOs (Consolidated Debt Obligations) we have got CLOs (Consolidated Loan Obligations) – just a different name this time. It’s what is called ‘leveraged loans.’

The 6 largest ‘too big to fail’ banks control $3.9 trillion in commodity derivatives contracts. A large portion of this is in energy. And the big banks of the world are on the other end of derivative contracts.

One of the headlines of a tweet going round is “Plummeting Oil Prices Could Destroy The Banks That Are Holding Trillions In Commodity Derivatives”

There is nowhere to hide. As the entire global economy is dependent on the six biggest banks, we will all be affected, even in New Zealand.

The Oil Industry is not just any old industry
Writing on Zero Hedge in October when oil was $75/barrel, Michael Snyder explains the huge investment of the energy industry in both capital expenditure and R&D.

He quotes the Perryman group on the economic effects of the oil industry in US alone:
If you think about the role of oil in your life, it is not only the primary source of many of our fuels, but is also critical to our lubricants, chemicals, synthetic fibers, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and many other items we come into contact with every day. The industry supports almost 1.3 million jobs in manufacturing alone and is responsible for almost $1.2 trillion in annual gross domestic product. If you think about the law, accounting, and engineering firms that serve the industry, the pipe, drilling equipment, and other manufactured goods that it requires, and the large payrolls and their effects on consumer spending, you will begin to get a picture of the enormity of the industry.

The combination of junk bonds and financialisation
Putting these two first effects together, former Reagan budget chief David Stockman, in an analysis on his “ContraCorner” website Dec. 9, wrote: “The now-shaking high-yield debt bubble in energy is $500 billion — $300 billion in leveraged loans and $200 billion in junk bonds. This is the same estimate EIR has made in recent briefings, of one-quarter of the $2 trillion high-yield market being junk energy debt. In that junk energy debt market, interest rates have suddenly leaped, in the past 45 days, from about 4% higher than “investment grade” bonds, to 10% higher; that is, credit in that sector has disappeared, triggering the start of defaults of the highly leveraged shale companies and their big-oil sponsors.”

“In the larger, $2 trillion high-yield debt market as a whole, interest rates have also risen sharply, so far by 2-2.5%: i.e., contagion. Whether the debt collapse will be “mini”, or maximum, may be determined in the markets for $20 trillion in commodity derivatives exposure.

“So now we come to the current screaming evidence of bubble finance—–the fact that upwards of $500 billion of junk bonds ($200B) and leveraged loans ($300 B) have surged into the US energy sector over the past decades—–and much of it into the shale oil and gas patch.

“An honest free market would have never delivered up even $50 billion wildly speculative ventures like shale oil extraction million of leveraged capital—let alone $500 billion— at less than 400bps over risk-free treasuries to.”

The simple fact is low oil prices kill millions of jobs. Falling oil prices are dangerous. While readers of mainstream media, listeners to radio and watchers of television remain in blissful ignorance of the nightmares that fund managers are living through, they will celebrate Christmas as though nothing had happened – and then ask later why nobody warned them.

The first Global Financial Crisis came on us with little apparent warning. The Queen was famously known to ask “ Why did nobody see this coming?”

For the last five years since QE, energy companies have received super cheap financing. Quantitative easing, where the Fed created trillions of dollars for banks, was a gift to the capital-intensive energy industry. Moreover job creation has been huge. Bloomberg reports Employment in support services for oil and gas operations has surged 70 percent since the U.S. expansion began in June 2009, while oil and gas extraction payrolls have climbed 34 percent.

It doesn’t matter whether the trigger for this fall was OPEC punishing the shale industry, falling demand in China, the end of QE or what it was. It was going to happen anyway and the trigger might have been anything. The whole pack of cards simply has to tumble. It’s a cauldron of death brought to the boil.

But many have seen it coming – Nicole Foss and Raul Ilargi Meijer of The Automatic Earth, Michael Snyder, Gail Tverberg, Jesse Colombo, Wolf Richter, Yves Smith are a few names that spring to mind. It’s just that haven’t been listened to yet. Whether is it the Tulip Bubble, the South Sea Bubble or the housing bubble of 2007, bubbles have a nasty habit of bursting.

Reserve Bank of NZ may explain money creation to the public in a new video

Posted on by
1

Reserve-Bank-of-New-Zealand-generic-GettyHere is our 8 Nov 2014 letter to the Governor of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand on money creation and their reply. It is encouraging to think that they are contemplating producing a video explaining how money is created in New Zealand and we await it with interest. Hopefully it will start to make an effect on the media and will start to change their erroneous and misleading reports that the banks are only intermediaries. The public owns the Reserve Bank of NZ and we deserve to have the truth. Moreover they have an obligation to train the media on the topic of money creation and to correct any wrong impressions that are given by any media. The public is not stupid. More and more people are starting to understand that the bulk of the money in the country is created by private banks as credit and are starting to ask whey private banks should have this unique privilege.

We also note in their reply they didn’t challenge our statement about over 98% of the money supply being created by private banks.

The Governor
Reserve Bank of New Zealand
PO Box 2498
Wellington 6140

Dear Sir,

Re What is Money video
You posted your animated video What is Money? at http://www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/videos/whatismoney.aspx
We have some questions to ask you:

1. Why don’t you tell the truth about money creation to the public of New Zealand? You give the impression that the Reserve Bank issues all of it – not just coins, notes. It makes no mention of the fact that over 98% of our money is created by banks as credit. It tells us that notes and coins are backed by the government, but fails to mention that bank credit is backed by government too. It omits any mention of bank credit, a major flaw in the whole video.

2. Are you aware that economists from the IMF have recently published papers on money creation, (see Michael Kumhof and Jaromir Benes https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2012/wp12202.pdf)? The Bank of England’s Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas have also published papers and released videos (see http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Pages/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1.aspx) Both of them tell the truth to the public that the bulk of money comes from interest bearing debt created by banks.

3. Will you now do a video as a real contribution to Money Week, telling the public the truth?

4. Are you aware that the UK Parliament will have a three hour debate on money creation on November 20th? See http://www.positivemoney.org/2014/11/uk-parliament-debate-money-creation-first-time-170-years/

Yours sincerely
Deirdre Kent and Phil Stevens
New Economics Party

And here is the reply on email 9 December 2014:

Dear Ms Kent and Mr Stevens

Re What is Money video

Thank you for your interest in the animated video What is Money? that we published recently on our website, and thank you again for following up on the lack of response to your letter.

In response to your specific questions:

1. As implied by the title, the video explains what money is and as you’ve clearly identified it does not attempt to explain money creation. I note that the video is not titled “Where does money come from?”

2. Yes, the Reserve Bank is aware of papers from the IMF and the Bank of England and the associated video. Indeed, we’ve published similar material ourselves here:www.rbnz.govt.nz/research_and_publications/reserve_bank_bulletin/2008/2008mar71_1lawrence.pdf

3. We are currently planning our multimedia and web content for the next year and we may indeed create a video that covers money creation. As you’re not doubt aware, it is a popular topic and the paper referred to above is unlikely to be as accessible as a video presentation.

4. Yes, the Reserve Bank is aware of the UK Parliamentary debate. The Hansard record is here: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141120/debtext/141120-0001.htm#14112048000001

Regards

Deirdre Hanlon
Knowledge Advisor
RBNZ


We urge you to write to the Reserve Bank to ask them to create and publicise this video on money creation and to take responsibility for educating the media on the topic of money creation. Either a hard copy letter to the Governor, RBNZ, PO Box 2498, Wellington 6140 or send an email rbnz-info@rbnz.govt.nz to them.


Commodity bubbles, oil derivatives and the price of petrol

Posted on by
Reply

This week several questions in Parliament were about the drop in the price of dairy products and the effect on the New Zealand economy. But the price of wool, beef, timber and logs are not dropping. I began wondering about commodity prices.

On the radio I heard a journalist say that if oil prices are down then economic growth rises. He went on to say how well the economy will do now that the price of oil is falling.

That is a deceptive argument. As Automatic Earth blogger Raul Ilargi Meijer pointed out the oil companies are already mired in debt, and when they receive less for their oil their finances will be in real trouble. He says, “there is no industry like the oil industry and it’s highly doubtful there’s another one with such debt levels”. The drop in crude prices has undercut the profitability of many oil projects and if you are an oil-exporting country you are vulnerable. Russia is being hammered right now and the ruble is in freefall. The share market in Saudia Arabia is falling.

Meijer points out that plummeting oil prices don’t just mirror the state of the real economy they will drag the whole economy down. The oil industry swims in debt not reserves.

Remember in 2012 Petrobras pulled out of New Zealand? They said they hadn’t found enough oil. Rather than giving the credit to Greenpeace for their vigorous opposition to deep sea drilling, the company’s explanation about low profitability is probably nearer the truth. Petrobras is the world’s third biggest oil company with sales of $150 billion a year.

The Telegraph writer Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in an article on oil company indebtedness wrote “Petrobras is committed to spending $102bn on development by 2018. It already has $112bn of debt. Petrobras’s share price has fallen by two-thirds since 2010.

This led me back to the whole commodity issue. I found a good article by bubble analyst Jesse Colombo and will summarise it. https://web.archive.org/web/20120302222518/http://www.thebubblebubble.com/commodities-bubble

He says “China’s economic boom since 2009 is actually a debt-driven bubble, and that its unsustainable, resource-intensive growth has temporarily boosted the prices of commodities.” He has been expecting the bubble to burst for a while now.

China’s consumption of commodities drove real money into a new “asset class”. But production has spiked and the bubble is popping now as real money leaves. We are now at the end of the commodities supercycle.

Three years ago the same Jesse Colombo warned of a commodity bubble. He said “The price of nearly every commodity from wheat to uranium exploded during the past decade as hundreds of billions of dollars of capital entered commodities as the new “hot” investment destination.”

He wrote then “Commodities prices, as measured by the Continuous Commodity Index (CCI), have risen a staggering 275% since the start of their bull market in November 2001”

He said Crude oil (WTI) is up 1,050%, gasoline 1,050%, heating oil 1,000%, gold 528%, silver 1130%, copper 666%, platinum 435%, palladium 443%, wheat 275%, corn 348%, soybeans 250%, oats 300%, sugar 600%, coffee 635%, cocoa 435%, orange juice 245%, cotton 650%and lean hogs 213%. (measured at the peak in mid-2011)

“Like all bubbles, from the Roaring Twenties bubble to the Dot-com bubble, the 2000s commodities bubble started as a legitimate economic trend and devolved into a “hot money”-fueled speculative mania.

“Record-high commodities prices led to ambitious plans such as Quebec, Canada’s $80 billion investment and decision to open its vast northern region to mining development – an area twice the size of France with an abundance of iron, nickel and copper ore deposits.

“High oil prices have incentivized the development of a wide range of technologies that are helping the discovery and production of far more oil than originally estimated and helping to allay Peak Oil fears for the time being. Fracking in US made US the biggest oil producer in the world.

“China and India’s real estate development and infrastructure construction soared in the early 2000s, causing economic growth and the demand for raw materials to hit a powerful upward inflection point.

“While the Chinese government builds scores of excessively extravagant government buildings, entire uninhabited “ghost cities” are cropping up, as can be seen in satellite images.

“When China and India’s economic bubbles pop, the commodities bubble is sure to crash along with them.

We have also seen the rise of commodities as an investment class. The boom has taken place across a wide range of commodities, and, indeed, is unprecedented in scope and size. These commodities include sugar, cotton, soybean oil, soybeans, nickel, lead, copper, zinc, tin, wheat, heating oil.

derivatives-3“The unprecedented aspects of the commodities boom and bubble are due to a relatively recent fundamental change in the commodities market – financialization, or the large-scale transformation of the commodities market into an investment asset class like stocks and bonds.

“Pension funds have become one of the largest sources of capital parked in long-term commodity investments ever since Congress essentially forced them to diversify into commodities by law. The tsunami of new investment capital flowing into the commodities market has been a major contributor to the boom in prices. In addition, the financialization of commodities paralleled the financialization of, and bubbles in, the US housing and mortgage markets.

But it is not just the commodities themselves. There is now a staggering range of commodities derivatives products. They call it “financial innovation”. Here is Jesse Colombo again in 2011 “The market value of agriculture commodities derivatives grew from three quarters of a trillion in 2002 to more than $7.5 trillion in 2007, while the percentage of speculators among agriculture commodities traders grew from 15 to 60 percent. The total number of commodities derivatives traded globally increased more than five-fold between2002 and 2008. The commodities market has become increasingly dominated by big banks, hedge funds and other speculative participants.

According to Wikileaks cables, speculators, not supply and demand, were the main cause of the 2008 oil bubble when oil hit $147/barrel.

One of the main catalysts for the second phase of the commodities bubble (2009-to-Present) was the launch of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing (QE) programs.”

Further to the topic of derivatives. If you want something scary to read then try reading about how big banks hold a great many oil derivatives and are at the losing end of the bet as oil drops in price. http://www.activistpost.com/2014/12/plummeting-oil-prices-could-destroy.html

And here is an article from earlier this year. The author is one Harry Dent and the website http://economyandmarkets.com/markets/foreign-markets/2014-the-year-china-bubble-burst/ and I quote it in full.

“For two years now, I’ve been warning in our Boom & Bust newsletter that China is going to be the ultimate and largest trigger for the next global financial crisis… a crisis that will be deeper and last longer than the first one that governments quickly combatted with unprecedented quantitative easing and bailouts.

And the cracks in the greatest bubble in modern history are finally starting to show. China bubble burst? Yes. And 2014 is the year that happens. When it does, it will trigger a market crash around the world.

George Soros warned late last year that China’s subprime lending was starting to look like the U.S. just before its crisis.

Now Leland Miller, President of China Beige Book International, is warning that 2014 will be the year of defaults for China.

Defaults will occur in trust products… wealth-management products… corporate bonds… and even some government bonds.

China’s subprime lending has mushroomed to more than $2 trillion in the last five years.
Its corporate bond market now totals $4.2 trillion.

Its total credit has surged from $9 trillion to $23 trillion since late 2008, or 250% of GDP.
Once again, additional borrowing and spending adds very little to GDP…

Just like it was, right before our subprime crisis, right now every dollar of debt China incurs adds only 15 cents to its GDP. At the height of our crisis in 2009, each additional dollar of debt created 85 cents of GDP.

China is currently getting very little bang for its borrowed buck.
As I always say: Debt is like a drug. It takes more and more to create less and less effect until the system fails.

Now, China’s system is starting to fail… and the bubble is starting to blow up and the fallout will affect us all.

As Miller warns, this is a different China than that of the past two decades. The government understands that it has to slow growth after massively overbuilding and inflating bubbles.

This, he warns, will impact China’s neighbors — places like South Korea, Japan, and Australia (where I recently issued strong warnings about the China burst) — more than most people assume.

Societe Generale’s analyst, Albert Edwards, warns: “Australia is a leveraged time bomb waiting to blow up. It is not a CDO (meaning collateralized debt obligation), it is a CDO squared. All we have in Australia is, at its simplest, a credit bubble (consumer debt) built upon a commodity boom, dependent for its sustenance on an even greater credit bubble in China.”

Exactly!

Already, an agricultural financial co-op has closed its doors, and depositors couldn’t withdraw their money. And a China Credit Trust wealth-management product of $496 million blew up.
The Chinese government bailed them out.

Then, on March 7, China saw its first corporate bond default, when Shanghai Chaori Solar defaulted on its bond payments. It’s unlikely the government will bail it out.”

PPP Infrastructure Finance – A Case of Public Pain for Private Profit..?

Posted on by
Reply

The following is an article written by kiwi Joel Benjamin who is in the country for three months. Formerly from Hawkes Bay, he is currently a researcher for Goldsmith University in London and was formerly a campaigner for public finance.

oblique-view-img4It’s time for a serious public debate on infrastructure future.

This week at the Auckland transport summit 2014, experts from around New

Zealand will gather in Auckland to discuss transport infrastructure planning

solutions to address Auckland’s growing urban transport problems.

Entirely missing from the debate however, will be an open public discussion of

how such infrastructure will be paid for by all New Zealanders, and paid to

whom?

Having recently returned to New Zealand after several years in financial

campaigning in London, I was interested to see what was being proposed in New

Zealand across the infrastructure planning and finance space. The answer is PPP.

Upon leaving a planning role with Napier City Council in 2006, I spent 3 years in

Melbourne with State transport authority VicRoads, before briefly entering the

consultancy game.

Through the experience of working on projects including the Calder Corridor and

Geelong bypass in Melbourne and Sydney West Metro underground rail, I have

seen the best and worst of what the private and public sector have to say and do

on infrastructure development.

Compared with Melbourne, Sydney is a transport infrastructure basket-case,

suffering from 20 years of State Government decision making paralysis.

While the construction companies hate the constant transport planning u-turns,

for the planning and engineering consultants, it’s a fee earning gold mine, with

taxpayer funded “team-building” gigs sailing on Sydney harbour all the rage.

Ideologically I am not wedded to either public or private sector approach to

infrastructure delivery. I am however extremely concerned about who pays for

infrastructure, and that what is designed and built is fit for purpose and meets

demonstrable public needs.

In the mid 1990’s Australia and the UK embarked on a infrastructure financing

model called the Private Finance Initiative (PFI/PPP) to fund public

infrastructure including schools, roads and hospitals “off balance sheet” using

more expensive bank finance, instead of Government borrowing.

Whilst PFI has proved a gold mine for private financiers and construction firms,

it’s been a disaster for the UK taxpayer.

To pay back £55 billion of PFI/PPP infrastructure will cost UK taxpayers £301

billion over the next 30 years.

Interest charges on PFI bank finance are at least double the cost of Government

borrowing. In the NHS, academic Allyson Pollock has stated PFI has frequently

meant “one hospital for the price of two.”

Our Prime Minister John Key spent his working life in London within a banking

environment where such profits at taxpayers expense were considered not only

desirable, but entirely normal.

With the recent creation of the Auckland “super city” and talk of local

government mergers in Hawkes Bay where I grew up, I see plenty of warning

signs that PFI/PPP super profits are occupying the thinking of politicians here,

and taxpayers have every right to be concerned.

It turns out that the modern infrastructure industry is not especially concerned

with financing development, its objective is developing finance.

The aim is to get as much private bank debt out the door as humanly possible

with unsuspecting taxpayers on the hook to pay for it.

The public utility of any planned infrastructure (if it is even needed) is of

secondary concern to authorities, whose job is to maximise private profits.

Planned Public-Private (PPP) infrastructure projects including the Ruataniwha

Dam in Hawkes Bay, and Transmission Gully in Wellington should be considered

and scrutinised in this light. Coincidentally, both PPP projects which are financed

by BNZ.

The “vertical integration” or alignment of commercial interest between the

infrastructure developers and the bank is so complete that Andrew Pearce, the

Chairman of HBRICL who are developing the Ruataniwha Dam project also sits

on the BNZ board.

There is no accusation of impropriety involved, but taxpayers should certainly

question whose interests are being advanced through development of the

Ruataniwha Dam – local rate payers, or BNZ shareholders? to whom Pearce has a

“fiduciary duty” to maximise BNZ profits.

PPP projects are typically designed to benefit from economies of scale and suck

up thousands of hours of expensive private sector engineering and

environmental consultants time.

However spend a few hours reading through a typical economic business case

used to justify a PPP project and you’ll quickly discover more clouds of doubt

than your average long range mountain forecast.

Economic forecasting is frequently full of grandiose predictions, models and

assumptions. Build it and they will come, as opposed to projects servicing

demonstrable existing needs.

PPP projects are fantastic business for the private sector, as lending to central

government involves zero risk of default. Profits for private sector firms

engaging in UK PFI/PPP projects reach 60-70% returns, as compared with 3%

returns on standard construction projects.

Tangible benefits for taxpayers however are much more elusive to pin down,

with many PPP projects owned, controlled and run via offshore shell companies

paying negligible taxes. PFI/ PPP contracts are deemed “commercially sensitive”

and are not made available for scrutiny in the public realm.

Despite the criticisms, let’s be clear about one thing. We need good public

infrastructure. That much is obvious.

Road and rail networks connect trade and commerce, ports connect us to global

markets and modern schools and universities ensure a skilled and innovative

workforce.

We must however question an “infrastructure at any costs” philosophy, designed

to indebt future generations for decisions made today in the interests of private

sector profiteers, not the taxpaying public.

There are other means of funding infrastructure which much be explored before

committing future generations of taxpayers to the folly of PPP.

A 2011 UK Treasury Select Committee Report on PFI/ PPP found the cost of bank

borrowing to be at least twice as expensive as Government finance.

Questions must be asked why direct Government financing of projects like

Transmission Gully, Auckland rail development and Ruataniwha Dam is not on

the table alongside PPP. Where is the alternative?

We also have the option of public banks, like the Bank of North Dakota in the

USA. The Bank of North Dakota has a mandate to support the local economy,

support other local banks and fund rural businesses, infrastructure and

irrigation projects of a type identical to Hawkes Bays Ruataniwha Dam.

The difference however, is that interest payments and profits at public banks

(being State owned) are reinvested in the state, not siphoned off by private

profiteers such as Australian owned BNZ – who finance both Transmission Gully

and Ruataniwha Dam PPP projects.

When a public bank like the Bank of North Dakota makes lending decisions, we

can be reasonably assured both the infrastructure project itself, and the profits

that derive from it are aligned with, and ensure benefits for, local citizens.

When private banks like BNZ are involved in infrastructure planning and finance

on a strictly for-profit basis, we have no such assurances, and should remain

vigilant to the corrupting effects that for-profit private infrastructure finance

can, and demonstrably have had on democracy in the UK.

There is no shortage of bedrooms in Auckland but…

Posted on by
Reply

The Q and A programme on TVOne this week started with a debate on housing. Property investor Olly Newland and Hive News Publisher Bernard Hickey were asked by Susan Wood about how to control the housing bubble in Auckland, since the Reserve Banks had this week decided it was not budging and would leave the Loan To Value (LVR) restrictions in place.

Olly Newland seemed to want no restrictions at all so that rents will come down. Bernard Hickey pointed out that if you have first home buyers with 1% deposit you run the risk that the banks will fail and the Reserve Bank can’t take that risk. Olly replied that the banks can look after themselves, which fails to understand that we need a reliable banking system. He said that LVR restricts first home buyers and that is preventing them from getting on the housing ladder. He even used the term “moral aspect” and said he was the first to encourage home buying for first home buyers.

Bernard pointed out that if rents go up the government has a fiscal problem because it pays accommodation supplements. Bernard says if interest rates go up homeowners are in trouble. He reflected on the fact that RBNZ had been considering various ways of controlling lending to investors, including a different rule for those who have five or more properties.

They disagreed on whether interest rates will rise or go down, Olly opting for the latter and saying we are getting deflation starting round the world. He dismissed the RBNZ’s solution to control investment finance as “political claptrap” and said he wanted people to be able to rent property for a lifetime securely. He believes the market would steadily slow down and people were investing for the long term.

Oh well, interesting to have his views.

Then the panellists came on and included Matthew Horton and Laila Harre. Laila said the government doesn’t know whether
they want more people to live in their own houses
they want to control the rental market. They should get a policy on these.

Laila said there was an obsession with the supply issue and a lack of proper statistics. The housing shortage figures vary between 5000 and 30,000! Property investors owning 5-6 homes are often living in large houses themselves when all their children have gone. There isn’t a shortage of bedrooms in Auckland at all.

Matthew then pointed out the anomalies possible in the RBNZ’s other options e.g. does a property owner with five bedsits have a bigger portfolio than those with three huge student houses? Here we go again. If you don’t ask the right questions you don’t get the right answers and you end up with a complicated messy system full of anomalies.

So they managed to have a whole debate without once raising the issue of land prices and how to keep them down.

You know when I was writing my book Healthy Money Healthy Planet – Developing Sustainability through New Money Systems I was arguing that money be created without interest. Some said interest rates need to go up not down. But the strongest reaction I got from the drafts was from Robert Keall of Resource Rentals for Revenue. He basically said “zero interest loans over my dead body” because he knew land prices go up. He said we want higher interest rates not lower interest rates.

Ten years later I know what they all meant. Low interest rates mean a land bubble (people call them housing bubbles but it is really the land that rises in value not the building).

So while I am still of the opinion that money should be never be created as interest bearing debt, I am also acutely aware of the connection between land and money and know that in New Zealand new land tenure systems were introduced by British colonists at the same time as private banks and their money creation powers.

The whole point is that because land is naturally occurring, it belongs to everyone. Colonists brought with them a concept completely alien to Maori, and indeed to the thinking of indigenous people worldwide, – private land ownership. The setttlers, who had largely been tenant farmers in England and Scotland, wanted freehold land. Freehold means land ‘free of rent’. Thousands of years of enclosures of land in Britain had meant that freehold was the new ideal. They had forgotten that land belongs to everyone.

It is a sign of how little distance we have come in our understanding of land as a natural resource that a high profile debate like this QandA debate can go hard at it without mentioning land. One tweeter said ‘The elephant in the room is capital gains’, again without mentioning land.

Oh and they had a debate they had about ‘forcing people out of their homes’. When Laila pointed out that there was no shortage of bedrooms in Auckland, Matthew Hooten said you can’t force people out of their homes. Well a tax system can. That is what tax systems do – they alter behaviour. If a Remuera retired couple is living in a huge home and the only cost to hold their land is the rates, they stay there. If however they had to pay an extra 3% land tax they might reconsider buying a smaller property more suited to their needs.

The next day the Dominion Post carried a short piece making Laila look ridiculous for saying this but she was only pointing out a fact.

A recent Melbourne study has found that a great many property owners are not even renting, they are just sitting on their properties waiting for capital gain. In the commercial area it is a higher percentage and in each suburb it differs. 64,386 properties are likely vacancies during Melbourne’s record-long housing supply crisis – See more at: http://www.prosper.org.au/tag/speculative-vacancies/#sthash.cHtfoINb.dpuf

It is time such a study was done for Auckland.

Economics professor Steve Keen in a recent interview said it is only thing stopping unemployment rising to the levels of Europe is the the housing bubble. The housing bubble keeps money supply up. Goodness, that is a critical point and leads us to understand the interconnections between the money supply, unemployment and how the tax system affect where money is invested. Of course Steve Keen must then argue we need more money in the system as well as a tax system that taxes the monopoly use of the commons and not work. And we have to find a money system that is sufficient. Thank goodness for the citizen effort going on at the moment to start a Christchurch currency. Yes getting this new political economy is a huge challenge for the entire world. http://www.switzer.com.au/video/keen13112014/.