How Did New Zealand Compare In The First Half Of The 2020s?
On growth, New Zealand was in the middle of the pack, with 3.9 percent compounded growth per capita; that averages out to just below one percent per annum.
On inflation and interest rates, a high ranking is generally regarded as a poor performance; although a low inflation rate may be outside the policy target zone, just as a high inflation rate may be. New Zealand had the fourth-highest CPI inflation over that four-year period, comparing consumer prices in December 2023 with December 2019. In December 2023, consumer prices were 20.6% higher than in December 2019. The country with highest compounded inflation was Austria with 22.4%, and the lowest Switzerland with 5.5%.
New Zealand had the highest compounded interest rates for that period; it had top-ranking for high-interest. If $1,000 was 'invested' at the Official Cash Rate each December from December 2020, and reinvested each December for four years in total, the accumulated amount would have been $1,111. Next highest were the United States and Canada. This ranking gives a sense of the monetary policy in the four years after the 2020 covid wave; New Zealand had the tightest monetary policy for the period as a whole, meaning the strongest 'anti-inflationary policy'. If you see Table 2 below, you will see that New Zealand had the lowest economic growth in 2024, a direct consequence of that tighter monetary policy stance.
On interest rates, we note that the countries in the Euro currency zone all experience the same monetary policy setting. It means that those Euro countries which are more aggressively anti-inflation tend to resort most to fiscal consolidation, a euphemism for government retrenchment and austerity. There is no simple measure for tight fiscal policy; the Budget deficit/surplus is often used incorrectly because government retrenchment significantly undermines government revenue.
On inflation, we note that some of those northern European countries which we normally expect to have low inflation actually had the highest inflation: Austria, Netherlands, Germany. One country similar to New Zealand on inflation and interest, and with zero growth per capita, was the United Kingdom. Australia was better than New Zealand on all three measures: growth, inflation, and interest. And much the same as New Zealand on population growth.
Table 2 shows the same data items for 2024. Of particular interest is the 2024 growth and inflation rates in 2024, compared to the interest rates for the preceding four years. New Zealand, with the toughest monetary policy over a longer period certainly got the recession it asked for; and was the median country for CPI inflation in 2024, virtually bang-on the policy target. (Was the pain worth it?)
It's important to note that many countries with significantly lower inflation than New Zealand did not have anything like the very high policy interest rates that New Zealand was subjected to; eg Sweden, Italy, France, Denmark, Slovenia. Any beneficial link from high interest rates to low inflation remains moot; and it is clear that high-interest-rate policies do much damage to the wider economy. While Japan had higher inflation in 2024 than New Zealand, we note that Japan's overall increase in consumer prices in the half-decade was much lower than New Zealand's. Japan's inflationary pressures are almost entirely imported, with New Zealand's domestically generated CPI inflation being significantly greater than Japan's.
We should note that southern Europe was doing particularly well in 2024. Although Greece's per capita growth is fuelled in part by substantial population losses. Spain, on the other hand, is getting its population back. Further north, the Austrian economy is looking particularly problematic; it's no wonder the 'far-right' political party did so well there in elections at the end of 2024 (ten percentage points higher than the Hitler-led NSDAP party got in Germany in 1930). And Finland is not looking happy either, despite low inflation.
United States, United Kingdom and Australia continued to have above-median inflation in 2024, despite – or, more likely, because of – their continued perseverance with high-interest monetary policies.
On population growth we see that Canada has been the overall 'winner', presumably in the sense that it both attracts and accepts immigrants. Surprisingly, in 2024 Australia slumped in its population growth, whereas New Zealand did not. I suspect that 2025 will show more immigration in Australia than New Zealand.
Finally
All is not well in the New Zealand economy. And it's also quite unwell in some other countries, especially the North European Euro-zone countries, and the United Kingdom. And the United States, with its tight monetary policies, seems to have only averted the fate of the United Kingdom and New Zealand (and Germany and Austria) by virtue of stimulus to its military-industrial complex. Or, strictly speaking, to its military complex. Civilian industry remains weak in the USA.
-------------
Keith Rankin (keith at rankin dot nz), trained as an economic historian, is a retired lecturer in Economics and Statistics. He lives in Auckland, New Zealand.
Keith Rankin
Political Economist, Scoop Columnist
Keith Rankin taught economics at Unitec in Mt Albert since 1999. An economic historian by training, his research has included an analysis of labour supply in the Great Depression of the 1930s, and has included estimates of New Zealand's GNP going back to the 1850s.
Keith believes that many of the economic issues that beguile us cannot be understood by relying on the orthodox interpretations of our social science disciplines. Keith favours a critical approach that emphasises new perspectives rather than simply opposing those practices and policies that we don't like.
Keith retired in 2020 and lives with his family in Glen Eden, Auckland.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NZ Autocar
15 hours ago
- NZ Autocar
Smart #2 suggests a Fortwo reprisal
Is the Fortwo city car about to be resurrected by smart? If it can find the right mix of affordability and premium feel then the chances are good, according to AutoExpress. A smart concept Fortwo from a few years back. Smart's European CEO, Dirk Adelmann, promised us earlier this year it has the potential to 'define the A-segment'. And smart's head of design, Kai Sieber, was even more emphatic, calling it the core of smart's brand. He added that the company has a 'very clear intention to bring it back into the range.' The company isn't looking to make a cheap town car though. UK CEO Jason Allbutt said it would 'help almost bring the brand together'. It would for sure be electric as well, though no details are available on that front. And it would mean a new platform, possibly borrowed from owner Geely. It has a small city car on sale already. Cost will be important but so will a premium feel. 'We still want to make sure we've got a premium product, and of course, one that has got a good range for a small electric car.' It needs to be 'affordable enough to generate volume, but not move too far away from our heritage or what we stand for' Allbutt explained. Currently, the smallest offering in its range is the nearly 4.3-metre #1 small SUV, while Smart #5 mid-size SUV that's launching soon is more than 4.7 metres long. Regarding a return to a city car, he said 'Customers see Smart as a trusted brand, in terms of quality, premium and innovation. So I think they definitely see that part, and then they can see that replicated in the cars that we're providing today. A Smart #2 will likely retain the tiny footprint and spacious interior of its predecessor, but won't be lumbered by retro design, according to Adelmann. Anyhow, he added, 'Smart doesn't do retro – we are looking at what's next,' he said. Expect a new city car styling direction from the company. But the frameless doors are not negotiable. And there will be wheels right out in the corners. He added: 'Interior space, functionality and versatility are essential', as are turning circle and ease of parking. Expect a full width lightbar up front and back, and a near vertical window and a tall roofline to boost interior space. An older Fortwo concept car. The two-seat layout will feature good head and legroom. Expect a twin-screen layout like in the other smart models. There may even be a Forfour revival as well, to go up against ID.1. It will likely take the #4 badge. This is what Fortwo looked like in 2016. Meantime, asked about progress with #2, and Adelmann says 'We're working on it', dubbed Project 2. Odd numbers are for SUVs, and even numbers for 'other products'.
NZ Herald
2 days ago
- NZ Herald
Government overcooked spending during pandemic, against official advice, harming economy
This year's is on how fiscal policy – taxing and spending – should be used to respond to economic shocks. Treasury's calculation of the size of the Covid response. Graph / Treasury Its main finding, learning from the Covid-19 pandemic, was that fiscal policy should be used sparingly, with the Reserve Bank taking the lead on managing the economic cycle using its monetary policy tools like the Official Cash Rate. 'Polite, but its conclusions are damning' – Willis The report lands in the midst of a protracted economic downturn, with both the Government and the Opposition pointing the finger at each other over who is responsible. The Government blames Labour for excessive, inflationary and unsustainable spending that prompted the Reserve Bank to plunge the economy into recession with high interest rates. Labour blames the Government for cutting spending and axing infrastructure projects. Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the report validated the Government's concerns about Labour's spending. 'Treasury's language is spare and polite, but its conclusions are damning,' Willis said. 'The report makes clear significant errors were made in the fiscal response to Covid.' Finance Minister Nicola Willis said the report validated her concerns. Photo / Mark Mitchell Willis pointed in particular to Treasury's criticism of the last Government for spending the Covid-19 fund on things that were only tangentially related to the Covid response, such as the school lunch programme. The report said the fund was established in May 2020 to 'support a timely economic response and public confidence'. However, it added that 'as the economy recovered, the then Government was advised against further stimulating, in favour of more targeted support'. Willis said the Government 'ignored' that advice, favouring 'undisciplined spending that pushed up inflation, eroded New Zealand's previously low public debt position, and fuelled a cost-of-living crisis that many families are still suffering from'. Labour has been approached for comment. Just ahead of Budget 2022, the then Finance Minister Grant Robertson said the Government struck the right 'balance'. 'There were and are no costless decisions. Doing less would have seen unemployment grow, or put people's health at risk,' Robertson said. Treasury told Govt to ease up on spending Treasury outlined a history of its advice during the pandemic. It said that initially, it had encouraged the Government to spend money to support the economy through things like the wage subsidy. However in late '2020 and into 2021 ... Treasury started to move away from recommending broad-based fiscal stimulus to support the economy towards more targeted and moderate fiscal support'. After the 2020 election, Treasury said it informed Robertson that there was 'adequate' fiscal space to support the economic recovery and space for 'further temporary support if the economic or public health situation deteriorated'. However, officials also 'highlighted the importance of controlling ongoing spending and ensuring it was high value to meet the medium-term fiscal challenge'. By August 2021, the beginning of Auckland's long lockdown, Treasury warned that any support to businesses should 'take account of macroeconomic trade-offs'. By Budget 2022, Treasury said it was recommending 'against any further stimulus'. The briefing noted that five years on from the beginning of the pandemic, spending is still close to its pandemic-era peak and has only been partly offset by higher revenue. Higher debt-servicing costs are weighing on the Government's balance sheet and lower GDP has 'contributed to the deficit both directly, by leading to a smaller tax base and lower revenue than anticipated, and indirectly, as spending plans were based on revenue expectations that did not eventuate'. The Covid fund was closed in 2022, ending that era of stimulus and Budget 2023 ended up being more stimulatory than planned thanks to the Auckland Floods and Cyclone Gabrielle. Unlikely comparison between Labour Govt and Ruth Richardson The briefing made an unlikely comparison between the Labour Government of Dame Jacinda Ardern and Chris Hipkins and the fiscal policy of National Finance Minister Ruth Richardson. Treasury noted that fiscal policy can be counter-cyclical, which means it tries to counter and blunt the business cycle by, for example, spending money during a downturn to stimulate an economy, or saving during an upswing to cool an overheating one; or fiscal policy can be pro-cyclical – this means exacerbating a business cycle by spending money when an economy is hot or cutting back when an economy is shrinking. Treasury noted that the responses to the Asian Financial Crisis and the GFC had been accidentally counter-cyclical thanks to pre-promised tax cuts, however, fiscal policy was 'pro-cyclical in the early 1990s and during 2021-2023″. It said in the 1990s, 'pressures on fiscal sustainability motivated fiscal consolidation even as the economy was in recession'. In the case of the Covid response, the Government thought it was engaged in a counter-cyclical response to a 'severe economic downturn', however 'from late 2020, the economy turned out to be much stronger than expected (perhaps, in part, caused by the strength of fiscal stimulus itself)'. 'Combined with expenditure that was enduring rather than temporary, this resulted in large fiscal deficits while the economy was overheating.' The current Government is facing similar criticism for being pro-cyclical. Much like the Governments of the 1990s, it is trying to pull back spending to rebuild the balance sheet at a time of economic weakness. The Government was criticised for spending Covid money on school lunches. Photo / Liam Clayton How much was spent? Of the 20% of GDP spent on the pandemic, about half was spent on direct pandemic economic and health initiatives. Thirty-five per cent was spent on wage subsidies 'and similar schemes during lockdowns' and a further 18% 'arose from health-system costs such as vaccination and contact tracing, along with managed isolation and quarantine (MIQ) costs'. The parties that now form the Government broadly agreed with this spending at the time – National, at some points, called for spending on wage subsidies to be even greater. The remainder of the response was 'made up of a wide range of initiatives with varied objectives', Treasury said. Some initiatives were 'aimed at more directly responding to the impacts of Covid-19 and others aimed at providing fiscal stimulus or achieving social or environmental objectives'. These included tax changes, training schemes, housing construction, shovel-ready infrastructure projects, increases to welfare benefits, the Small Business Cashflow Scheme, Jobs for Nature, additional public housing places and school lunches. The then Opposition disagreed with much of this spending. Lessons for next time In a foreword to the report, Treasury Secretary Iain Rennie noted that increased use of fiscal support during shocks had 'contributed to public debt ratcheting up over time'. Rennie warned that if nothing changes, 'this leaves future generations with less financial capacity to respond to shocks'. The recommendations from the report note the Government needs to get better at saving money when the economy is booming to ensure there is fiscal space to support the economy when times are grim. When times are grim, the Government should allow the 'automatic stabilisers' to kick in, spending money on increased benefit payments. Managing the ups and downs of the economy should mostly be left to the Reserve Bank – a conclusion reached in Treasury's draft report, published earlier. 'Monetary policy changes can be reversed more readily and can often be implemented faster. The Government's spending and taxation decisions should generally seek to optimise long-run value for money rather than moderating economic cycles,' Treasury said. This does not mean there is no role for the Government. If monetary policy is constrained or at extremes – as it was at points during the pandemic – Government spending can kick in. Or, if interest rates can fall further, the Government could restrain spending to 'help moderate booms that would otherwise result in interest rates or the exchange rate becoming extremely high'. Treasury also said fiscal policy could be used to ease some of the distributional impacts of monetary policy, which can be blunt. Monetary policy during the pandemic was largely responsible for the housing boom and bust.
Otago Daily Times
2 days ago
- Otago Daily Times
Trump could meet Putin over Ukraine soon: official
President Donald Trump could meet Vladimir Putin as soon as next week, a White House official says, as the US prepares to impose secondary sanctions, including potentially on China, to pressure Moscow to end the war in Ukraine. Such a face-to-face meeting would be the first between a sitting United States and Russian president since Joe Biden met Putin in Geneva in June 2021, some eight months before Russia launched the biggest attack on a European nation since World War 2. Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy have not met since December 2019 and make no secret of their contempt for each other. The New York Times reported that Trump told European leaders during a call on Wednesday that he intended to meet with Putin and then follow up with a trilateral involving the Russian leader and Zelenskyy. "There's a good chance that there will be a meeting very soon," Trump told reporters. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said: "The Russians expressed their desire to meet with President Trump, and the president is open to meeting with both President Putin and President Zelenskyy." The details emerged following a meeting on Wednesday between Putin and US special envoy Steve Witkoff that Trump described as having achieved "great progress" in a Truth Social post, although later said he would not call it a breakthrough. A Kremlin aide said the talks were "useful and constructive." The diplomatic manoeuvers come two days before a deadline set by Trump for Russia to agree to peace in Ukraine or face new sanctions. Trump has been increasingly frustrated with Putin over the lack of progress towards peace and has threatened to impose heavy tariffs on countries that buy Russian exports, including oil. Trump on Wednesday also said he could announce further tariffs on China similar to the 25% duties announced earlier on India over its purchases of Russian oil. "We did it with India. We're doing it probably with a couple of others. One of them could be China," he said. The White House official earlier said that while the meeting between Witkoff and Putin had gone well and Moscow was eager to continue engaging with the United States, secondary sanctions that Trump had threatened against countries doing business with Russia were still expected to be implemented on Friday. Kremlin foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov said the two sides had exchanged "signals" on the Ukraine issue and discussed the possibility of developing strategic cooperation between Moscow and Washington, but declined to give more details until Witkoff had reported back to Trump. Zelenskyy said he believed pressure had worked on Russia and Moscow was now more "inclined" to a ceasefire. "The pressure on them works. But the main thing is that they do not deceive us in the details - neither us nor the US," Zelenskyy said in his nightly address. Trump on Truth Social said he had updated some of Washington's European allies following Witkoff's meeting. A German government spokesperson said Trump provided information about the status of the talks with Russia during a call with the German chancellor and other European leaders. PRESSURE ON INDIA - AND MAYBE CHINA? Trump took a key step toward punitive measures on Wednesday when he imposed an additional 25% tariff on imports from India, citing New Delhi's continued imports of Russian oil. The new measure raises tariffs on some Indian goods to as high as 50% - among the steepest faced by any US trading partner. India's external affairs ministry called the decision 'extremely unfortunate.' The Kremlin says threats to penalise countries that trade with Russia are illegal. Trump's comment on Wednesday that he could impose more tariffs on China would be a further escalation between the world's two biggest economies. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week warned Chinese officials that continued purchases of sanctioned Russian oil would lead to big tariffs due to legislation in Congress. The US and China have been engaged in discussions about trade and tariffs, with an eye to extending a 90-day tariff truce that is due to expire on August 12, when their bilateral tariffs shoot back up to triple-digit figures. AIR STRIKES Bloomberg and independent Russian news outlet The Bell reported that the Kremlin might propose a moratorium on airstrikes by Russia and Ukraine - an idea mentioned last week by Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko during a meeting with Putin. Such a move, if agreed, would fall well short of the full and immediate ceasefire that Ukraine and the US have been seeking for months. But it would offer some relief to both sides. Since the two sides resumed direct peace talks in May, Russia has carried out its heaviest air attacks of the war, killing at least 72 people in the capital Kyiv alone. Trump last week called the Russian attacks "disgusting." Ukraine continues to strike Russian refineries and oil depots, which it has hit many times. Putin is unlikely to bow to Trump's sanctions ultimatum because he believes he is winning the war and his military goals take precedence over his desire to improve relations with the US, three sources close to the Kremlin have told Reuters. The Russian sources told Reuters that Putin was sceptical that yet more US sanctions would have much of an impact after successive waves of economic penalties during the war.
