by frog
Well, it’s happened again. Budget stuff has leaked from Wellington, stealing the thunder of Greens and Tories alike ahead of tomorrow’s announcement. No one is immune, and all sorts of theories can develop about who may gain an advantage by leaking such stuff.
First of all, after a thorough hop around the corridors of power, I am pretty confident it didn’t come from the Green side. There were only three people with the knowledge, and frankly, if it had been a true insider, the leak would have been more accurate. Would New Zealand’s most trusted politician do such a thing?
Here’s what Jeanette had to say about the insulation programme on Morning Report.
The first so-called factoid is that the Greens settled for less than they did with Labour. That was immediately followed up by the assertion that the $billion dollars was over ten years now instead of fifteen, so it is, in fact, a better deal than the one with Labour. That sort of contradiction is what leads me to believe it was a lessor soul who leaked things to be malicious, rather than someone who understands the deal.
TV3 said last night that it would be about $300 – 330 million in the budget. Labour agreed to a billion over fifteen years, which averages about $66.7 million a year, with a bit of a ramp up in the beginning. If the Nats are doing $330 million over the first four years, that’s an average of $84 million per year on top of what is already budgeted for in the existing EnergyWise Homes fund. That sounds good to me, and is a better deal for everyone.
I haven’t been able to get our folks to squeak, except to say that Jeanette is happy with the arrangements and I’ll have to wait until tomorrow. My money is on Jeanette, so I think it will be as good or better than last year’s deal. So much for the inside scoop.
I have also heard all kinds of rumours that rental homes might be left out. Somehow I doubt that, given that Jeanette spent so much of her time as Government Spokesperson for Energy Efficiency talking up the existing insulation scheme for landlords. Because of her efforts, it has recently taken off, so I can’t see them scrapping that.
What I do know is that without fail, every press release I have seen has sung its praises, even if the facts haven’t all agreed. That’s because this programme is a no-brainer, whatever your ideology.
If the announcement is anything like the new money for insulation that we put into our Green New Deal Stimulus Package, there will 1400 new jobs coming from it, as well as preserving the existing jobs in the EnergyWise insulation programme.
Oh well. Our Stimulus Package would create up to 48,000 jobs. Only 46,600 to go, but this is a good start!
Published in Economy, Work, & Welfare | Health & Wellbeing by frog on Wed, May 27th, 2009
Tags: Budget, green new deal, health, insulation, leak, politics, stimulus package
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Thank goodness somebody other ECan and CCC is going to do something about the winter smog problem.
Do we send our job applications to Frog or Jeanette?
If I may so, the sign of good policy is when people act on before parliament actually implements it. Two of my nieces are about to move into their first homes and both payed close attention to how ell insulated their prospective new homes are and they/ve both ended up with homes with rainwater/greywater systems.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I will still feel free to criticise the budget, but I will have to qualify it now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Next we have ensure that the insulation that gets done is best practice. There are a number of products out there that fall into the ‘best profit’ rather than ‘best insulation’ categories.
Underfloor polystyrene and aluminium joinery are two that spring to mind.
Speaking of jobs… any chance the Home Energy Rating Assessor training I undertook (under EECA’s watchful eye), but which has been useless while politicians have played silly games, will now be of use?
We hope.
Energy efficient schools too please, teach the next generation the benefits via direct experience.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# samiam Says:
May 27th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
“Energy efficient schools too please, teach the next generation the benefits via direct experience.”
indeed. The intermediate school I went to seemed to have been designed to maximise solar heat gain in summer and maximise heat loss in winter. It also coped badly with rain and snow. On the plus side it was well-ventilated, provided you didn’t mind the wind blowing your exercise books everywhere.
I’m going to a Green Party conference there this weekend, so I’ll see if they’ve improved it since then.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nothing for rentals…..
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hopefully because they plan a CGT and people who do qualify will soon be owning these properties …
Well probably not …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Nothing for rentals… Well all they need to do is do up the state housing stock and that will drag the whole rental market up. Then what’s needed is tax deductibility for landlords upgrading (rather than capitalised as it currently stands).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
samiam Says:
May 27th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Next we have ensure that the insulation that gets done is best practice. There are a number of products out there that fall into the ‘best profit’ rather than ‘best insulation’ categories.
Underfloor polystyrene and aluminium joinery are two that spring to mind.
…………….
Whats the problem with polysyrene? I was thinking of putting it under the floor?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
TV3 – Bill English, delivering the Budget against a background that is as black as pitch.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Our Stimulus Package would create up to 48,000 jobs.”
Read “Our Stimulus Package would create up to 48,000 subsidised make-work positions”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wat, in a time of rising unemployment, is it a bad thing for the govt to employ people to do productive things? I don’t know details of the jobs but I can imagine a govt funded recycling ‘business’ becoming self funding and quite profitable in the future.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Aluminium joinery is not a insulating material at all.
Wooden frames are better insulators than aluminium frames but wood is much more expensive.
And when you insist on double glazing then the price difference becomes even greater because the timber frames have to be even thicker.
In temperate climates wooden joinery with thermal curtains with well insulated walls is a good overall system because the curtains are a temperature control system.
I do not know what the objection of polystyrene floors might although a carpeted floor with timber or particle board with reflective foil is adequate and cheap provided the walls and roofs are well insulated – in a temperate climate.
Anyhow you have to look at the system as a whole.
Eaves are an important part of the system and modern fashion doesn’t like them so most current houses are off to a bad start.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fin,
A private enterprise is subject to the rigour of the market: if it doesn’t return a profit then that is a signal that its resources would be better employed elsewhere.
Communism collapsed because these signals were absent: central planners essentially tossed a coin to decide how much of X, Y and Z to produce.
You can be pretty much assured that these state “jobs” will destroy wealth, rather than create it.
How can that be a good thing?
- “I don’t know details of the jobs but I can imagine a govt funded recycling ‘business’ becoming self funding and quite profitable in the future.”
If that were the case then surely those money-grabbing capitalists would have already taken up this “opportunity.” Why haven’t they?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Because if it’s more profitable to mine it, then that’s what they’ll do. But as natural resources get less ecconomic to exploit then recycling becomes more profitable. So today, it may be more profitable to ‘mine a coke can’ but in the future it will likely be more profitable to recycle one.
“You can be pretty much assured that these state “jobs” will destroy wealth, rather than create it”
I’m not sure about the ‘wealth’ you are talking about. Obviously not the wealth of the person (and their family) who has the job. Much rsearch at uni level nowdays needs corporate backing (eg drug company) and although the funding is good in many ways, it also means that research is only undertaken if the drug company can see a realistic chance of good return. Please try and see that there are some drawbacks with this approach. It likely results in research in plants that can withstand extra pesticide, rather than plants that require fewer inputs (including water) for same production. Also not much/if any research into something that can’t be patented. E.g. a vitamin.
It is simply more profitable to exploit the worlds resources, than it is to behave like a species that wishes to survive (M Ruppert). OK I’ve toatally lost you now.
But what the Greens suggest by funding more R and D is, I believe, common sense. It does not equate to communism as you say. But if you want to jump to that conclusion, that’s up to you. Maybe you know more about the Green new deal than I do…?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
fin,
- “Because if it’s more profitable to mine it, then that’s what they’ll do. ”
Precisely. Yet you envisage the state wasting precious resources on an uneconomic alternative. What is commendable about squandering resources like that?
- “So today, it may be more profitable to ‘mine a coke can’ but in the future it will likely be more profitable to recycle one.”
An opportunity which, presumably, businesses will seize upon. But until that point, we’re better off mining instead.
- “I’m not sure about the ‘wealth’ you are talking about. Obviously not the wealth of the person (and their family) who has the job.”
Equally, the state paying a team of men dig holes while another fills them in would not destroy the wealth of the people actually wielding the shovels. But what of the alternative uses for those limited resources? What could those men have been doing instead of just moving dirt around?
Even if the state achieves something tangible it has no way of knowing (even if it cared) if the resources could have been better employed elsewhere, because it is not guided by price signals.
More than that, spending and regulation becomes a matter of which special-interest group has bought the most influence; and all at the expense of the consumer.
And isn’t it more than a little suprising that the Greens’ “economic stimulus” plan just happens to look exactly the same as their normal policies? I mean, what are the chances that their previous policies also just happened to be the best ones for stimulating an economy! That’s one for the economic journals, surely.
Of course, the reality is that they are cynically re-presenting their old dogma as as economic plan; so what do you think the chances are that it will also be the economically optimum one? Somewhere very close the zero?
- “It is simply more profitable to exploit the worlds resources, than it is to behave like a species that wishes to survive (M Ruppert). OK I’ve toatally lost you now.”
Yes, you have lost me. There is absolutely nothing wrong with exploiting natural resources – oil, coal, gas, minerals etc. It’s what enabled us to rise out of absolute, grinding poverty.
If you think we are too wealthy, perhaps you could say what level of wealth you think we should be content with. Then we can consider just how much food, education, healthcare etc one can buy with that amount…
- “But what the Greens suggest by funding more R and D is, I believe, common sense”
It’s a cheap trick for politicians to call for more teachers/nurses/schools/hospitals/R&D/whatever.
Firstly, what is the optimum level of R&D? How do they know? Secondly, when making these pronouncements, have you noticed that politicians don’t at the same time talk about the cuts they will make elsewhere to fund the called-for expenditure.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat,
Fin actually has a point.
Presuming that these work creation schemmes hire indivivduals whom would otherwise be on the dole then (deliberatly keeping it simple by excluding tax, admin costs, and superior ROI):
P(no job) = $X
P(created job) = $Y
Difference = $Y – $X = $Z
So, again, based on the assumption that apart from afew admin staff the staff will be from the pool of unemployed vastly unlikely to find a job in the present climate those individuals would receive $Y in this scheme per week but in the absence of the schemme they would receive $X. They would receive $X by default since they are guarantied an unemployment benefit and we can be fairly certain they will be sitting on that benefit well into the futrue. In this way $X becomes a sunk cost that would leave government anyway. Because of this the created company would effectivly only have to pay $Z to the worker out of its own funds for the state to break even, by extension the value of the workers contribution at this point in time only has to be at the $Z level thus allowing this company to be economic despite it not being economic if not run, or heavily subsidised, by state. The more profitable recycling becomes the less the state is effectivly paying until such point as the value of the workers contributions is equal to minimum wage at which point the business is entirly self sustaining.
It is because of this that ‘work for the dole’ schemmes can be rather economic, all things considered.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient,
Over anything but the short term, unemployment is whatever the government wants it to be: left alone, there will be nothing beyond frictional unemployment – people changing jobs, etc. But if the government introduces a minimum wage, that will certainly create ongoing structural unemployment (e.g. permanent youth unemployment levels in Europe.)
Now, to argue that it is then “economic” for the government to employ the very people it rendered unemployed would be the height of perversity. So what we are talking about is just the government’s response to short-term rises in unemployment brought about by shocks.
That being the case, spending millions of dollars setting up politically desirable schemes, only to shut them down a few months later as the jobs market returns to normal, would simply be to squander resources (worse, not shutting them down and leaving them in place, subsidised, draining resources from the economy.)
Further, any company considering investing in the recycling sector (or whatever the fetish of the government of the day happens to be) can only be dissuaded by the prospect of the state jumping in at any moment with its own subsidised ventures: you could end up with less recycling, not more.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“until that point, we’re better off mining instead”
It may be more profitable to ‘mine a coke can’ but this doesn’t mean it’s not also profitable to recycle one. Especially if you are responsible for the cost of disposing of the can. Even more so if you you can move someone from dole to tax-payer in the process (as ‘the wise one’ says).
“More than that, spending and regulation becomes a matter of which special-interest group has bought the most influence”
You have a point, and very valid when we are talking about politicians. This is one of the reasons I vote Green.
“what are the chances that their previous policies also just happened to be the best ones …so what do you think the chances are that it will also be the economically optimum one”
Good policy is good policy, so it’s not surprising. There are always improvements to be made however, so you are right that it’s very unlikely to be the optimum one.
“There is absolutely nothing wrong with exploiting natural resources- oil, coal, gas, minerals etc”
Come on Wat, you’re making this too easy. “absolutely nothing”! Surely you can see something. Oil spill?
I agree that fossil fuels are benificial in many ways. Wake-boarding and skiing to name two essentials. But I can also see that everything has a cost. I don’t think that private business, left to their own, will address this cost.
“It’s a cheap trick for politicians to call for more teachers/nurses/schools/hospitals/R&D/whatever.”
It’s only cheap if after you’re elected you reneg on those promises.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat,
.
I am aware of the effect of the minimum wage and i agree with you as to how it distorts the market and makes otherwise economic activities uneconomic. However, one must accept that short of adopting an approach such as negative income tax we will not, and prehaps should not, get rid of the benefit system. The effects of doing so would be rather undesirable, particuarly for property rights. So given that a non-negative income tax benefit exists there will always be an effective minimum wage and because of this there will always be more than simple frictional unemployment (not so with a negative income tax).
So, while i agree that we should not have a minimum wage we must accept that under the present system there is always going to be state induced unemployment, that unemployment could atleast be put to a productive use. My point was mearly to illustrate that under the systems we can reasonbly expect to dominate in NZ AT THIS MOMENT these job creation schemmes may infact be economic, all things considered.
And chances are the job market wil not pick up any time soon
Fin,
for quotes please use [blockquote] … [/blockquote] (replacing the square brackets with angled brackets)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So what happens when unemployment drops down again? Do we close down these schemes?
Isn’t it the case that after spending vast amounts of borrowed money on creating them, they will just be getting in to their stride as the recovery kicks in?
How many more real jobs could struggling businesses have saved and created without the goverment taxing them even more to pay for its ham-fisted interventions? Why don’t you instead cut business taxes as a more effective and immediate measure to support employment?
Also, depite Obama’s best assurances, isn’t it the case that their vast spending spree (sorry, “stimulus spending”) is in fact stuffed with political pork: schemes with absolutely no economic or social merit? Despite your ideals, isn’t that the reality of what you’re proposing?
If you support a state which can borrow to finance your expensive, uneconomic schemes, then you must also take responsibility for every other gold-plated boondoggle and white elephant it throws money at under the “stimulus” pretext.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat,
Unemplyment here is always high, the schemme about which I am talking would only assist a small portion of the unemployed, a portion still almost guaranteed to be unemployed even at a high growth-rate. So that arguement is void.
I agree that their are far better approaches, my arguement however is that is is not by necesity uneconomic to create these schemes given the present political climate and realities. The subsidies could just as easily be given to actual business’, and would probally require far less funds, still being economic under the present political climate. I am against almost all subsidies and I acknowledge this to be a major subsidy. I even agree that there are far better solutions, in a better political climate, but one has to work with what one has and in the present climate this is economically feasable and will remain so so long as the population is so incredibly ignorant. “When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic” – BF
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient >>“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic” – BF
I’m not actually sure if that was BF, may be BS?http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Benjamin_Franklin.
Does this mean that voting for tax cuts will be the end of something here?
You seem to agree with Wat that if there was no govt then there would be no unemployment, except “frictional”. Is this because if there were no benefits then everyone would do whatever they could for money (and you equate this to having employment) or they’d basically starve?
Wat>>”So what happens when unemployment drops down again? Do we close down these schemes?”
I guess that would depend on the govt at the time. If Nats, then it would likely be privatised, esp if as you say “they will just be getting into their stride”. If Greens were calling the shots then maybe they would look at taking the profits from the ’schemes’ which are “striding forward” and investing in big ponds of cow effluent to grow duckweed on.
The Greens often are accused of being ideallists. But I think that it is you who is dreaming of utopia. I also like the sound of less govt but if private business were left to their own, how could you ensure they acted with any morals? I’m not saying that all big businesses are without morals just that there needs to be a govt to ensure that where profit for one results in loss for the planet (which surely hurts us all in the end) then the foot can come down.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Precisely. Yet you envisage the state wasting precious resources on an uneconomic alternative.
Uneconomic over what time-scale?
Uneconomic when the resources are quite permanently depleted?
The ENTIRE point to doing something that is “uneconomic” is that economists and businessmen have nothing to offer the future but their waste products.
Greens think in terms of centuries and longer. We understand that one cannot ignore short-term survival but we do not put short term profits ahead of long-term benefits. The balance struck is never satisfactory to Libertarians, Communists or Anarchists, and all call us different names, I have only one (only one printable that is) label that fits all of them…. extremists.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)