Content supplied by Treasury
The following is the Special Topic in Treasury's latest release of its Monthly Indicators.
The meteoric rise of China up the ranks of New Zealand’s goods export markets has been one of the dominant economic developments in recent years.
Having accounted for just 4.1% of New Zealand’s goods exports in 2001, China overtook Australia as our largest export market at the end of last year, accounting for 22% of goods exports in the 2013 calendar year.
The emergence of China has been a boon for New Zealand’s primary goods exporters.
Strong demand has underpinned historically-elevated global prices for New Zealand’s exports – particularly for dairy and forestry – and China has become an increasingly important market for meat exports too.
However, the speed of the transition has raised questions as to whether New Zealand is becoming too reliant on China.
Background
The economic literature argues that a lack of export diversification is likely to make an economy more vulnerable to changes in prices or demand for the goods and services that it exports.
This, in turn, is likely to have negative effects on its export earnings and, ultimately, impact on the stability of the overall economy. Jansen (2004)1 shows that this is particularly a risk for commodity exporting countries and that, by implication, such economies would benefit from diversifying their export bases.
As a small, geographically-isolated economy, New Zealand fits the paper’s description of a typically concentrated exporter. The intuition is that the relatively small size of the economy limits economies of scale and prevents large-scale industries from developing, and our isolated location presents another headwind in that we face relatively high transport costs for our goods.
How worried should we be?
So, how worried should we be by New Zealand’s trade concentration, particularly in light of the increasing importance of China?
Of course, New Zealand is far from alone in having seen China rise in importance as a trade partner over recent years. China’s trade share has risen for every country in the OECD over the past decade or so.
Back in 2001, China was in the top 3 export markets for just two of the 34 OECD economies, and even these were its Asian neighbours Japan and Korea.
Now it is ranked in the top 3 export markets for seven OECD members, and is the number 1 export destination for four of these (including New Zealand).
New Zealand’s goods export base is comparatively concentrated...
That said, New Zealand’s goods export base is amongst the least diversified of the OECD member countries, and it has become less diverse over the past decade or so.
This is evident from looking at a number of measures, including the proportion of a country’s total goods exports that are exported to its largest export partners.
As shown in Table 1, New Zealand’s five largest export markets accounted for 59.2% of total goods exports in 2013, relative to the OECD median of 52.0%.
This represented a 3.8%-point increase from the corresponding proportion in the early 2000s, compared with a decrease in the OECD median over the same period.
- Table 1 – Goods export trade shares (% of total)
-
- Source: International Trade Centre
Another way of examining the extent of diversification in a country’s export base is to use export concentration indices calculated by the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
Such indices are calculated annually and build in additional information on the products that a country exports to give a single measure of a country’s trade concentration.
The index is bounded between 0 and 1: the higher the concentration index, the more concentrated (ie, less diversified) a country’s goods exports. New Zealand’s latest concentration index of 0.17 is above the OECD median of 0.12 (Figure 8).
Furthermore, New Zealand is one of only seven OECD member countries to have seen a significant increase in its concentration index between 2001 and 2012 (where we have defined a significant increase to be at least 0.05 in magnitude).
- Figure 8 – Concentration indices
-
- Source: UNCTAD
...but less so than Australia’s
More striking, though, is how Australia – our traditional principal export market – fares in the same analysis.
Based on both measures of trade concentration identified above, Australia’s goods export base is both less diversified than New Zealand’s, and has changed to a greater extent over the past decade or so.
Looking back at Table 1, Australia’s top 5 export destinations accounted for 68.6% of its total goods exports in 2013. This was a 19.8%-point increase from the corresponding share in 2001 – the largest change of any OECD member country.
As for New Zealand, the shift was driven by increased trade with China, although the change for Australia was much more marked. The proportion of Australian exports that go to China (36.1% in 2013) is now by far the highest for any OECD member.
The pattern is borne out in the UN concentration indices as well: out of the 34 OECD members, Australia saw the second biggest rise in its concentration index between 2001 and 2012, and ranks above New Zealand.
Increased trade concentration need not be a bad thing...
So what does this all mean? Clearly, the rising importance of China as an export market offers both opportunities and risks for New Zealand.
On the one hand, our comparative advantage in so-called soft commodity exports and our strong reputation for quality means that we are well placed for the planned rebalancing of the Chinese economy towards consumption.
To the extent that the rising importance of China as a trading partner coincides with a structural shift in demand for New Zealand’s protein-based exports, this is likely to translate into a stable and dependable source of export demand in the future. Around 60% of New Zealand’s exports to China are food-related, principally dairy and meat (Figure 9).
Admittedly, our strong trade links with Australia expose us indirectly to the increased concentration of the Australian export base to China.
As shown in Figure 9, over two-thirds of Australian exports to China are mining-related (mainly ores and mineral fuels). Such exports are much more closely aligned to Chinese investment activity, which has driven Chinese economic growth over recent years but is expected to ease as the economy rebalances.
But even so, given that our main exports to Australia are not directly associated with the mining sector (they are dominated by gold, oil for refining, and cheese and wine), the indirect risks through Australia may not be too strong.
- Figure 9 – Exports to China by product (top 5 export product categories, 2013)
-
- Source: International Trade Centre
More generally, the increasing clout of China in global food markets may deliver wider benefits for New Zealand exporters. For example, increased Chinese demand on the world stage looks to be ‘bidding up’ global prices across the board, and increasing the price that our other exporters receive – even those with a focus on our more traditional trading partners.
This already appears to be the case for lamb exports. Meanwhile, deepening trade links may also open up new export markets for traditionally-regarded lower-end products, such as meat by-products.
...but it raises some risks and challenges
On the flip side, however, there are risks and challenges associated with an increasing concentration of trade with China (or any one trading partner for that matter).
For example, our position as the ‘small partner’ in the trade relationship may limit our exporters’ ability to move up the value chain in later years. Indeed, while Chinese demand looks set to provide a stable base for future exports, such trade may increasingly be on their terms as buyers rather than our terms as sellers.
This underlines the importance of exporters being ready to adapt to market conditions and to continue to look for opportunities to add value.
More generally, any increase in exposure to one trading partner raises the prospect of market-specific risks, ranging from cyclical fluctuations in demand to longer-term issues of market access. New Zealand’s experience when the UK joined the EEC in 1973 is an obvious example in this regard. The UK’s share of New Zealand’s exports was over 65% in the 1950s and was still around 40% in the early 1970s.
Factors which diminish the risks
Overall, though, there are a number of reasons why the current situation differs from previous instances in New Zealand’s history.
First, our current trade concentration is by no means unprecedented from a longer-term perspective.
Indeed, at around 22% of total goods exports, the proportion of New Zealand’s exports that went to the top trading partner in 2013 (China) was still only around half of the respective proportion when the UK dominated our trade in the early 1970s.
Meanwhile, it is worth noting that the respective shares of New Zealand’s top 5 and 10 export markets have remained remarkably stable over the past 20 years or so (at around 55-60% and 65-70%). The rankings of some countries have changed, but the picture is certainly not one of increasing reliance on a small group of countries.
Second, New Zealand’s growing trade relationship with China is more a result of economic factors and market forces than the legacy-driven relationship with the UK.
Moreover, in terms of products, our exports to China are relatively diversified, particularly when compared with Australia’s exports.
Finally, another mitigating factor is that New Zealand has coping mechanisms in place, namely a floating exchange rate and flexible markets, to ensure that the economy’s resources are efficiently allocated and can move over time.
Conclusion
Overall, we see the increasing importance of China as a trading partner to New Zealand as more of an opportunity than a risk.
While there may be hiccups along the way, and inevitable risks remain, New Zealand is well placed to benefit from mutual trade with China in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
- [1]Jansen, Marion, Income volatility in small and developing economies: export concentration matters, World Trade Organisation, Geneva, 2004.
66 Comments
Not that long ago David Chatson was claiming on this site that 53% of our exports went to China. http://www.interest.co.nz/news/68732/latest-trade-data-reveals-some-dra…. Am I missing something? Who are we to believe. Him or the 22% figure in an article written to try to assure us that our exports to China are not too high.
I think that Interest .co need to clarify this discrepancy if they wish to preserve their credibility.
Something funny going on with that link. Try again
http://www.interest.co.nz/news/68732/latest-trade-data-reveals-some-dra…
we should be more concerned that the profitable exports are, yet again, commodity and components.
Which we then buy back at value-add prices.
Used to be a sign in the window of a shop beside the Central cathedral in Dunedin.
NZ raises and shears sheep - sells wool for $4 to foreigners.
spun, woven, shipped, wholesaled, distributed, marketted, retilaed...and brought in NZ for $140.
NZ is not a third world country.
NZ is a chess-piece in the Anglo-Saxon world. Some piece is specialised in one thing while other piece is good at doing other things.
UK, US, AUS, CAN, and NZ + Singapore, South Africa + some Southeast Asian countries, NZ just happen to play its part well -- selling agri-commodities.
minimum wage
RMA
employment laws (re the documentation)
MPI and similar "upgrades" to laws
Earthquake upgardes to existing structures ("Broken Window" fallacy)
Child Support laws (stripping capital from people actively trying to make a living)
increasing rates bills to pay for bereaucratic driven projects
You do realise NZ is ranked 3rd easiest out of 189 countries for ease of doing business?
http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings
You think red-tape here is bad, try living anywhere else in the world besides hong-kong or singapore.
Looking at your list here it sounds like you would prefer not to live in a civilised society. You should be able to do whatever you want with your land and businesses and stuff your neighbours?
MDM - cowboys given you a good starter list.
You want specifics.
Highlands Motorsport Park in Cromwell - 6 years to get a Resource Consents. God knows what the final costs of all that cost them but it will be in the millions. Consents granted only allows 3 major racing days annually. This is a spectacular facility and the only one in Australasia. This facility should be able to host several local and international events annually.
Grandview Gardens and function centre (hosts several international events) recent RMA variation to Consent $100k. The variation was to enable the hosts to stay in venue and clean after functions, they live on site. This venue is only allowed to operate for 6 or 7 months of the years and have 6 functions per calendar month and is not allowed to operate during public holidays. These operators have to decline would-be users from around the world.
A quarry in Otago $200k already had Resource Consents but wanted the ability to carry over any tonnages not used from one year into the next.
Horticulturist with export market wanted to double exports but would have to go through the RMA process as he didn't want to place crop in ground but grow crops in above ground fertigation system. Chose not to expand his operation.
ACC charges on business activity rather than employment activity.
I could rant on here for hours about red tape and bureaucracy impediments and costs up and down the country. Any business that is not able to function at full capacity is holding NZ back.
Highlands- I think you are confused: the discussion in the news was about varying their consent to have three continous days of racing over Easter, not three days over the year.
http://www.odt.co.nz/regions/central-otago/297030/decision-means-3-days…
At issue was in their initial consent they had said they would not be racing on the same days as the neighbouring speedway and now wanted to vary that. Some neighbours (being the ones dealing with the parks externalities of noise) were not keen on the variation to what they had signed up to.
Looking at the Highlands Calendar so far this year, they seem to have had the V8 Supertourers in January, Toyota Racing Series in January, Highlands Members Cup Day in February, and the Highlands Festival of Speed is coming up at Easter, and that is more than three days with those main events alone.
For the Grandview, I don't know where you are getting $100000 from as the figure from last year was $41000, but I acknowledge they may have spent more apealling against having a noise control plan since this article was published:
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/226644/nobody-left-satisfied
Reads like that they are in a fight with their neighbours who may have some rights over the access rather than a fight with the council per se.
The others are not specific enough to check via google.
dh - I'm not confused over the Highlands Motorsport Park. You are only looking at a variation to the original consents. It took 6 years to get approval for the original consents. I was at the Highlands this last weekend and was lucky enough to have a discussion.
Grandview Garden had to take their issues to the Environment Court. I know Grandview Gardens and the owners very well.
Most of what the DCC imposed in the conditions was unworkable and unenforceable and some conditions are in breach of the Bill of Rights Act.
I want to know why so many Otago Law faculty members formed a Society over a road most of them have probably never traversed let alone on a regular basis.
So the fact that some can't just build a raceway whereever they want, and run races as often as they want, is a sign we are a third world country?
I think it's quite the opposite, it's a sign we are a developed country with the resources to ensure the enjoyment of the country for all.
CM - I agree that the size of our economy is a problem. But we cannot compete in mass production so we are better to compete in the high-end quality market and grow the economy that way.
The trouble is our bureaucrats don't understand this and they place stupid regulation in the wrong places and they end up with us competing in the mass production market for most products.
Take our wine industry for example, there's no doubting that we can grow good wine grapes yet regulation requires sulphites in the wine. The high-end consumers purchasing products don't want sulphites. It's the catch 22 between the consumer who wants a different product and is prepared to pay for it and our regulators who have their heads in a different chapter of the book.
Our lamb is another example, most lamb producers don't eat lamb maybe only a milk lamb at weaning. If you're after flavour you'll eat hogget. We have to add value to the top products we can already produce.
There are a number of small cheese making factories popping around NZ and they are producing superior products for both local and export markets that they have developed. The red-tape these people have to jump through is astronomical. These artisan cheese makers are heavily penalised by the NZ system - WHY?
Then take our Merino wool that gets exported to Italy for the fine garment trade. We should be producing the fine garments here. European elegance made in NZ.
NZ'ers in general have the can-do attitude however the bureaucrats and officials have a do-it-our-way attitude or not at all. It is like the Council Planners mentality is entrenched across the entire public system. They have no idea what the consumer is requiring and so the consumer can only buy what the bureaucrat sees fit. That is no way to do business or grow an economy.
The very reason that NZ is mess producing but not 'high-value' producing is because NZ does not have the talented crowd that can only form with a large population base.
A naitons tanlent also follows a bell curve. if you have more populaiton, you will have more talent, then you will have more ideas, then you will have them ideas being capitalized etc...
But whenever I mention NZ needs more ppl, I will be stung by others.
When you advocate "more people" you need to explain
(a) do you mean NZ should encourage natural population growth coupled with policies that encourage talent to rise up to the top. The greater the population the more talent we produce
or
(b) Import the talent
and
(c) If it takes an increase in population of 200 people to produce 1 talented individual, does the additional productivity of that 1 individual cover the costs of supporting the other 199
Singapore is a member of UNHCR
Dont see too many Middle East asylum seekers heading there
Wonder why not
Most of the asylum seekers in Australia and on Manus Island (PNG) and on Nuie are now electing to head back home voluntarily
Why arent they seeking asylum in Singapore?
It's not illegal to chew gum, nor is it illegal to spit. It is however illegal to spit gum.
Similarly in most NZ cities you can get fined for dropping litter.
The americans got in there during free-trade talks and allowed the importation of gum of 'theraputic' value Basically sugar-free gum. It must be purchased from a dentist or pharmacist.
Xingmowang - I could find a team of talented people in NZ and NZ'ers overseas right now. What is needed is talent that has a broad base of information the type that Business Management produces. The talent not only has to know the product inside out but has to know the high-end market inside out.
TOG makes a very valid point below in his population "C" category. The talent ends up carrying the rest.
You are some what correct in that cities super-scale. The problem is we only have cities as they are because of fossil fuels. Since fossil fuel output will decline from about now and be all gone by 2040 or so, 35 years. Since we cant keep up the super scale and hence will have a lot simpler life style you will indeed get pinged if you keep saying "grow" when we cant.
regards
No it doesn't, we are in a world that needs much much fewer people and we are in the perfect position to lead the way in demonstrating how it is possible to live a perfectly prosperous existence on a stable and maybe even falling population. Human over population of the planet is going to have to be addressed and the whole need more people argument has no fullstop.
Bit confused now - are we leading a perfectly prosperous existence such that everybody in the world is bound to want to copy our lead, or are we plunging towards poverty in a mass of red tape and malgovernance?
How exactly is preventing further immigration into New Zealand going to help to address world overpopulation?
On over-regulation. In fact governance and regulation in New Zealand compares pretty well internationally, plenty of OECD, IMF, World Bank etc reporting confirms this, though there's always scope and there should always be pressure to improve. Generally though, democratic governments are in a bind here.
Many people will say in general terms that they want less regulation and less bureaucracy, but as soon as government makes threatening movements towards any regulation, other people will leap to its defence and say that it is important to protect this or that aspect of public interest. What people really mean when they say they want less regulation, is that they want less regulation (and/or more public spending) applied to themselves and the things they like - they still want regulation (and/or less public spending) applied to other people and to things they don't like, in other words they are quite happy to hold the opinion that some people's interests and concerns are more entitled to Government protection and assistance than are others'. That's not an attitude that a Government with responsibility to govern on behalf of all of us, can take.
Certainly, Libertarians in other countries keep citing New Zealand as a wonderfully "free" country for doing business in compared to most other countries (including, generally, their own), but libertarians here tend to focus on their constraints rather than their freedoms.
Limiting immigration into NZ, the aim is to ensure that we dont suffer the same fate as many over-populated countries. No top of taht we have 6% un-employment, so really I have to wonder with so many un-employed why cant we aim to fil the employment needs with these. ie tertiary education etc.
regards
Inflow of immigrants, yes. I would however dispute that there was anything but the normal % (more or less) of highly intelligent people in the mix. Or maybe you have some data?
Post WW2, be that as it may, at that time the US was the world's biggest oil producer and exporter I believe. It also suffered little impact to its economy from the war, while say the UK was broke. Pre-WW2 Im not aware of any particular changes the Great Depresion hit the US very hard, only the build up to WW2 helped it recover.
Today, we are past peak oil so the game is totally different, ie growth is finished as is requiring more ppl.
regards
PS I have studied the Great Depression quite a bit as this is what we face again, only worse IMHO.
We are going to need them. The Savi-Blanc harvest is going to be a record, huge tonnages over 22 a hectare all wineries are full. All grape crops are heavier than forecast after a warm spring.
California is wet,wet,wet. Lots of grass and another week of rain forecast, expecting two foot of snow tonight in mountains, this on top of last weeks fall.
Dams are starting to fill, dairy farms will be pumping, China better keep buying.
many see China a fixer of their problems:
Chinese state-owned conglomerates are approaching British dairy farmers to secure millions of litres of UK milk, opening a potentially vast new market.
“There is no question the way we are going you will see our milk being exported to China,” he said.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china-business/10376454/Chinese-want… (Oct 2013)
this adds to the Oz and USA example of similar posted the past few weeks.
being secure in the supply chain provides a base from then to diversity?
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=112…
The Overseas Investment Office (OIO) said China Mengniu controlled 68 per cent of Yashili New Zealand Dairy Co which is building a Pokeno milk processing plant to make paediatric milk powder products.
what makes it different to the 80's call to diversify, was then there was no cash to had from anything much,
everyone wishing upon the same star...
And if a plan to get Chinese investors to bankroll the construction of strategically located milk powder plants in key parts of regional NSW comes off, the future will be even brighter.
“Strategic foreign investment is always good. Farmers don’t have a lot of spare capital,” Neal said.
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/commodities/dairy/dairy-hopes-ride-on-…
It's not only our milk powder they are buying into in NZ;
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11230303
The 2010 case was one of several that caused concerns among DIA staff, who raised the possibility of favouritism with the Office of the Auditor-General during an inquiry into a citizenship decision made by Labour's Shane Jones when he was Associate Immigration Minister.
Mr Williamson, the Minister of Building and Construction, and Prime Minister John Key then opened the first stage of a proposed $70 million construction project launched by the Chinese-born developer after he became a citizen.
The following year, the firm that owns the land earmarked for the project donated $22,000 to National.
well here is the rub.
are you sure, too high or just not worth that much...
if the interest rate you refer is the %/yield people need on investments, then it can be high and/or low:
Some assumptions:
risk free return, say 4.60%, - say NZ Govt Bond
beta (say food processor that gets both manufacturer and exporter) of .85,
- note beta: computer software 1.04, engineering 1.2
then equity market risk, 6% to 7%,
then being less than a $500m company, add 1%,
then add being a NZ company (compared to being Swiss, PLC of Fortune) add 1%
so cost of equity for the processor/exporter is:
4.6% + .85 * (6.5% + 1% + 1%) = 4.6% plus 7.23% = 11.83%
So take the normalised free cash flow to equity (cash flow add depn less capex).
Say $25m.
- Divided $25m by 11.83% the cost of equity, the business equity is = $221m
But if prospects are good, and the company can grow by 5% per year in the foreseeable future
- Divide $25m by (11.83% less 5% growth) the business equity is = $336m
Thing being usually margin is pressured lower and $NZ may not help (figuring the normalised cashflow is a trick).
Examples being
Xero - a massive growth forecast in a bigger mkt
Fonterra - massive volumes ex farm to China and Russia - higher prices being a bonus..
Some infrastructure business live by borrowing too much to make equity look valuable (and avoid the capex step above).
on the other hand folk can just keep swapping houses with each other and the OZ banks....
Always a good question to be asking ourselves, but bearing in mind that NZ had 75% of its exports going the UK, europe and the US less than 50- years ago, and that really hurt us with the formation of the EU etc, now having currently 30% going to China, and 25% to those other three groups of countries, isn't a bad diversification.
You need to rememberthat China is a commodity buyer. They may get some high priced infant formula but its the commodity WMP market where the action is.
Europe takes high quality butter and high priced lamb cuts, China takes flaps and necks. It's going to be a big problem.
The Opinion piece is written on the assumption of fairplay. China is a one party state that can do whatever it likes. So, we don't like your new immigration/land ownership/investment/trade(insert whatever).. and so on rules. woops...all of a sudden products are held up on wharfs, rejected and so on.
NZ is already playing the role of mouse... take the plunder of pacific fisheries and not so much a squeak from us......
Without doubt, the greatest player in the decline of domestic catch rates both in Samoa and around the region is the introduction of many hundreds of Foreign Licensed Fishing Vessels into the central South Pacific. And, he adds, “many hundreds is not an exaggeration.”
Mr. Luff again accused China of being a leading threat to the security of fish stocks in the Pacific Ocean.
At a recent high level meeting, Mr. Luff claimed that the Chinese delegation stated they would begin talks on conservation measures when they have another 200 vessels in the fishery
http://www.samoaobserver.ws/other/fishing/9392-new-foreign-fishing-boats-plundering-the-pacifichttp://www.samoaobserver.ws/other/fishing/9392-new-foreign-fishing-boats-plundering-the-pacific
At the end of the day there is b -all we can do. But let's stop the charade that China is not a risk.
How exposed are we to offshore holdings?
http://www.icij.org/offshore/leaked-records-reveal-offshore-holdings-ch…
Haha, the crafty Chinese might have done their dough on that deal. Price not disclosed I notice. OIO approved it because there is an Aussie bank up to its eyeballs.
My info on Marlborough was that unofficially there are 200 vineyards for sale, but the sheer number means the RE agencies don't put them all on the books because it might look like there is a problem. I was told 6-7 years back there was an over supply in the market.
I hope you do okay with the current harvest AJ.
The Wineries are out of room, so some wine is going to be wasted. %85.6 percent of wine grown in NZ is Savi-Blanc and if they are cropping at these levels its going to be an interesting time selling the stuff. Crops over 22 tonne an acre and %75 juice, so 1 liter makes 750 ml bottle.
Looks like Im going to be leaving some grapes behind.
Powdery mildew has been quite a problem in certain sections of Central Otago this year, esp since New Year. But as you said Aj, crops are heavy. The vineyards after quality started culling grapes a month or so ago to get down to the 'premium' of 5t. The big guys are willing to pay good $ this year, here, if you are sustainably accredited. I was told pinot gris from a non accredited vineyard $2-2200T.
What I cannot understand is why we are only a small cog in this big wheel of corruption.
We need to get bigger, according to the graft, so solly that was graph in the above link by Noprogram.
Makes interesting reading.
I thought we would be at the top of the "BFF court of international appeal, have I got a deal for you, nudge, nudge, wink, wink, brigade"
Our "dearly departed leader" and their 'Dearly Departed Leaders' shook on the deal, just a few years ago.
I believe we were one of the first, but not the last.
We have made great strides, but not nearly enough.
We need to send more envoys, more direct links, set up more obfuscation points.
Set up another Free Trade, free for all.
Let us go for broke.
Well not actually broke, not actually free, just a 'ticket to ride, free entry, well almost, just a million or so', no small wonder we are getting awash with idle grubby hands, who need laundering.
Well , we do!....it is the biggest gamer in town. Let us all get in on the action.
(Should have asked for biillions, ya cheap skates, think big, next time, Free Trade, fooey.
Go for a mega deal, maybe it will get hidden in the cloud, like the Chinese versions).
No wonder China has a stranglehold on the Internet and an embargo on this corruption scandal and who else is really involved.
I bet our lot at the Spy Channel know a thing or two, but are not telling.
But then neither are the Journos, not that we have many decent ones since the truth folded and the internet took over.
Some have even gorn over to radio from a cushy jobs at the hive.
(It seems to be a common theme).
It is amazing just what you can find if you look in the right place and put two and two together.
Corruption takes many forms. Some not as big as others.
It also appears to be a golden rule, that certain radio hosts can get ideas above their station. Again.
Just who was it wanted to quit their day job and milk the whanau again as well as cream the taxpayer as in days of yore.
I will give you two guesses. They like to chat, think they are funny and that the world owes them a living.
I would name names. but you never know just who is pulling the strings.
Or your leg.
"The intuition is that the relatively small size of the economy limits economies of scale and prevents large-scale industries from developing."
There is research on this, the superscaling of cities for instance, however NZ considering it has only 4million ppl its amazing where we are at.
Of course we shouldnt be basing economic decisions on intuition, we need facts and data.
"and our isolated location presents another headwind in that we face relatively high transport costs for our goods"
So as has been said countless times, commodities that we cant scale with and have a low price per unit but high transport per unit cost seem a crazy thing to concentrate on.
However at least the exports a somewhat sustainable...
regards
I do not wish to be indelicate, but have a read of this below.
It might make you think, just who is rich and who is poor.
Some whingers should know when they are well off. (Comparatively)
I always like a good read.
I wonder how it stands up to date, though. Credit where credit is due.
Treasury and Stats might like to keep us up to date.
Why leave it to the Suisse, they always appear in credit, unlike some.
https://www.credit-suisse.com/ch/en/news-and-expertise/research/credit-…
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.