Treasury & RBNZ start turning their attentions towards saving for the next rainy day

Treasury & RBNZ say the government will eventually have to consider raising taxes or cutting expenditure to prepare for the next crisis

17th Oct 21, 8:43am by Jenée Tibshraeny

Auckland may still be struggling to see the light at the end of this lockdown tunnel, but bureaucrats at number 1 and 2 The Terrace are turning their attentions to getting the government’s books back in shape.

Outgoing Reserve Bank (RBNZ) deputy governor Geoff Bascand, in a speech delivered on Thursday, made the point New Zealand has weathered the Covid-19 storm relatively well economically, largely because the government, businesses and banks went into the crisis with strong balance sheets.

Referencing the Treasury’s recently released Statement on New Zealand's Long-term Fiscal Position, Bascand noted the government will at some stage need to consider how to generate more tax revenue and/or spend less.

He noted how instrumental the likes of the Wage Subsidy has been, supporting businesses to help keep people employed.

However, Basacand said, “Household and government balance sheets appear a little more vulnerable now than they were at the outset of the pandemic and the uncertainty surrounding the outbreak of the Delta variant continues to weigh on the growth outlook.

“Government debt levels are expected to peak just below 50 percent of GDP in 2023, up from around 20 percent prior to the pandemic. While still relatively modest compared with many advanced economies, the importance of preserving fiscal space to accommodate unforeseen events will confront policy makers in coming years, especially given the adverse long-term fiscal trends, particularly from demographic ageing.

“The reasons for public debt expansion matter to its sustainability and potential constraint on future borrowing.

“Debt that is associated with increased investment, boosting the economy’s potential growth, is worthwhile and presents few risks to investor confidence. However higher debt driven by rising social expenditure transfers or discretionary policy choices exceeding revenue trends could see less favourable investor perceptions, potentially adding a risk premium to New Zealand’s borrowing costs.

“Significant policy decisions will confront fiscal decision-makers in the next 20 years to modify expenditure, revenue and debt trends to ensure the government balance sheet does not become a threat to economic resilience, rather than a support as it has during the pandemic.”

Treasury calls for 'small and gradual changes in the near term'

Similarly, the Treasury in its Statement on New Zealand's Long-term Fiscal Position, said, “[L]ong-term expenditure trends mean that, without any policy adjustments, net debt will likely breach the prudent upper limit at some future point either within or beyond the projection period…

“Although the increased uncertainty as a result of Covid-19 makes it difficult to calculate the exact speed of adjustment, considering changes to improve the long-term fiscal position now is likely to be beneficial.

“Small and gradual changes in the near term could help minimise the cost of fiscal pressures across generations, preventing higher debt and a larger, relatively more costly adjustment in the future.”

Neither the Treasury nor the RBNZ entertained the modern monetary theorist view around debt. Their concerns weren’t tempered by the fact New Zealand issues its own currency and most of the debt issued by the Debt Management Office to pay for the Covid-19 response was bought by the RBNZ (on the secondary market).

A double whammy for the young

The Treasury and RBNZ made their calls for the government to start considering how to reduce debt while acknowledging the younger generation, lumped with the burden of getting the books back in shape, are also victims of the housing crisis.

The Treasury noted how house price inflation played a key part in significantly increasing the wealth of those who own houses, who tend to be older.

It compared the distribution of wealth across ages between 2001 and 2018, using the latest available Household Economic Survey data. Given house (and share) prices have skyrocketed since 2018, one might assume the differentiation between the young and old is more pronounced now.

Looking at the issue from a financial stability perspective, Bascand was worried new entrants to the housing market (many of whom are part of that younger cohort tasked with repaying the debt) are mortgaged up to their eyeballs. Accordingly, higher interest rates will hit them relatively harder and they’ll be more exposed in the event of a housing market crash.

Bascand concluded: “Although we are not out of the woods yet and uncertainties surrounding the current outbreak remain, we are reassured by the resilience that strong balance sheets provide.”

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.

81 Comments

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 9:08am 1634414881

Their concerns weren’t tempered by the fact New Zealand issues its own currency and most of the debt issued by the Debt Management Office to pay for the Covid-19 response was bought by the RBNZ (on the secondary market).

Exactly - how do they keep a straight face?

They are also wilfully ignoring the fact that if Govt increase their net financial assets (i.e. tax more than they spend to reduce the 'deficit'), the direct and unequivocal result of this will be to reduce the net financial assets of the non-Govt sector - i.e. households and businesses. On what planet does taking financial assets away from households support healthy household balance sheets? I would love to hear Grant et al answer that question.

by Legit | 17th Oct 21, 12:07pm 1634425634

100%, JFoe. Who are these mythical creditors and investors? Why do TSY and RBNZ doggedly persist in reinforcing this BS household approach to government finances? When there is next to no inflation, why would the NZ economy be better off by the government reducing financial assets in circulation through increasing taxes or lowering government spending? Why is ok to use unemployment as a lever for controlling inflation? So many other questions...for which mainstream macro would have so few plausible answers.

by J.C. | 17th Oct 21, 12:37pm 1634427451

When there is next to no inflation...

According to who? I can pretty much guarantee that anyone who is 'cash rich' is arguably poorer in terms of their purchasing power over time. OK, maybe they could more computing power for their buck, but generally speaking their savings as a store of value has been diminished because of expansion of the money supply.

by Legit | 17th Oct 21, 3:00pm 1634436036

And your assumption is of course... “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output". But, no, this too from Uncle Milty is wrong. John T Harvey explains it best: "the phenomenon that Milton Friedman identifies as key to the whole process, i.e., the excess of the money supply over money demand, cannot happen in real life. The irony here is that something else we already cover in the intro macro class makes this evident. How is it that the Federal Reserve increases the money supply? Remember that Friedman used a helicopter–indeed, he had to, for there was no other way to make the example work. This wasn’t just a simplifying device, it was critical, for it allowed the central bank to raise the money supply despite the wishes of the public. However, that can’t happen in the real world because the actual mechanisms available are Fed purchases of government debt from the public, Fed loans to banks through the discount window, or Fed adjustment of reserve requirements so that the banks can make more loans from the same volume of deposits. All of these can raise M, but, not a single solitary one of them can occur without the conscious and voluntary cooperation of a private sector agent. You cannot force anyone to sell a Treasury Bill in exchange for new cash; you cannot force a private bank to accept a loan from the Fed; and private banks cannot force their customers to accept loans. Supplying money is like supplying haircuts: you can’t do it unless a corresponding demand exists." A government liability is a private asset.

by fortunr | 18th Oct 21, 9:47am 1634503644

Next to no inflation ? In what planet are you living ?

by donny11 | 17th Oct 21, 12:42pm 1634427751

It will be very interesting where the debt market goes from here. The 10 year bond yield has run up from 1.5% in July to 2.18% on Friday. This coincides with the end of the LSAP programme which was wound up in July. If the yeild stabilizes in the 2-3% range then happy days. But if if it keeps heading North we may face a bit of a predicament. I guess it comes down to two questions 1) What does the market value our debt at? 2) is the treasury/NZ govt willing to pay this rate? If the answer to the second question is no then we have quite a problem as then we either have to

1) Monetize the debt: Basically kick start the LSAP programme to drive down yeilds. This means an expansion of the money supply to buy debt. This will be inflationary & the RBNZ will indirectly embrace MMT.

2) Financial repression: Direct kiwisaver or NZ super funds to buy NZ debt. This will in effect make kiwisaver another tax.

Alternatively we could just pay the market rate on the debt. Raise taxes/cut spending as necessary to pay the rate.

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 1:18pm 1634429914

Zero evidence that monetizing the debt will cause inflation - plenty of evidence it won't.

Breakdown the logic you are using to make that assumption and you will see it is built on a house of cards.

by Hans Brink | 17th Oct 21, 11:36pm 1634466967

Interesting prognosis donny11, we will see how it all pans out.

by bw | 17th Oct 21, 9:22am 1634415766

I've had little time for Geoff Bascand and the policy settings of the RBNZ he works for over the last decade or so. Yet his departure seems to be freeing him to give us a less constrained view of what he might really believe; released from RBNZ Group Think.

Perhaps he's found the Road to Damascus at long last?

(NB: There are those who passionately believe in the well acronymed Magic Money Tree. I am not one of them)

by J.C. | 17th Oct 21, 1:15pm 1634429702

(NB: There are those who passionately believe in the well acronymed Magic Money Tree. I am not one of them)

1. The Japanese came out this week and said they don't want to be the poster child of MMT. The Western nations seem to put Japan on a pedestal and say 'look, if it all goes to seed, we can do what Japan has done.' And of course it's an absolute crock: Japan is a net creditor nation; firms and households are paying down debt not loading up like there's no tomorrow; and their industrial base and expertise is being used all over the world.

2. The MMT cult leaders and the cult itself work from a blanket position whereby they fail to understand the real-work implications of what they believe in. All I can imagine if MMT became the accepted belief about how money works, we would see massive public largesse on a scale you've never seen. And this happened in the case of Japan, despite the generally wonderful infrastructure they have, there was a history of massive waste stemming from the public sector. Bridges to nowhere, fleets of unused limousines for the public sector, etc.

What would happen in NZ I don't know, but you would see all kinds of insane spending and troughing would be out of control. Sure, maybe some public housing may get built, but it wouldn't be anything like S'pore, Vienna, or even Japan.

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 2:58pm 1634435920

1. Japan are a net creditor nation BECAUSE their govt runs a large deficit. Household financial assets are govt liabilities (govt deficit)

2. When economists and people in the financial sector debate MMT they generally agree that it is an accurate description of how money operations actually work. You share the concern of the better educated MMT opponents - that Govt can't be trusted with the power to spend. This seems like such a lame reason to oppose a descriptive framework. It's like pretending that gravity doesn't exist because you don't want people to realize they can throw themselves off a building.

by J.C. | 17th Oct 21, 3:16pm 1634436987

Japan are a net creditor nation BECAUSE their govt runs a large deficit. Household financial assets are govt liabilities (govt deficit).

See you've been captured by the cult thinking. A net creditor nation has a positive net investment position domestically and internationally. Sectoral balances is irrelevant. Why do you think JPY strengthened massively during the GFC and why NZD was smashed during the GFC? Give it some thought.

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 4:49pm 1634442542

Miscommunication I think - probably my sloppy use of the term net creditors. The impact of the balance of trade on the value of yen is interesting. The 2011 inflexion point in particular (major QE). Note that relative currency values are determined primarily by the value of traded financial assets.

by Legit | 17th Oct 21, 3:12pm 1634436756

All I can imagine if MMT became the accepted belief about how money works, we would see massive public largesse on a scale you've never seen. And this happened in the case of Japan, despite the generally wonderful infrastructure they have, there was a history of massive waste stemming from the public sector. Bridges to nowhere, fleets of unused limousines for the public sector, etc.

And that isn't even a remotely valid critique. It's like George Osbourne blaming the GFC on the public sector and introducing austerity as the fix-it. Or David Cameron (with a straight face!) getting up in Parliament and saying "We've run out of money". Japan's financial crisis and recession arose from a private sector property ponzi bubble popping.

by J.C. | 17th Oct 21, 3:19pm 1634437145

Not sure what your argument is. All I'm saying is that a country like NZ has nowhere near the capacity and capability of Japan to allocate public spending.

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 4:49pm 1634442595

We have 400,000 people wanting to work or do more work - that's quite a lot of capacity.

by J.C. | 17th Oct 21, 4:59pm 1634443199

Osaka City is building two new train lines in an already world-class train network. What was Auckland's timeline for a single light rail to the airport? You're delusional if you think NZ has the same capability and capacity as Japan and be able to do it with efficiency and without largesse.

by Legit | 17th Oct 21, 5:46pm 1634446015

No one is arguing NZ currently has the same technological capability and know-how as Japan, but NZ most definitely does have unused and under-utilised resources per JFoe’s comment.

And my previous point was: your suggestion that it was government profligacy that sent Japan into a recession and long period of comparatively low growth is flatly wrong.

by J.C. | 17th Oct 21, 6:26pm 1634448410

And my previous point was: your suggestion that it was government profligacy that sent Japan into a recession and long period of comparatively low growth is flatly wrong.

Never suggested it so you're barking up the wrong tree.

but NZ most definitely does have unused and under-utilised resources per JFoe’s comment

Which is meaningless. Taking it to absurd extremes, NZ has the resources to dig holes and fill them in again. The govt can allocate billions. Under MMT, this would be fine.

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 6:42pm 1634449367

Under MMT, this would be fine.

Jeez - none of the MMT scholars and academics think that Govt spraying billions around is a good idea. The simple idea is that Govt can spend more money into the economy than it taxes back IF (a) that money is being used to bring available productive capacity into play in line with Govt priorities, and (b) Govt is not competing for that capacity with the private sector (which could drive up prices and risk inflation).

So, Govt could spend money on subsidising solar panels / batteries and employing and training people to fit solar power systems, or it could pay unemployed people to fence off rural streams so that cows don't crap in them and ruin our rivers. These are beneficial things that need doing and the capacity exists to fulfil the order. But, if Govt decided to send everyone on a neoclassical economics course, this would be both a terrible waste of money and it would drive the price of economics teachers through the roof.

This is pretty simple to understand. If you are going to critique MMT - at least be informed about what it is so you can get past the childish arguments and onto the more interesting debate.

by J.C. | 17th Oct 21, 8:48pm 1634456920

If you are going to critique MMT - at least be informed about what it is so you can get past the childish arguments and onto the more interesting debate.

Once again, you missed the whole point which is why I used the absurdist example. Blind Freddy knows that NZ could build for example affordable housing if the govt didn't hold to its dogma. But the extent to which it actually can is unknown. And the "interesting debate" is more about why a country like Japan can build fabulous infrastructure that may even be unnecessary in terms of its utility. It's happened and Japan is dotted with unused infrastructure. It had to reduce highway tolls by 80% to get people to use the highways. The premise is that because Japan is undoubtedly highly productive industrially and "earns more than it spends" as a nation, it is in a much better position to do so.

That in a nutshell is the argument.

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 10:00pm 1634461259

Blimey it's exhausting agreeing with you. So the challenge is not the financial constraint... it is Governments being able to develop and execute plans to make the country work better. Yes. That is it in a nutshell

by J.C. | 18th Oct 21, 2:16am 1634476581

There are financial constraints if you don't to completely trash the currency.

Don't tell me you also follow that Frances Coppola nutbar. She's what I call an MMT extremist and so far down her own rabbit hole that she refuses to be challenged by anyone, even those who have similar academic creds.

by J.C. | 18th Oct 21, 2:48am 1634478500

There are financial constraints if you don't to completely trash the currency.

by Legit | 18th Oct 21, 8:08am 1634497680

Your point/ argument was missed repeatedly because it was so buried beneath a pile of throwaway invective and ‘absurdist examples’. If you’re saying that Japan can absorb repeated deficits of 250% because it has the infrastructure and productive capacity to do so, then I agree in principle. The Japanese central government clearly doesn’t earn more than it spends with deficits like that, but, the Bank of Japan just buys up all the debt - most of which is in the form of bonds so never enters the real economy.

by nktokyo | 17th Oct 21, 9:22am 1634415741

They could have found a way to get 10,000 foreign students in if they had had the mind to. Use a few large hostels as quarantine facilities and the military can help like normal quarantine. We were viewed as the best place to ride out the pandemic. Any wealthy parent would have sent their child here. But no, we are led by a group who views dependency on the state as the highest ideal and the pandemic response is run by a department who in ordinary times inefficiently administers budgets for regional hospitals. Hooray.

by Independent_Observer | 17th Oct 21, 10:53am 1634421196

Do we really want to make housing and educating foreign students a priority though?

by nktokyo | 17th Oct 21, 10:56am 1634421411

Foreign students, yes. It's great for our schools and universities and brings in a lot of funding they otherwise wouldn't get.

by Independent_Observer | 17th Oct 21, 11:03am 1634421810

Looks like they're doing perfectly fine without foreign students:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/126655128/auckland-uni-staff…

by J.C. | 17th Oct 21, 1:13pm 1634429588

Do we really want to make housing and educating foreign students a priority though?

Considering it's been one of NZ's main exports, probably. But the education industry is a rort that essentially offers very little the buyer. The only beneficiaries are the govt, the vice-chancellors, the landlords, and the greasy spoon looking for cheap labor. The sooner technology transforms it, the better.

by powerdownkiwi | 17th Oct 21, 9:33am 1634416439

"largely because the government, businesses and banks went into the crisis with strong balance sheets."

Ah, no. https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/112445/murray-grimwood-traces-long-h…

They are doing their measurements inside the box. It's the stuff outside the box (but within the circle) they should be measuring.

https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2018-08/LSF-capturing-…

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/enabling-a-natural-capital-a…

Both suggest they have a way to go. We are now at a stage where the amount of work do-able to the amount of resource(s) left, is not enough to underwrite the current debt. Let alone ' more' to ' cover' a future impact-event. Without rampant inflation/stagflation or debt-forgiveness, of course. We are already well past sustainable draw-down levels and well past need-to-reduce-waste-emanations ditto. If they 'tax' the less that must be done, something existing must be triaged out (under a sinking lid, that becomes: 'triaged ever-more').

Meaning there's a bigger question here

by Carlos67 | 17th Oct 21, 10:16am 1634418976

An energy crisis if the future will be far worse than this Pandemic that's for sure. Covid has only really served the weaken the patient, the real shit storm is still brewing. Hoping against hope its still 30 years away but day by day its looking worse and worse.

by Rob Reid | 17th Oct 21, 4:56pm 1634443003

Yes, I had similar thoughts as I read the article, which makes it sound like govt needs to do some short term things to get supply lines running, then improve their economic management. Govt fiddles does not seem like enough to stop short of a civilisation-wide energy cliff.

by Audaxes | 17th Oct 21, 9:52am 1634417537

Their concerns weren’t tempered by the fact New Zealand issues its own currency and most of the debt issued by the Debt Management Office to pay for the Covid-19 response was bought by the RBNZ (on the secondary market).

Hence a floating rate taxpayer liability until the bonds are sold or mature that must be held as an essentially dormant asset by the registered settlement banks, including those which sold them to the RBNZ. The rate of return paid by the RBNZ has just doubled to 0.5%.

How could official concerns be tempered?

What are the spending plans for the $41.119 billion Crown Settlement Account deposit (primarily potential bank credit) sitting on the RBNZ's liability ledger? - Link

by chebbo | 17th Oct 21, 10:23am 1634419409

The level of global debt now exceeds our ability to properly service it, let alone pay it down. This means that eventually this debt is going to be defaulted on a la Evergrande (and the US Treasury isn't looking too far behind).

This process will be highly deflationary. I still don't buy the persistent inflation narrative, mainly because the people claiming it only ever look at consumer price inflation, and never monetary inflation, which is far more important. As currency deflates, the real value of debt goes up, increasing the likelihood of default, creating a positive feedback loop and a deflationary spiral. Rising interest rates will only exacerbate this process, and NZ will not be immune to its effects.

When the government's plan for reducing debt is to increase taxes at a time when people are increasingly going to be unable to pay them, you know that things are getting bad.

by bw | 17th Oct 21, 10:35am 1634420114

"...debt is going to be defaulted on...this process will be highly deflationary. ..."

And that is being fought against with all the passion, competence and potential success-level as the beach landing at Gallipoli. The tactic had worked before, so it must work again. The Generals survived, to discuss it afterwards. Those doing the actual fighting were not so lucky.

by treadlightly | 17th Oct 21, 11:12am 1634422372

The US Government is a sovereign currency issuer, it can never default unless it chooses to do so. The US has run budget deficits practically every year since it was founded as an independence. Clinton did run surpluses for a time and this led to a recession in the US.

by frazz | 17th Oct 21, 11:23am 1634422989

The US defaulted when they closed the gold window in Aug 1971, living on trust and guns ever since.

by treadlightly | 17th Oct 21, 11:47am 1634424450

it only chose not to convert its currency into gold, the holders still had their dollars.

by Rosenstein | 17th Oct 21, 12:13pm 1634425997

Dollars = (in god we) trust and guns

by Cobolt24 | 17th Oct 21, 11:59am 1634425185

I disagree that the minor surplus caused a recession, there were a number of things like large corporations collapsing (notably Enron) and the dot com burst.

When Ruth Richardson's reduction of government spending created large surpluses, our economy roared ahead.

http://rrnz.co.nz/downloads/Economic%20Record%201990-1993.pdf

by treadlightly | 17th Oct 21, 12:31pm 1634427082

it only mentions one surplus in 93-94. What was happening to the private sectors balance sheet though? A reduction in savings and increasing debt most likely. Money has to come from somewhere to finance spending and our current account deficits, either the government or the banks.

Economist Wynne Godley explained this with his sectoral balance accounting identity (S-I)=(G-T)+(X-M).

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 12:35pm 1634427310

Go and look at the data! During that period Ruth Richardson definitely reduced Govt debt to GDP by running surpluses. But, this reduction was matched almost exactly by an increase in household debt to GDP. Classic credit money driven boom - with aggregate demand sustained by the extension of credit to households.

by J.C. | 17th Oct 21, 1:06pm 1634429175

Classic credit money driven boom - with aggregate demand sustained by the extension of credit to households

You want to back that with evidence? Show that the proportion of credit expansion was for non-GDP qualifying purposes was greater than it is now.

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 1:51pm 1634431910

I'm not talking about now - throughout the 90s Govt debt was reduced by driving households into debt. The data is freely available (eg trading economics) - you will find a perfect X shape as the transition from govt debt to household debt plays out.

The wider economic 'benefits' of the period were due to breaking the power of unions etc - different story.

by J.C. | 17th Oct 21, 3:25pm 1634437526

Right. And that was because the modus operandi was to shift their focus toward credit creation for non-GDP qualifying purposes.

by Legit | 17th Oct 21, 3:25pm 1634437510

That dynamic perfectly illustrates your double-entry accounting point about the monetary system. If the government runs a surplus by spending less or taxing more, the only way the private sector can offset that is by borrowing more from private lenders or making its own budget cuts. In a non-inflationary context, a government surplus is basically austerity. Even Paul Krugman gets that...

by mikesh | 17th Oct 21, 12:15pm 1634426115

The US attempts to control its money supply using interest rates; but remember Paul Volcker.

by Audaxes | 17th Oct 21, 11:18am 1634422729

I still don't buy the persistent inflation narrative, mainly because the people claiming it only ever look at consumer price inflation, and never monetary inflation, which is far more important.

Retail And Food Sales: If It’s Not Inflation, And It’s Not, Then What Is It?

OK, so we went through the ways and reasons consumer price increases are not inflation, cannot be inflation, are nowhere near actual inflation, and what all that really means. The rate they’ve gone up hasn’t been due to an overactive Federal Reserve, so it has to be something else. This is why, though the bulge has been painful, it’s already beginning to normalize. Without a persistent monetary component (in reality, not what’s in the media) the economy will adjust eventually.

It already has. Several times, and that’s part of the problem.

If not money, and it’s not, then what is behind the camel humps? No surprise, Uncle Sam’s ill-timed drops along with reasonable rigidities in the supply chain.

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 11:27am 1634423222

There is no such thing as net global debt - unless we've been borrowing money from aliens?

For every debt there is an asset - the balance sheet of the whole world is in balance. Govt financial debts are household / business (or other country) assets and vice versa. Only the balance between them changes.

by Independent_Observer | 17th Oct 21, 12:00pm 1634425217

The issue could be if/when people lose confidence in the realisable value of the assets on the balance sheet - the liability is still there but the asset (or part of it) is not.

by Legit | 17th Oct 21, 12:26pm 1634426763

I’m not sure how this would happen in practice? My impression is that you’re conflating where money comes from (the government monopoly currency issuer) with how inflation can occur (spending outstripping the productive capacity of the real economy)?

by Audaxes | 17th Oct 21, 1:15pm 1634429715

Banks don't take deposits and they never lend money. They are in the business of purchasing securities. When one gets a bank loan, the loan contract is a promissory note. The bank purchases that contract from the borrower. Now the bank owes the borrower money and it creates a record of the money it owes, which we call deposits - source. Central banks do exactly the same - buy the bonds and record what they owe on their liability ledger. Money takes no part in these transactions.

If the market value of the collateral (residential property, bonds etc) collapses the value of bank assets (securities) have to take a haircut. If banks are unable secure capital to match liabilities to depositors with shareholder funding a liquidity event transforms into insolvency.

by Independent_Observer | 17th Oct 21, 4:28pm 1634441338

No intention to conflate the issue. Was simply suggesting that 'holes' can appear on balance sheets (see the history of financial crisis....'what do you mean my assets are only worth 50% of what I purchased them for?'...'but I still have the debt'). May depend what level you look at the 'balance sheet' though....is it within the household, the business sector/s, or government/state level.

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 2:10pm 1634433019

(Audaxes put it better than me!)

by J.C. | 17th Oct 21, 1:09pm 1634429390

Yes, this is true of speculative assets (e.g. bitcoin, NZ residential land, stocks and shares, toxic loans etc) - the GFC showed what happens when the house of cards falls.

Arguably Bitcoin is not a speculative asset in that if you rock along to the bank, the chances of credit being created to allow you to buy it are slim. You can speculate on anything but you're missing the point.

by chebbo | 17th Oct 21, 1:12pm 1634429543

We don't need to borrow from aliens when we have future generations to borrow from. The vast majority of debt isn't backed by anything but promises to repay.

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 2:08pm 1634432917

The only thing we can take / borrow from future generations are real resources. We need to focus on leaving future generations with a sustainable operating model - a society that runs within environmental limits and provides a good quality of life for all of its members. Politicians and capitalists make us obsessed with money so that we don't focus on the things that matter.

by chebbo | 17th Oct 21, 2:41pm 1634434865

The only thing we can take / borrow from future generations are real resources.

No, that's not true. Debt issuance is like bringing forward future prosperity to today. If that future prosperity then fails to eventuate, we end up having to write things off. That's where we are today.

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 2:56pm 1634435779

What debt are you talking about? The net debt in NZ dollars is always zero. The only thing that changes is who holds the financial liabilities and assets - Govt, households, buinesses, other countries etc.

The right question therefore is how much govt net spending or 'debt' (household / business financial assets) is required to get the real resources in place for this generation and the next.

Your mistake is thinking that govt debt is 'our debt' - it is literally the opposite. Take $20 out of your pocket - that's govt debt. Look at the deposit in your bank account - that's govt debt. If you have a student debt - that's a government financial asset.

by powerdownkiwi | 17th Oct 21, 6:08pm 1634447320

Chebbo- agree. Jfoe - I don't.

Debt is a forward expectation that resources will be processed in the future, using future energy. The takers-on of the debt today, can access resources and energy TODAY - at the physical expense of someone tomorrow. Debt is therefor a buy now pay later scheme advantaging those who live 'now'.

by Jonny.Foe | 17th Oct 21, 6:54pm 1634450071

You are assuming fungibility between energy and money over time - and not delineating between govt debt and household debt.

When I got a student loan for Uni, I left Uni with a debt. The Govt had a new asset (my promise to pay it back). My education enabled me to do useful productive stuff but the debt repayments were a drag on my consumption meaning I used less energy whilst in debt.

When Govt spends money it goes into 'debt' immediately. The recipients of this spending could use it to increase consumption, energy use etc - or they could use it to build a huge renewable energy plant. It depends what Government have spent the money on. My point is that debt it not bad per se - what matters is what the money is used for.

by powerdownkiwi | 18th Oct 21, 8:05am 1634497528

Disagree.

No - I don't assume fungibility, indeed I holler that such is not possible. But I point out the dislocate; if energy doesn't underwrite it, money is worthless.

Yes, you left with a debt. Some lecturer or Professor had already spent that, on processed parts of the planet. You were left with a demand on future energy (and something to apply it to). But they had taken the best of the remaining stocks of both, so you are left having to use worse of both. You got the stort(ening) straw.

Productive? Or socially-useful/desirable? Many of us are parasitic on the energy/resource flow, but we can ultimately trace our activities to it.

Debt has to be abandoned. If we are to be sustainable (and the alternative speaks for itself) we cannot 'grow' our activity. So we need a new way of accounting, one which takes cognisance of reducing resource stocks. I have long reckoned that energy needs to be referenced, in the way gold once was. Floating 'value' combined with physical-cost avoidance, is why we're in this pickle.

by Pietro | 18th Oct 21, 8:46am 1634499998

You might want to read the column in today’s Daily Telegraph by Ambrose Pritchard Evans (sigh). He paints a very rosy picture of an energy rich green future, and seems to make a good case, especially regarding desert solar.

by Independent_Observer | 17th Oct 21, 11:01am 1634421674

Interesting chart in the article. You can see just how tough things have been for boomers...(yeah right!)

by treadlightly | 17th Oct 21, 11:05am 1634421946

The government cannot store up the currency that it issues, this is nonsense, only the private sector can store up the governments currency as its savings. While borrowing by the government is a monetary procedure and not a funding operation.

Borrowing drains reserves from the banking system which allows the Reserve Bank to hit its overnight interest rate target. The same could be done just by paying interest on these reserves or by allowing the target rate to fall to zero. The Reserve Bank is always in control of whatever rates it chooses to pay and not the bond markets.

This is all explained in this publication by economist L.Randall Wray titled 'How A Sovereign Currency Works'.

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/Wray_Understanding_Modern.pdf

by pankers | 17th Oct 21, 11:06am 1634422002

There will a new version of the game Monopoly , may have to change currency before the recievers come in.

Labour given free money for all without some sort of check system

I know many business that are making non legit money over wage subsidies

by stuart786786 | 17th Oct 21, 12:18pm 1634426322

"Treasury & RBNZ say the government will eventually have to consider raising taxes or cutting expenditure to prepare for the next crisis"

WHY ????

James Bond has license to Kill and RBNZ has license to print money and not to forget Politicians elected to be in power (Government) has power to distribute.

Besides as long as ponzi continues in asset class .......party continues and that is only possible NOW with flow of easy and cheap money...Not to forget now their is no turning back.

by donny11 | 17th Oct 21, 12:36pm 1634427381

Lets not forget that printing money is inflationary regardless of what the CPI print is.

Further inflation is a tax. So this idea of having a "free lunch" is incorrect. We can raise income taxes, we can raise the GST rate or we can raise the inflation tax. Take your pick.

by GV 27 | 17th Oct 21, 12:42pm 1634427760

100%. Inflation is a tax. Inflation is mandated by the government. The government does not adjust tax rates for inflation-driven wage growth. It is a double-dip, plain and simple. And as inflation comes roaring back, it will become a triple dip, and the transitory/look through/good for business excuses have begun already.

by Pietro | 18th Oct 21, 8:43am 1634499829

Or we can cut expenditure. There is so much waste in government. That cycling bridge was a prime example. Band creep is also a sneaky way to increase tax. And of course printing money is not technically inflationary if that money is used to purchase assets which don’t feature in the CPI - property and equities.

by taimaiakka0 | 17th Oct 21, 1:07pm 1634429265

Reserve banks are screwed if they continue printing are getting royally screwed - long term though can cover up - Band I'd for short term.

Irony is that still reserve bank are in denial to justify their lie and manipulation. How long can they spin and how long can they extend the definition of the word - Temporary, infact are so shameless that after extending from quarter to two quarter to annual.....can say that by temporary they mean a decade or a century :)

by Brock Landers | 17th Oct 21, 12:33pm 1634427190

A back-of-the-envelope calculation using covid death rates versus the increase in national debt provides an astonishing figure for what the government has decided to dump on young people per precious boomer life saved.

by Carlos67 | 17th Oct 21, 1:33pm 1634430794

Unfortunately you are right Brock. Reality is the Billions of dollars probably only extended many of those that would have died by only a few years. The issue was that the Labour government was not prepared to accept a single covid death and based all its blinkered response on that. I don't think the sheeple yet understand the hole we have dug for the future generations. The first lockdown should have been used to gain time and we should have been first in line for vaccines for the 60+ population. As soon as Delta made it out in the community, further lockdowns were a waste of time, said it months ago Delta can not be contained with the total lack of preparation thanks to Labour.

by JimboJones | 17th Oct 21, 2:25pm 1634433946

What do you suggest they did? Something along the lines of the UK which had all the deaths and still had lockdowns? Or Sweden: “Sweden's unemployment rate also rose from 6.6% in March 2020 to 9.5% in March 2021.”

by Zachary Smith | 17th Oct 21, 3:26pm 1634437617

Sweden has had fairly rubbish unemployment figures for quite a while now. I just watched a DW report from 2011 that said one in three young people were jobless. I was intrigued by that 9.5% figure you quoted and now realize that Sweden isn't all that great a place to live.

by Gummy Bear Hero | 17th Oct 21, 3:33pm 1634437998

.. the next crisis for our country would be for Jacinda to win a third election in 2023 ... OMG , no !!!

Winston . . come back ... undo the damage you wrought upon us .... pleeeeeeeeaz ..

by Theoracle | 17th Oct 21, 4:21pm 1634440909

Not gonna happen, the people will forgive her for needlessly inflicting pain on Auckland and the rest of us with lockdowns. It will all be a distant memory soon. If it was a mass vax turnout they wanted, they could've done that months ago. Instead it's all selfies (no social distancing) and tutus with the fish n chips lady. Cindy saved us! Again! Hooray!

Then there's the wedding pics, they'll be pumping those hard. All will be forgiven.

by Gummy Bear Hero | 17th Oct 21, 4:56pm 1634442980

2/3'ds of all the mass jabs yesterday were 2'nd jabs : and , they were always gonna get the 2'nd jab eventually ...

... not to let the facts get in the way of Jacinda & her lover ( the NZ media ) ... but , only 1/3'rd of the 130 000 jabs yesterday were first timers ...

by Pietro | 18th Oct 21, 8:54am 1634500459

#brocklanders

That is it in a nutshell. Although you have to add in many, many under 60s with a health condition, too. No wonder those North Shore youngsters partied like there was no tomorrow. They have borne the brunt of lost jobs, lost education, and a good chunk of the best decade of their lives, with more to come it seems. The Covid risk for healthy young people is close to zero, especially if they’ve been jabbed. It will be hard to keep a lid on those immature young brains once the weather heats up.

by Pietro | 18th Oct 21, 8:39am 1634499544

Re share prices, that gain will be spread across the generations through KiwiSaver, and the Super Fund. No worries there. The incredible house price inflation, especially of the last two years, is the public face of inequality. The feel-good factor among those who have benefited will also drive the recovery. So there’s the conundrum. Labour is still the preferred party among many middle class floating voters. Any punitive tax which hits them will quickly see their allegiance change. So 46% becomes mid to high 30s, low 20s becomes high 20s/low 30s, and Mr Seymour and Mr Peters would be rubbing their hands with glee with a combined vote of 20% plus.

So don’t expect much to change.