Infometrics' Greatest Hits collects our economic articles on a single page. Articles that are more than six months old are generally available to the public free of charge.

Rank by: Date | Views | Topic:

AllEconomicBuildingTransportNZ RegionsOtherDom Post

Goto page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59

I’d like to think I’m handy with a hammer, and since becoming a home owner there have been plenty of projects to keep me occupied. Like most DIYers, a big part of my motivation is saving money. On occasion I’ve even taken time off work to finish projects, but does this make financial sense? The short answer is yes, it can make very good sense.

There is no question of a doubt that a dignified level of care must be provided to the elderly, whatever the cost, however it is unreasonable that the public sector should bear the cost for those that can afford to do so themselves. At present single people and couples with both partners in care can keep $210,000 in assets before their assets are used to contribute to the cost of the care (this threshold is increased by $10,000 each year).

A refrain heard a bit too much lately is that certain companies, particularly banks, are too big to fail. If this statement reflects the fact that big organisations only grow to a large size due to strong management capabilities, ie that size reduces the probability of failure, then there may be an element of truth to this statement. However, the normal meaning applied to the “too big to fail” moniker is that the fallout following the collapse of a major institution will be so catastrophic for the rest of the economy and society, that propping up the rotting carcass is the best of a bad set of options facing the economy. But ultimately this becomes a question of who should pay for the mess: the greedy and stupid investors, their incompetent management team or the ultimate patsy, the taxpayer?

Asset sales remain an area of hot debate despite the National-led government’s comfortable re-election. Opponents of these sales remember the 1980s and early 1990s when the government sold off a swathe of assets. With the benefit of hindsight, some assets were sold at bargain basement prices and with seemingly little thought given to the economic or strategic importance of what was being sold. But even in these cases deregulation and private-sector ownership encouraged greater business efficiencies, fostered more innovation, and realised a better return on capital than the government had been able to manage.

Irrespective of the underlying motive, the proposal announced in National’s Supply and Confidence Agreement with ACT to introduce Charter Schools should be considered a positive development for New Zealand’s education system.

The financial sector is at the very core of our economy, and yet following four years of persistent financial crises there is a feeling that this core is rotten – made up of corporate welfare without any value to society. However, it is not the greed of bankers that is at fault – but the incentives that policy makers have given them. Only by understanding these incentives can we figure out what must be done.

Last month I did some travelling around India.  While I was there for a bit of sight-seeing, I was also intrigued as to what social and economic changes might have taken place in the ten years since my last visit.  After all, I’d worked out that the Indian economy would have more or less doubled in size during my absence.  My trip would be a chance to see first-hand how one of the world’s most populous countries was handling sustained economic growth of more than 7%pa.

My colleagues and I have mentioned in previous articles about the mess that is Working for Families. And now Labour proposes extending it to beneficiaries. Is this the best way to spend another dollar on the less well-off?

I recently began my first job as a graduate, and have decided to begin repaying my student loan as slowly as I can. I could voluntarily increase my repayments, but I choose not to for now. My decision is the product of distorted incentives and sound economic reasoning.

As the world population ticked over 7 billion this week international focus has turned to population issues. It is with some irony that this is the context in which our ruling party has confirmed that it will not raise the age of superannuation entitlement. It is a populist move which ignores the demographic and fiscal realities of a burgeoning older age population. That most predictions of the future superannuation costs are based on very conservative projections of growth in older people makes the move even more irresponsible.