Free Press - Plastic, scaffolds, and China

Plastic Bags
Should the government ban plastic bags? If reducing the number of plastic bags used is good for the environment, what might we be willing to sacrifice to avoid having them around? What would it cost us?

Some of the Costs
A 2012 study by George Mason University found switching to reusable bags killed about five people a year in San Francisco, because their bags were left unclean and grew germs. Keeping meat and vegetables in the same bag gets messy over time. And leaving bags for long periods in the car boot provides a hothouse for bacteria. Economist Eric Crampton scales that up for the NZ population, concluding that the cost of banning plastic bags here would be about 20 human deaths per year.

Cost-Benefit Calculation
So the question for the advocates of banning bags is this: is it worth causing an extra 20 avoidable deaths per year?

No Defence
You cannot defend the anti-plastic bag position by saying that people should clean their re-usable bags. We have to deal with real world behaviour in public policy.

A Tax Instead?
Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ) has voted in favour of a request to Government to impose a compulsory levy on plastic shopping bags at point of sale. But first they need to show us what the cost of all the plastic bags is, and what they estimate the change in demand for bags might be. It’s best to not just make stuff up.

It’s the Same with Workplace Safety Regulation
Everybody wants a safe working environment, but we need to balance costs with benefits. The government could spend all our national income on being safe, but nobody thinks that makes sense. Thus we ask: would it be irresponsible for government regulators to impose substantial costs on the community without a proper prior demonstration of greater expected benefits?

We Can Answer That - Yes
A NZ Initiative report last week – A matter of balance: regulating safety – suggested that the campaign to reduce workplace injuries from falls from heights of less than 3 metres in residential construction has led to a substantial lift in costs on the community. Does a contractor really need, in all cases, to install scaffolding to paint your house or clean the guttering? Lots of people in the trades are answering that - No.

When Political Gambits Misfire
What does a political party do when a big announcement explodes in its face? Create a diversion. Presumably anticipating what One News’ poll showed (minor changes within the margin of error – ie no change), Labour did just that late in the week to try and move on from the Chinese debacle, announcing moves to ditch the provisional tax system which is such a burden on small businesses.

Old Idea but a Good One
The fact that it’s an idea that was in an IRD green paper released in March, and which the government is probably going to implement anyway, is no criticism. It’s a good idea. As David Seymour said, provisional tax is an archaic system, out of date and unnecessary in the age of digital financial transfers.

On Chinese Investors
What a shambles. Stolen private commercial (and personal) information gets laundered around the media market and passed to the Labour fence, Phil Twyford. The information simply does not show what Twyford claims it does. Instead, it shows that people with common Chinese surnames are active in the Auckland property market, through one particular real estate company. The Herald later reports on an agent from another real estate company with extensive Asian business, who says that less than 10% of their business comes from non-residents. Most of the people with Chinese sounding names are NZ residents – or as we tend to say, kiwis.

Let’s do some Profiling
A lot of demand for dairies comes from people with Indian surnames. People of Irish descent like owning pubs, especially ones with Irish names. Dalmatians? Fishing and winemaking. Etc.

Labour Hoped for an Orewa Moment
The problem is this: Brash’s Orewa speech was all about the principle of treating everybody equally, regardless of race. Labour’s little escapade is all about scapegoating a particular ethnicity. The first is based on a widely shared principle. Labour’s grubby thing would make Winston Peters blush.

Auckland is a Melting Pot
Auckland is now an international city. It’s a big change, threatening for some but exciting for most. Housing is unaffordable for many, but that’s a self-inflicted (by council planners) problem. The migration and investor impacts are a part of the property pressures in Auckland, but a small and transitional part at most. It’s a supply issue, as the Christchurch experience shows.

Consider Christchurch
Recall all the complaints about housing prices and supply in Christchurch in recent years? Not so much anymore. House prices were rising at double digit rates through 2012-14, but have slowed markedly since then. Supply is starting to catch up with demand. It’s a useful lesson.

And Rents Too
Rents in Christchurch surged through that 2012-14 period, but over the past year they have started falling (down 5% in the past year). Fix supply issues and you fix all these housing problems.

Tweets on Greece
“If only there were a Greek word for a victory that is in fact a defeat & a German word for pleasure derived from the misfortune of others.”

ends

© Scoop Media