Coronavirus - New Zealand
-
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
American site and contributors, but an interesting read in the tradeoffs between economy and health, and basically points out that it's hard to trade off health for economy because the economy depends on health.
You aren't portraying the article fairly with that summation. It does a good job of arguing from both angles. A recession and pain was always going to happen, but it is govts job to limit it and smooth it amongst citizens. The NZ govt is doing a terrible job of that IMO. The current economic winners are govt workers and the cashed up. Losers are, or will be, nearly everyone else. I think the wage subsidy was very good and well handled. But I think university public health professors scared the govt into a complete lockdown way to fast. And raising benefits and the min wage was crazy. Well benefits increase was more sneaky than crazy. As that won't cost jobs and businesses. It was just politics.
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Godder said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
American site and contributors, but an interesting read in the tradeoffs between economy and health, and basically points out that it's hard to trade off health for economy because the economy depends on health.
You aren't portraying the article fairly with that summation. It does a good job of arguing from both angles. A recession and pain was always going to happen, but it is govts job to limit it and smooth it amongst citizens. The NZ govt is doing a terrible job of that IMO. The current economic winners are govt workers and the cashed up. Losers are, or will be, nearly everyone else. I think the wage subsidy was very good and well handled. But I think university public health professors scared the govt into a complete lockdown way to fast. And raising benefits and the min wage was crazy. Well benefits increase was more sneaky than crazy. As that won't cost jobs and businesses. It was just politics.
Aren't there Government workers who could be put on furlough?
-
@Tim said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
So will there be a tax increase later in the year?
You could bet your house on it. Nothing Labour likes more than a tax.
And now they will have a cratering economy to blame on it. Wonder if we will get a concerned face Jacinda explaining they just had no choice, so now is the time for a capital gains tax so those more "well off" can help those less fortunate. Higher Income tax, etc, etc
Some mealy mouthed bullshit like that anyway.
-
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Tim said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
So will there be a tax increase later in the year?
You could bet your house on it. Nothing Labour likes more than a tax.
And now they will have a cratering economy to blame on it. Wonder if we will get a concerned face Jacinda explaining they just had no choice, so now is the time for a capital gains tax so those more "well off" can help those less fortunate. Higher Income tax, etc, etc
Some mealy mouthed bullshit like that anyway.
I will bet you there isn't going to be any of that this year.
-
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Hooroo after the election, if they cobble enough votes again.
Again, I bet that won't happen this year.
They will walk the election, no problem this year, that is a given IMO. I don't see a tax increase this year though
-
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Hooroo after the election, if they cobble enough votes again.
Again, I bet that won't happen this year.
They will walk the election, no problem this year, that is a given IMO. I don't see a tax increase this year though
They'll need both the Greens and NZ FIrst to be over the 5% threshold for that to happen. And for their to be no lockdown backlash. You can already see frustratation building from people's comments online, and even here.
Before the crisis some of the polls had National and Act able to govern alone, so not sure about walk it.
I'm expecting them to ask for a delay in the election to put some distance between this.
-
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Hooroo said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Kirwan said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Hooroo after the election, if they cobble enough votes again.
Again, I bet that won't happen this year.
They will walk the election, no problem this year, that is a given IMO. I don't see a tax increase this year though
They'll need both the Greens and NZ FIrst to be over the 5% threshold for that to happen. And for their to be no lockdown backlash. You can already see frustratation building from people's comments online, and even here.
Before the crisis some of the polls had National and Act able to govern alone, so not sure about walk it.
I'm expecting them to ask for a delay in the election to put some distance between this.
All of that happening suggests there won't be a tax increase this year.
I can't see an election in September either (Was is supposed to be Sept?)
-
I think CV has ruined what slim chances National had. Hard core National voters are there of course but it's the undecideds that determine elections. For all her faults Cindy does crisis management PR very, very well. She comes across as calm, assured and in control.
From the google analytics @Duluth posted there doesn't seem to be a backlash. NZ is complying even more than the places that you would expect to be in their bunkers (Italy, Spain, New York, UK). The overwhelming majority seem to be taking this very seriously. If we limit the health impact of CV then those undecideds will turn to Labour in droves. Not just because of the results but because of the feel good - little old NZ didn't we do well factor. Yeah there will be high unemployment, but's the virus right? - not Cindy didn't she do well.
Also I'm with @Hooroo - nothing Grant Robertson has said or done indicates tax rises are in his thinking. Quite the opposite. He wants people out there spending money to stimulate the economy. Plus they don't need the money. Just borrow.
-
Labour will most certainly get a boost just like Trump is. Ardern does do crisis PR very well.
There are big risks for the govt though, if they extend the lockdown and we still have a low death toll and more businesses fold and people lose jobs... The mood could get very ugly. -
With the way things have moved in March alone, September is a political lifetime away. By that time it will be an economic and (un)employment referendum of some nature.
If what I pick up is any barometer, National’s persistent challenge remains Simon’s level of appeal to middle ground voters.
-
@Donsteppa said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
With the way things have moved in March alone, September is a political lifetime away. By that time it will be an economic and (un)employment referendum of some nature.
If what I pick up is any barometer, National’s persistent challenge remains Simon’s level of appeal to middle ground voters.
And the perception (which is likely true) that he would have done fuck all differently.
-
-
@Baron-Silas-Greenback TBF you would hope that any government whatever their hue would have done much the same. Simply because in times like these they should be taking the advice of their medical advisors not making it up coz they're cleverer
-
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback TBF you would hope that any government whatever their hue would have done much the same. Simply because in times like these they should be taking the advice of their medical advisors not making it up coz they're cleverer
I think they needed more advice from business, this is far more than a medical crisis, it is an economic one. All the advice seems to have come from people not economicly affected. I wonder if the advice would have been different if every public servant who recommended a full lockdown was immediately put on a years leave without pay.
Jacinda potential problem is there are lots of examples of countries similar to us not doing full lock downs. If they have low death counts... -
@Baron-Silas-Greenback said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@dogmeat said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
@Baron-Silas-Greenback TBF you would hope that any government whatever their hue would have done much the same. Simply because in times like these they should be taking the advice of their medical advisors not making it up coz they're cleverer
I think they needed more advice from business, this is far more than a medical crisis, it is an economic one. All the advice seems to have come from people not economicly affected.
This is it in a nutshell. I read the Spinoff, and generally it's really good. But there is always a middle ground.
Doing nothing, and going down the US route of passive response leads to an uncontrolled outbreak.
Conversely, running a lockdown (that I agree with in principle for a short time) for too long means catastrophic economic effects. That has effects on lives, livelihoods, businesses and our general economy that will persist.
This is what leadership is. Finding a path through uncertain times in a reasonable way. As @Baron-Silas-Greenback says, the stance seems at the moment to be purely medical/public health based decision making. That is not enough. Raising the minimum wage here has real consequences in wage inflation, and allowing people to have jobs. I'm OK with supporting people through this, with introducing more transfers through WFF, but wage inflation in the biggest recession in 85 years seems absolutely counterintuitive to this amateur economist.
So yes, the Government is doign a lot very well. But very quickly the need to understand how to get the economy moving again, and giving confidence will become very very very important. And that is where this election may be fought, and may cause problems. NZF, Greens and Labour may not have the collective will to listen to economic signals until it's too late.
Edit: and i meant to write that the Spinoff this morning simplified this to 'economy or lives, it's a no brainer, hurr durr', and it is a damn sight more nuanced than that
Edit 2: in case you want to read for yourself
-
If you think that the only advice is coming from the medical side then I think you aren't seeing past the necessary consistent and clear messaging.
Modelling and lessons learned from previous world events is well under way and being fed into decision making. At this point the elimination attempt needs to be followed through until it proves a lost cause so that is the priority on decision making.
Only time will tell whether it is the course that was best for us, but in any crisis a direction must be taken. The longer you waffle around a decision the worse the outcome whatever you choose.
Comparing the approach that different countries take is fraught with danger. Our social behaviours and mindset are different (e.g. you didn't see us all flooding to the local park to sunbathe as soon as the sun came out), our geography is different, our density of housing and proximity of towns is different. The biggest element is our natural isolation from the rest of the world.
As for putting all of the public servants on leave? How silly. All the ones I know are busy using the slow down to map out change programmes to do more with less while afforded an opportunity that they don't often get to pause and take stock. Sounds very Un-Labour to those with entrenched mindsets but it's true. The Public Service will be downsizing but at the moment there is no benefit in shifting people cost from departments to social welfare for most.
We are going to take a big hit and there is no getting past that. But according to analysis of previous world disrupting events those countries that take a short sharp hit are much better placed to climb out of the hole that is left afterwards and benefit in the long run.
I have no idea whether history will show that we took the right course but on the other hand I also have no foresight that we are definitely going down the wrong route. At present, as far as I can see, we have been decisive and created a good possibility of elimination. How we then use that to our advantage is the next hurdle. -
@Crucial said in Coronavirus - New Zealand:
If you think that the only advice is coming from the medical side then I think you aren't seeing past the necessary consistent and clear messaging.
Modelling and lessons learned from previous world events is well under way and being fed into decision making. At this point the elimination attempt needs to be followed through until it proves a lost cause so that is the priority on decision making.
Only time will tell whether it is the course that was best for us, but in any crisis a direction must be taken. The longer you waffle around a decision the worse the outcome whatever you choose.
Comparing the approach that different countries take is fraught with danger. Our social behaviours and mindset are different (e.g. you didn't see us all flooding to the local park to sunbathe as soon as the sun came out), our geography is different, our density of housing and proximity of towns is different. The biggest element is our natural isolation from the rest of the world.
As for putting all of the public servants on leave? How silly. All the ones I know are busy using the slow down to map out change programmes to do more with less while afforded an opportunity that they don't often get to pause and take stock. Sounds very Un-Labour to those with entrenched mindsets but it's true. The Public Service will be downsizing but at the moment there is no benefit in shifting people cost from departments to social welfare for most.
We are going to take a big hit and there is no getting past that. But according to analysis of previous world disrupting events those countries that take a short sharp hit are much better placed to climb out of the hole that is left afterwards and benefit in the long run.
I have no idea whether history will show that we took the right course but on the other hand I also have no foresight that we are definitely going down the wrong route. At present, as far as I can see, we have been decisive and created a good possibility of elimination. How we then use that to our advantage is the next hurdle.That's what I get. You only hear of the speak of the medical and scientific advice as that is the advice the public is after in a pandemic state.
I don't believe for a second that there is a tunnel like vision around this and for them to obly be looking at the medical side of things.
For the finance minister to be fronting a lot of the briefings suggests to me he has an involvement beyond the medical side of things.
-
We are in a middle ground - there is still economic activity, MBIE estimates that more than half the work force is still working, and that is increasing over time as online retailing has been allowed to open (which means a few more jobs in itself) and make home office supplies available so people who didn't get it done in time have a second chance to buy the right equipment (or a first chance to buy equipment once they have worked out that they can work from home).
People can still go out for exercise and grocery shopping and generally are not being heavily monitored or tracked unless in quarantine or a recent arrival in self-isolation. That's not to say that people won't get stopped by police and asked a few questions, but it's not all the time or everywhere.
Full lockdown would probably involve a police state in which leaving home required a permit, checkpoints everywhere, mandatory apps for tracing and location notifications, ankle bracelets if no device capable of running apps, mandatory food parcels rather than freedom to choose whatever from the supermarket etc.
However, the PM assures us that there is no secret Alert Level 5, so we're at the limit of our current framework, and will be loosening the restrictions, not tightening them. Given the lockdown is only 12 days old, this seems prudent.
The PM also says that we are currently on track to exit alert level 4 after 4 weeks. That might change if cases go back up, but the trajectory is in the right direction.
On the subject of increased misery and deaths due to economic stress/damage if the lockdown drags on, the article linked above covers this topic, although using American data - according to that, death rates decrease in times of recession, rather than increase, particularly serious recessions. In the modern context, with significantly reduced work, driving, other travel, recreation, and air pollution, all of which are major sources of deaths, the reduction in deaths from those (and other diseases due to physical distancing and improved hygiene) will likely outweigh the increase in suicides from economic misery, especially if the current support package is ramped up.
Longer term, our current economic system is over 30 years old - it's probably due for an overhaul, and resiliency to pandemics and natural disasters seems like something to improve while we're at it.