The good, the bad and the ugly – NBR's plays of the week
(17).jpg)
Capitalism saves lives in Canterbury
The fact no one died when a massive earthquake struck a city of more than 300,000 people has been hailed as a miracle but luck was only a small part of it.
The timing of the quake, which hit at 4:35am when most people were indoors asleep, certainly played a part but most of the credit can be given to New Zealand’s (relatively) capitalist, free-market economy.
Geoffrey Lean, environmental correspondent for the Daily Telegraph, wrote of the fatality-free disaster: “Mammon may have had more to do with it than God.”
He said the main difference between Christchurch, where no one died, and Haiti, where 230,000 people died after a slightly smaller quake, was that New Zealand is a relatively wealthy country while Haiti is among the poorest of the poor.
“Eighty per cent of earthquake deaths are caused by collapsing buildings and so properly built ones save lives in even the fiercest shocks, while poorly constructed ones become killers.
“Eighty six per cent of the people of Haiti live in tightly packed slums, and – besides those killed – two million were made homeless when buildings collapsed.”
Good buildings, bad buildings
Following the quake a number of statists have been quick to give credit to New Zealand’s building code for preventing further catastrophe.
What they don’t mention is that New Zealand first has to be wealthy enough for people to actually afford to build to the code’s specifications.
A code requiring, say, reinforced titanium framing would be useless if we could only afford mud huts.
Government mandates don’t offer magical protection against problems, as owners of leaky buildings can attest.
One of the pleasing aspects post-quake has been the government’s intention to sideline the resource consent process to allow the city to be re-built quickly.
The responsibility for assessing the safety of structures should be moved from local bureaucrats to building owners and their insurers, with the ability for people to sue if poorly constructed buildings cause loss of life or damage to other buildings.
(17).jpg)
Broken windows aplenty in quake aftermath
Shattered panes of glass weren’t the only types of broken windows on show after this week’s devastating Christchurch earthquake.
The broken window fallacy, debunked by French political economist Frederic Bastiat more than 150 years ago, refers to the mistaken idea that breaking things is good for the economy.
How, you might ask, could anyone think something so stupid?
Well, the thinking (if you can call it that) is that if a young hooligan goes and smashes the local butcher’s window this “stimulates” the economy because the butcher pays the glazier to fix the window.
The glazier in turn spends his windfall buying shoes from the cobbler, who uses the money to buy a cake from the baker, and so on and so forth.
Those who applaud this money-go-round ignore the opportunity cost to the butcher, who could have used the money on something else if he hadn’t had to pay for window repair.
Economic ignorance
The point of the broken window fallacy is that while destruction of resources may benefit certain people and sectors of the economy, it can never benefit the economy overall.
Someone should try telling Prime Minister John Key that – not long after the quake he was touting the economic stimulus the quake would provide.
Even left-wing blog site The Standard pulled him up on it; unfortunately its authors are in favour of “real (read: government) stimulus”, which they don’t seem to realise is also subject to the broken window fallacy.
However, New Zealand Herald business editor Liam Dann has provided perhaps the best example this week of failing to do as Mr Bastiat exhorted and look beyond what is seen and think of what is unseen.
“But between the man-made disaster that was South Canterbury Finance and this earthquake, we are going to see billions of Government dollars injected into the southern economy,” he wrote.
“With any luck, that may kick-start strong economic growth for the whole nation.”
Off to remedial economics class Mr Dann, and take Mr Key and Dr Brash with you.
(17).jpg)
A city devastated
While it’s wonderful no one was killed directly by the earthquake it is still a massive tragedy for the people of Christchurch and the other parts of the region struck by it.
Already the forecast repair bill has jumped from $2 billion to more than $4 billion and the cost to local businesses from having to shut up shop will be enormous.
A New World supermarket in Kaiapoi was damaged beyond repair, costing more than 80 workers their jobs.
There will probably be plenty of examples of other businesses failing as a result of the quake and its aftermath.
A psychological blow
While the economic impact will be lessened by the wonderful market invention of insurance (not to mention re-insurance), there is no way to blunt the psychological damage the quake has done to the people in Canterbury.
Already there are reports that some people, particularly older residents, are at risk of suffering heart attacks as a result of the stress the disaster caused.
Even if your house is insured, seeing it cracked down the middle by the furious battle between the Earth’s tectonic plates will still cause emotional harm.
For business and economic-minded people it can be easy to look at the bottom line and forget the human cost of an event that hopefully will prove to be a once in a lifetime experience.
Share
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
Scoopit














Comments and questions13
While the Broken Window fallacy may be valid, it ignores the fact that about $2bn of assets that are presently illiquidly locked up in EQC reserves / Insurance Company reserves will now be liquidated into the Canterbury economy.
It is not the Canterbury butcher that is spending the money, but the Zurich Reinsurance gnome that is transferring wealth back to NZ (the premiums were paid away over the years) and I strongly believe that that will have a significant positive impact.
Good analysis.
Re 'Following the quake a number of statists have been quick to give credit to New Zealand’s building code for preventing further catastrophe.'
You give a good rejoinder to this, on top of which I will also mention there was one class of buildings that almost killed people, and certainly would have in the CBD had this quake been at times when it was populated: historic buildings, those buildings protected and there in their current form because of the statists and their regulation. :)
Wow, this would have to be the article of the week: all gold and no dross.
Last Sunday at church I heard: "Thank God for the building code". It's amazing what you hear at church sometimes, even "Thank God for the Welfare State"
And very lucky you weren't in that church at 4.35am last Saturday morning David: the old churches were amongst the most dangerous places to be. You might want to have a word with the Big Guy about earthquake protection ... um, wait a minute, he was the guy shaking us about in the first place wasn't he. Whose His insurer - they'll probably get out on a negligence clause I would've thought.
I sincerely hope the NZ insurers have current and valid reinsurance agreements in place with the Zurich gnomes.
.
It is not uncommon for the insurance company actuaries to leave these unsigned and unfinished for years.
.
One major NZ insurer not so long ago had not signed (or completed) a central reinsurance agreement for over 10 years.
.
Warren Buffett and the new investors into the re insurance companies did not make fortunes by honouring non-existant obigations.
.
The Govt Actuary should now, immediately confirm these agreements are all current and in place.
.
His office has the overview.
Another point occurs, arpound 12years ago at least one major reinsurer (Munich Re) limited its Australasian exposure by incorporating an Australasian company and conducting its down under business from that.
.
This was approved by NZ regulators.
.
Maybe the Swiss holding company has guaranteed or entered into a reinsurance agreement assuring its NZ obligations, in which case the NZ insurers will enjoy the support of the big Swiss balance sheets, and maybe it hasn't, in which case the reinsiurer's exposure will be to its Australasian company's assets and ........................
.
Hopefully the Govt Actuary's Office is now checking, and will publically confirm forthwith.
Are you taking the micky or what. I am one of those people affected and I thank god for the building code. You seem to spend a lot of time on this website moaning and arguing with people that want to speak their mind,
Obviously you are alot better off than most and there fore UNQUALIFIED to speak at this level.
I am very sure that I would rather live in a house consented to by our council than one of those by Hiati council........
AND BEFORE YOU SAY THE COUNCIL SHOULD NEVER HAD BUILT PERHAPS YOU SHOULD LOOK A THE CASES WHERE THEY DID DISAGREE AND WERE TAKEN TO THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AND THEIR DECISION OVERTURNED.
Life is not always rosy and neither does it always involve a roof over ones head as you probably have David
The author is comparing what the butcher would do with the money with what the overseas insurance companies would do for the country with the money - there is no contest here!! Especally when you consider the scale and high cost repairs that are going to be required i.e. how many builders/plumbers/... are going to be heading to CHCH after 18 months of limited work opportunity where work will be plentiful all on the back of money from owed foreign investment!!!
Now the real challenge is how do you convince people on benefits to pick up a hammer???
The government's inability to cope has been obvious, but those of us who have been around for many years also know about the lofty international promises that follow each disaster -- and how ineffectual the response has been each time.
Freeads
While there will be temporary suffering for many in the Chch region; whom my heart goes out to, this disaster will turn out to be a windfall.
The majority will have insurance, & while the government will be picking up the tap for the first $100,000, the international insurance owners will be picking up the balance. I expect this to be considerably more than the $100,000 that the Earthquake Commission after fronting for.
There will be a massive overseas cash injection, providing additional employment & wages to flow through the system; which Chch & the wider region wouldnt have received.
What I would suggest to those people with a claim, is to get an independent assessment; if you have some doubt on with the result. Older people are the most exposed to this, which insurance companies may exploit. Lets remember the Insurance Companies will be trying to limit their exposure.
What will also flow out of this is an increase in insurance premiums, & therefore I would also suggest you shop around when you insurance is up for renewal...
You are right and wrong on the broken glass theory.
Any economy is stimulated by outside money entering it. This is what will happen with the rebuild in CHCH. Insurance and govt money will be injected back into the local economy. - Basic economic stimulus.
This is different from the holigan breaking the window example you used as this deals with money already in the local economy that would have been spent anyway.
Another excellent play of the week - I was hoping the fallacy would be addressed. The debate has been furious around Mon. Bastiat's concept - many people focus only on the inflow of capital, it helps to remember that money is not the focus, wealth is. Many people erroneously focus on where the money will 'flow' from but the broken window concept highlights the fact that in one scenario you have a city + $4 billion of insurance money productively invested elsewhere. Scenario 2 has just a rebuilt city and no investment. Sadly it would appear that much of the EQC's investments have been in NZ Govt bonds - meaning that even if the 'unlocked capital' approach were correct the 'capital' has been used to purchase claim cheques on future taxes from the very suppliers of the funds.
I felt physically ill when some plonker on tele last week praised the building code for the zero casualty rate. What? The building code? Is this the same building code that cost me $600k to fix my leaky building?
Post new comment or question
To share this article, click on a service below