top of page
Search

The IMF has reported how much GDP is growing in 195 countries across the entire world. New Zealand is stagnant, at 0%, whilst nearly every other country is surging ahead. For 2024, Tables A1 to A5 (in the link below) show our ranking is 184th out of 195 countries. There are 11 nations doing worse than us: Argentina, Finland, Slovak Republic, Estonia, Haiti (civil war), Kuwait, Sudan (civil war), South Sudan (civil war), Yemen (civil war), Ireland (that has until this year been one of the world's fastest growing economies) and Austria. In terms of our Current Account balance, measuring exports minus imports as a fraction of GDP, we are 3rd lowest out of 41 developed nations, with Greece and Cyprus below us.


Ironically, the three gentlemen & one woman most responsible for this situation are former Finance Minister Mr Grant Robertson, now Vice Chancellor of Otago University (all previous VC's had the "Doctor" title), paid $624,000; Reserve Bank Governor, Adrian Orr on $830,000 whose contract was renewed by Robertson; together with former PM Ardern, recently knighted in Windsor Castle, and busily ploughing carbon emissions into the atmosphere courtesy of back-to-back long haul flights; as well as former PM, now Opposition Leader, Chris Hipkins, who is trying to be New Zealand's next PM. As for the Otago University Professors who wrote in the British Medical Journal how NZ's Covid policies went hand-in-hand with amazing economic outcomes (even though none of them had studied economics) maybe they should retract that paper. For the lot of them, talk about pay (and status) for (non) performance.


Sources:


Evaluating spending and regulation decisions on the basis of objective criteria is a good thing. The standard tool in economics to do so in called Cost-Benefit Analysis. In a high quality, just-released report, Multiple Sclerosis NZ argues, with great lucidity, that Pharmac is not taking into account all costs & benefits on society when it decides which drugs to fund. When the Nats were last in power, I attended a function at which Paula Bennett spoke. She talked about the National Party's "Social Investment Approach" which was (supposedly) guiding their spending decisions. Bennett was Minister of Social Development at the time. The chap next to me, a Knight of the Realm no less, asked her, "What is the Difference Between Cost-Benefit and Social Investment?" Her answer was entertaining, in the sense it appeared she had not the remotest clue. To muddy waters even more, Pharmac uses Cost-Utility Analysis. Paula Bennett is now Chair of Pharmac. Should someone ask her, or Finance Minister Willis, or ACT Leader Seymour, "Can you explain the difference between Cost Utility (as used by Pharmac), Social Investment (as used by Willis' Department of Social Investment), and Cost-Benefit (as used by Seymour's Ministry of Regulation), I bet their eye-balls would pop out & the subject quickly changed to the Treaty, or anything.


So here's the gist of what Multiple Sclerosis NZ are saying. Pharmac often delay purchasing drugs, waiting for cheaper generics to be manufactured. However, using Nicola Willis' own Social Investment approach, early intervention can mean that someone's condition does not worsen, and they can remain highly productive members of society, with higher benefits and incurring lower costs (that are funded by taxation).  Multiple Sclerosis argue that a proper cost-benefit analysis, that includes all costs & benefits to the nation, and which encapsulates Willis' own early intervention Social Investment way of thinking, would lead to important drugs being funded now which are not (and vice versa). Its a convincing point. Willis, Bennett & Seymour should prove they're on top of their Ministries by answering it. Multiple Sclerosis NZ deserves it.



Sources:

Home: Blog2

SUBSCRIBE

Thanks for submitting!

CONTACT

Robert MacCulloch

bottom of page