petertulip.bsky.social
Chief economist at Centre for Independent Studies
96 posts
525 followers
53 following
Regular Contributor
Active Commenter
comment in response to
post
"Soft neoliberalism" is still strong. E.g. in the bureaucracy and media.
Interventionism a la Whitlam is deader
comment in response to
post
I agree with @mattcowgill.bsky.social . Furthermore, it occasionally happens in public discussions that someone asks "but isn't the work on Auckland contested?"
(in the same way that people ask that question about climate change and vaccination). It helps to have a clear well-documented answer.
comment in response to
post
Yes. And if I cited Murray and Helm as an authority I would quickly find different topics to write on, hoping no-one remembers.
comment in response to
post
I am on team Furman, but recent US history doesn’t provide clear evidence. 6/6
comment in response to
post
Furman complains of the many failures of the Biden administration but Bernstein replies, with some justice, that they didn’t have the numbers in Congress to deliver. And macroeconomic disappointments have many influences. 5/6
comment in response to
post
I had thought there was a disagreement about how to reduce carbon emissions. Apparently not. 4/6
comment in response to
post
With hindsight it is clear (to me at least) that the Obama stimulus was too weak and the Biden stimulus too strong.
But that difference seems more attributable to political and forecasting miscalculations than ideological disagreement. 3/6
comment in response to
post
There was a big rhetorical difference between the administrations. But I find it harder to identify ideological disagreements and harder still to see evidence on who was right. 2/6
comment in response to
post
I agree.
Community consultation = "let's exclude newcomers and jack up prices"
(and yes, I attended the Ku-ring-gai forum).
comment in response to
post
Most (not all) of the output of the Guardian, the ABC's economics unit, Blackinc and TheConversation strikes me as leftish.
Though, in response to @shaunratcliff.bsky.social, I would not describe them as "big" or "impactful" (is that a word?).
comment in response to
post
Stuart will present his paper at a webinar at 12:00 (Sydney time). Details here:
www.cis.org.au/event/the-su...
comment in response to
post
It's great to hear a politician like @allegraspender.bsky.social show a clear evidence-based understanding of housing policy.
Though a pity that she isn't in a position to change much.
comment in response to
post
New Zealand’s housing policy reforms are estimated to have reduced rents by 28% in Auckland and by 21% in Lower Hutt, relative to what they would have been otherwise.
Stuart Donovan discusses the reforms and their impact on young people, affordability, and relevance to Australia. 2/2
comment in response to
post
True. They think the effect on affordability is determined by the price of the new dwellings. In fact, the effect on the prices of existing housing is far more important
comment in response to
post
Yes. there are positive externalities of new housing.
However, the opponents of housing claim the opposite -- that new supply will harm neighbourhood character.
comment in response to
post
Sales price is how you measure demand.
No-one ever said planning was the "only" obstacle.
It interacts, pushing land prices higher, which ruins feasibility.
Builders signed fixed price contracts which went the wrong way, so are going under. But the projects are feasible at lower site valuations.
comment in response to
post
2/2 The cost of materials and labour is similar in other cities.
Land costs more in Sydney, but this makes increases in density *more* economic.
Which is why developers are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars per apartment for sites.
They just need permission to build.
comment in response to
post
No.
Builders will build when sales price exceeds the cost of supply, which it does now.
Median sales price for a unit in Sydney is $813,000.
A simple demonstration that this exceeds the cost of supply is other cities, where units are being profitably supplied for less than $600,000. 1/2
comment in response to
post
Auckland and Lower Hutt (most clearly), and Tokyo, Minneapolis, Austin, Houston, etc (less clearly) allowed more building, which led to large improvements in affordability.
Why would we not expect that here?
Builders want to build.
comment in response to
post
To build to where margins are optimal will require an extra 1 or 2 million new homes, above what we ordinarily build.
That should reduce prices and rents (including for low-income renters) by a third or more.
To where price = marginal social cost.
Let's argue about whether that is enough then.
comment in response to
post
No. It is less attractive and so reduces neighbourhood amenity.
But that is not the purpose of heritage legislation.
It is to preserve architectural curiosities for the fringe of obsessives who run the heritage industry.
The law does not reflect community values. It needs to be changed.
comment in response to
post
My research is quoted.
For further details, see cis.org.au/wp-content/u...
and cis.org.au/wp-content/u... 3/3
comment in response to
post
John Kehoe discusses further with Nicholas Moore.
afr.com/policy/econo... 2/3