I enjoyed the article, and you raise many valid points, though some of the positions you attribute to me are a little off.
Firstly, it's the critics of the mixed ownership who've claimed New Zealanders already own the state owned assets. In fact I remember a particular dinner conversation in which one guest said of the partial float “why should I pay for what’s already mine?”.
As for the complicated morass of property rights, democracy and the nature of general elections versus specific referenda, well, I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s too broad to tackle in the 500 words I had to work with.
Also, in a piece of this nature you have to take a few short cuts, such implying Government ownership when referring to a single shareholder. Should I have spelled it out?
Perhaps, but I’m giving the reader the deductive benefit of the doubt – one I’m confident they’ve made.
This need for short cut extends to the share ownership issue you’ve taken umbrage with. Of course we won't have 4.4m shareholders for long as some will sell and some will hold because there is a free market to sell them - something that wasn't available in the Soviet example you used.
But those who sell can use those funds for other things – investing in a business, paying down debt, splashing out at the shops – which have upside benefits for the economy and the government’s coffers.
And adding millions of people to the shareholder roll is a good on many levels. It’s a fantastic way of building up knowledge in the equity market, which we need if we are going to foster a savings culture in New Zealand.
I’m sure you’d also agree that a thriving equity market (which we don’t have at the moment, but it’s getting better) is essential if we’re going to lower the cost of capital for New Zealand businesses, which is notably higher than across the Tasman.
Lastly, “selling 100 per cent of the SOEs by any means would mean that this is at best a one-off trick” is exactly the point, albeit a Hayekian one. If, as a politician, you know you can’t sell the family silverware to get you out of debt, you’re likely to think a bit more carefully about what you’re getting into debt for (actually that might be a little naive).
In conclusion, you’re right, the third way is not that clear at all, but equally neither are the benefits/costs of other options.
The New Zealand Initiative
Wednesday, 28 August 2013
Why is it that the expression "third way" always worries me? 2
The following comes from the comments section to my previous posting Why is it that the expression "third way" always worries me? and is from Jason Krupp author of the New Zealand Institute piece I was commenting on. Let me thank Jason for taking the time to write this comment.