A Financial Times leader delivers advice that Finance Minister Grant Robertson should (but probably won’t) consider.
Essentially, the advice is to resist the temptation to involve the central bank in the challenge of slowing the rise in house prices.
Changing regulation and reforming planning law is a smarter way to go.
The FT observes that – to many – it may seem obvious that the central bank quantitative easing programmes launched after the 2008 financial crisis have led to inflation, as money printing inevitably does.
But the inflation has shown up in booming stock markets, high prices for art and collectibles, and surging cryptocurrencies. Rather than higher consumer prices, cheap money has led to asset price inflation.
In this reading, the FT says, central banks should reconsider their stimulus policies because they are only delaying and deepening the eventual bust.
Furthermore, according to the critics, stimulus is increasing wealth inequality and worsening housing crises. Higher asset prices increase the net worth (as measured by market prices) of those who already have substantial wealth while leaving the position of those without assets unchanged.
Similarly, it pushes home ownership further out of the reach of those lacking in savings or inheritances — inflation that shows up in assets but not wages is particularly bad news for affordability.
The FT explains that this is why New Zealand’s government has instructed our central bank to consider the effect of its policies on the housing market.
The centre-left administration of Jacinda Ardern has said that while the Reserve Bank will remain independent, it will have to take into account the government’s objective of “sustainable house prices”, which includes taming investor demand, when making policy decisions.
It is true that a fall in interest rates will increase asset prices, all other things being equal. Lowering the cost of borrowing should make it more attractive to buy long term assets, such as housing, that bring benefits that can last for decades.
Indeed, encouraging investment spending is part of a central bank’s motivation for cutting rates.
But to refer to a change in the price of assets relative to everything else as inflation — which means a change in the value of money — is a misnomer. A change in a particular set of prices is not the same as a change in all prices: houses have become relatively more expensive to all other goods and services in the economy, not just the Kiwi dollar.
Engineering deflation in consumer prices to address the particular, idiosyncratic, problems of the housing market would be a serious mistake. Using tighter monetary policy to reduce the price of real estate would also have the effect of reducing workers’ wages — a central bank-induced recession would ultimately do little for affordability.
Interest rates cannot be used to solve every problem and central banks have struggled enough to try to hit their existing inflation targets.
As the institution responsible for financial stability in New Zealand, the Reserve Bank should consider whether it has all the necessary “macroprudential” tools to address concerns about the housing market.
In November it already announced tighter restrictions on high loan-to-value mortgages. Requiring would-be homeowners to have bigger deposits will do little to address concerns about affordability, however.
Central banks, however, make a convenient scapegoat for politicians who are unwilling to take on the vested interests that can create an artificial scarcity of housing even in a land-rich country such as New Zealand.
Changing regulation and reforming planning law is a more sensible way to address the deficiencies of the housing market than running a monetary policy that would not be justified by the inflation and unemployment data.
In short, to solve New Zealand’s housing problems, “Ardern’s administration will need to look much closer to home”.
Robertson – of course – seems unlikely to be greatly bothered by the Financial Times, having disregarded the advice of the governor of the Reserve Bank on this matter.
RNZ reported him as saying the government needs to use all the economic tools available to try to control escalating house prices.
Robertson is defending his decision to change the Reserve Bank’s remit to include house prices in its monetary policy considerations.
That is despite the bank’s governor, Adrian Orr, warning him last year that that was not a good idea.
Robertson said the government is not saying the Reserve Bank should be responsible for house prices – but the government needs to pull every lever within its power to tackle the housing issue.
The government was not suggesting the house-price crisis was entirely the responsibility of the Reserve Bank, Robertson said.
“What we are saying is that all parts of the apparatus need to be working towards these goals.”
Robertson said the government has been considering a wide range of options on both the supply and demand side of the housing market.
2 thoughts on “Financial Times chips in with some advice to our Finance Minister on the folly of adding housing to central bank’s deliberations”
It is perhaps inappropriate for a foreigner to comment on New Zealand politics, but it seems to me one part of the solution to the housing price problem is to tax the gains on the sale of houses. In other words, a capital gains tax on housing (and maybe other things; I will leave that to others). The United States has had capital gains taxes forever (or close to it). The only question is the rate. If gains on housing weren’t tax-free, investors would buy less of it. And lower demand would mean prices would be more affordable.
Instead of off-loading the housing cost problem on the Reserve Bank, the government needs to address the problem itself. In addition to increasing supply, a capital gains tax on the sale of housing is part of the solution. It just needs political will.
Reblogged this on The Inquiring Mind and commented:
The FT effectively highlighting Robertson’s foolish behaviour