Jane Kelsey —The FIRE Economy: New Zealand’s Reckoning #book

The name of Kelsey’s book refers to an acronym for economies primarily based around “finance, insurance and real estate”.

### ODT Online Thu, 10 Sep 2015
Foretelling end of neoliberalism
By Carla Green
Legal scholar Jane Kelsey has described the “morbid symptoms” of neoliberalism’s impending downfall. The University of Auckland law professor was speaking during the presentation of her new book, The Fire Economy, in Dunedin this week.
Read more

Image via Idealog.co.nz

—

Bridget Williams Books (promotion + sales)

The FIRE Economy: New Zealand’s Reckoning
Jane Kelsey

The FIRE economy – built on finance, insurance and real estate – is now the world’s principal source of wealth creation. Its rise has transformed our political, economic and social landscapes, supported by a neoliberal regime that celebrates markets, profit and risk. From rising inequality and ballooning household debt to a global financial crisis and fiscal austerity, the neoliberal ‘orthodoxy’ has brought instability and empowered the few. Yet it remains remarkably resilient, even resurgent, in New Zealand and abroad.
In 1995 Jane Kelsey set out a groundbreaking account of the neoliberal revolution in The New Zealand Experiment. Now she marshals an exceptional range of evidence to show how this transfer of wealth and power has been systematically embedded over three decades.
Today organisations and commentators once at the vanguard of neoliberal reform, including the IMF and Financial Times journalist Martin Wolf, are warning the current model is unsustainable. A post-neoliberal era beckons. In The FIRE Economy Kelsey identifies the risks posed by FIRE and the barriers embedded neoliberalism presents to a progressive, post-neoliberal transformation – and urges us to act. This is a book New Zealand cannot afford to ignore.
BWB Link + Book Preview

—

█ Videos at YouTube (published by Scoop):

Jane Kelsey “The Fire Economy” Book Talk To The Fabians 5 August 2015 (pt 1)
Jane Kelsey “The Fire Economy” Book Talk To The Fabians 5 August 2015 (pt 2)
Jane Kelsey “The Fire Economy” Book Talk To The Fabians 5 August 2015 (pt 3)

—

[via Scoop.co.nz]

Fri, 17 Jul 2015, 4:30 pm
The FIRE Economy: New Zealand’s Reckoning – By Jane Kelsey
Opinion: Professor Jane Kelsey
Introduction – An Extract

The global economy imploded in 2008 and confirmed a stark reality. Entire nations and billions of people are captives of an unstable and amoral economic system powered by finance, insurance and real estate – FIRE. New Zealand included.
‘The FIRE economy’ is a metaphor for the fundamental shift in global capitalism since the 1970s. Finance has replaced industry as the driver of wealth creation in affluent countries – a transformation known as financialisation. Neoliberal ideology, rules and institutions acted first as the midwife and then as the guardian of this new economic order.
The Global Financial Crisis (GFC) showed the world’s richest countries, notably the US and the nations of Europe, that the globally integrated economy they had created, and from which they have prospered, could also bring them to their knees. Faith in the neoliberal ‘orthodoxy’ that shaped and sustained them seemed shattered. The fallout was fast and furious, and quickly spread to many other parts of the world.
A cursory look might suggest that little has really changed. Neoliberalism remains deeply embedded in most countries. The finance industry is resurgent and those who profit from it are unrepentant. Conservative parties with pro-market and pro-austerity mandates have been elected to govern some of the countries hardest hit.
Appearances are, however, deceptive. Confidence in the FIRE economy has faltered since the GFC and the hegemony of the neoliberal model is in decline. Core tenets of neoliberal ideology are being repudiated, even in institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Social inequality and poverty in and between countries are now recognised as symptoms of a sick system. Popular unrest in Europe has intensified, and new political parties from neo-Nazi fascists to the socialist left have gained ground. There are credible predictions of further crises.
The United Nations Conference for Trade and Development (UNCTAD) warned in its flagship Trade and Development report for 2014, six years after the GFC erupted, that the ‘world economy has not yet escaped the growth doldrums in which it has been marooned for the past four years, and there is a growing danger that this state of affairs is becoming accepted as the “new normal”’. That ‘new normal’ is not sustainable.
The world is entering a period of transformation equivalent to the epochal shift to Keynesian interventionism from the 1930s and the neoliberal revolution from the late 1970s. We are in the interregnum. The old orthodoxy is unstable and fragile; a new one has yet to be born. It remains to be seen how this plays out, how much resistance it will encounter, and whether alternative approaches can really break through the barriers designed to protect neoliberalism and the FIRE economy from just such a transformation.

Kiwi complacency
While the GFC has plunged rich countries like the US and England and later Spain and Greece into turmoil, New Zealand seems to be basking in the belief that it has survived the crisis pretty much unscathed. The standard Kiwi narrative treats it as a northern hemisphere affair, triggered by greedy American bankers and profligate European governments. The story goes something like this.
In today’s globalised world there was bound to be some collateral damage from other countries’ post-crisis recessions, but our financial system was shown to be basically sound (mainly because the Australian banks that own ours are sound). Governments on both sides of the Tasman responded promptly and effectively. Temporary interventions provided fiscal stimulus and bank guarantees steadied the ship, staving off a more serious recession. Stability was restored. Each country then resumed business as usual, regardless of their governments’ political hue. Helped by exports to China, future prospects looked positive, even rosy. Exuberant commentators went so far as to hail New Zealand as the ‘rock star’ economy of 2014. The strong centre-right vote at the 2014 election suggested confidence in the status quo or, at least, that the belief in TINA – there is no alternative – still prevails.
Before the 2008 election, as the GFC began to erupt, business journalist Bob Edlin observed how the country’s leaders seemed ‘curiously phlegmatic about global financial upheaval and its economic implications’. Their offerings ‘amounted to little more than tweaks of programmes that have brought us to where we are – a standstill’. No one was ‘peddling a cyclone-shelter or rebuilding programme’. Nothing has changed since then.

Couldn’t happen here?
This complacency is deeply disturbing. Neoliberalism has not served most New Zealanders well. Nor, in other than a hedonistic sense, has financialisation. Structural poverty and deep inequalities of wealth and income have transformed the social landscape. We have a shallow economy that depends on FIRE, farming, post-earthquake reconstruction and immigration. Periods of sustained economic growth in the 2000s have been fuelled by cheap credit. As a consequence, households, farmers and the country sit on a growing mountain of debt. Trading in property has become the main source of easy wealth, creating repeated incipient property bubbles. We have most of the preconditions that have been identified as triggers for a crisis.
A former Reserve Bank of Australia governor, Ian Macfarlane, is under no illusion there will be further crises. In 2008 he pointed to at least eight financial crises that impacted on Australia – and hence New Zealand – in the three decades before the GFC. Five were banking crises, and three involved excessive and risky lending in the property sector. Some affected New Zealand much more severely than the GFC. However, it was the depth and contagion of the latest crisis that Macfarlane says made it the most significant internationally and invalidated the model of the deregulated financial system.
New Zealand is much more at risk than Australia because successive Labour and National governments have located this country at the pure end of the neoliberal spectrum. For years it was known as the Wild West of financial markets. Adjustments during the 2000s were still premised on light-handed risk-tolerant regulation. Even since the GFC, governments and their advisers have continued to position New Zealand as an outlier, ignoring doubts in other countries and international institutions over the wisdom of letting financial markets rule.
Without some fundamental changes, New Zealand risks sleepwalking into a social, economic and political catastrophe. No one knows how or when that might happen. The tipping point could be another massive offshore crisis. Or it could be self-generated, as it was in Iceland and Ireland, if we fail to heed the warning signs. There is much to learn from Iceland’s successful post-crisis strategy of intervention, redistribution and capital controls, and from the tragedy of austerity economics in Greece, Spain and Ireland.

Time to act
Waiting for Armageddon is hardly a progressive strategy. It makes much more sense for New Zealanders to confront the country’s challenges now and begin to shape a socially progressive alternative than to battle over models in the midst of a crisis. While it is true New Zealand’s fate will inevitably be caught up in the unfolding of international events, Kiwis can influence how those global dynamics shape our future.
Read more

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC | Emulate CCC ? #shredding

Link received.
Mon, 31 Aug 2015 at 2:51 p.m.

To: Dunedin ratepayers & residents —“The money or your life!?!” (who said that)

—

### Stuff.co.nz Last updated 05:00, August 31 2015
The Press
Editorial: Proposals aim to make Christchurch council streamlined, efficient
OPINION The proposals announced by Christchurch City Council chief executive Karleen Edwards last week for far-reaching changes to the council’s administrative structure come as no surprise.
The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (Cera) is beginning the process of winding down its functions. The council and many outside the council want it to be in best shape possible to stake a plausible claim for taking back all, or almost all, of the powers that have been wielded over the last four years by Cera. A fundamental reorganisation shows a seriousness of purpose that should improve that claim.

The proposals are far-reaching. They begin at the top, with seven executive leadership roles reduced to five. Overall, 175 administrative roles will be disestablished and 115 new ones created. The aim, according to Edwards, is to streamline the organisation to make it more dynamic and agile, as befits a city in the process of recreating itself.

Surveys, both of Christchurch citizens who the council is designed to serve, and of council staff themselves also show that, despite considerable efforts that have been made in the last couple of years, the council is still not functioning as smoothly and efficiently as it should be. One survey in particular in May, done after a reorganisation designed to focus the council’s operations on the rebuild, showed that many residents felt the council was operating below expectations. As Edwards said last week, the council had to respond to those concerns with significant changes in order to get it to where people expected it to be.
Read more

—

Related Post and Comments:
28.8.15 Joel Cayford: ‘Mangawhai Ratepayers at Court of Appeal’
19.8.15 Hotels ? Business ? [DCC lost +++152 fleet vehicles] —Cull in charge….
26.7.15 Leadership woes universal #Minions #DUD
17.6.15 Citifleet: ‘Checkpoint’ interviews Dave Cull
21.5.15 Tomorrow’s newspaper —Cull on CST

█ For more, enter the terms *cull*, *bidrose*, *dchl*, *stadium*, *orfu*, *delta*, *citifleet*, *cycleways*, *flood*, *pipe renewals*, *st clair*, *junkets* or *hotel* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

*Image: summation.typepad.com – untitled [tweaked by whatifdunedin]

Chamber’s Own Goals —Heritage

Peter McIntyre and John Christie from the Otago Chamber of Commerce had lots to say about the rejuvenation of Dunedin’s heritage fabric and the city’s “vibrancy” after their trip to Portland, Oregon in 2011. What they said then is directly contradicted by the Chamber’s submission on the application for resource consent to redevelop the New Zealand Loan and Mercantile Building (31-33 Thomas Burns Street) for residential use.

—

█ Full annotated copy | CoC Own Goals – Heritage (PDF 1.51 MB)

Related Posts and Comments:
11.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Building (audio)
8.8.14 NZ Loan and Mercantile Agency Co Ltd Building…

█ For more, enter the terms *loan and mercantile* or *harbourside* in the search box at right.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Council appointments (rumbles)

ODT 1.11.13
Vandervis rejected other posts, including subcommittee role: Cull

While the detail might be considered “divisive”, the following email exchange is in the public’s interest. Readers can make up their own minds on the content and politics.

Received.
Friday, 1 November 2013 10:37 a.m.

—— Forwarded Message
From: Lee Vandervis
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:49:07 +1300
]To: Chris Morris [ODT]
Conversation: Appointments
Subject: Re: Appointments

Hi,

Clearly my long business and Council experience has been sidelined by Mayor Cull as all inside Council Committees positions were closed to me, not just the really influential Chair positions but all other Council Committee positions as well. This is what Mayor Cull meant when he said of positions of responsibility – ‘I have given you nothing’.
The supposed ‘roles’ outside Council Committees that have been offered have been roles of so little use or interest that the Mayor was having trouble getting any Councillor, experienced or otherwise, to go on them. I volunteered for three of these outside Council Committee ‘roles’ but again was denied all of them.
Many of these outside Council ‘roles’ have been recently scraped or numbers of Councillors on them reduced, recognising that they are largely a waste of Councillor’s time. In the past the Mayor has had trouble finding Councillors willing to serve on them, and then trouble getting Councillors to show up once they had agreed to attend. At least when I was on such outside Council committees like Olveston , Regent Theatre, Settlers Museum, etc my attendance record was second to none, and I have done my long stints on minor committees, inside and outside Council since 2004.
My three years on the Otago Settlers Museum outside Council Committee was particularly frustrating as I was unable to influence the waste of vast amounts being spent on ridiculous items like the $700,000 glasshouse for the AB Steam Locomotive with cheap reflective glass!, or the insincere pushing of an insane observation tower to boost other budgets.

The Mayor should make up his mind whether he stands by his statement that ‘I have given you nothing’ or by his other claim that he has offered me roles. He can not claim both. The ‘roles’ he now claims have been offered to me are are all outside Council Committees and of so little consequence that the Mayor can not even remember which ones he has offered me. There is nothing to ‘work hard’ at or points to prove in such outside Council roles offered. My record of hard work and attendance on Council stands second to none.

I do not recall the Grants subcommittee offer, but I would have rejected it because I have done Grants before and am opposed to the wholesale degradation of the Grants process which used to promote Community Projects when I was first elected in 2004, but now has become largely a rate-paid gravy-train for the well-connected.

Hopefully that fully answers the contradictory claims by Mayor Cull that he both has, and has not, given me nothing.

Kind regards,
Lee

—

On 31/10/13 9:54 AM, “Chris Morris” [ODT] wrote:

Hi,

A couple of follow-ups from your email.

1. You haven’t really directly addressed the second question in my original email (below) – how you can claim to be sidelined when you were offered roles, albeit ones you didn’t really want, and turned them down?

2. The mayor says you have, to some extent, sidelined yourself by declining roles you didn’t like. Would you not have been better to accept whatever you were offered, and work hard at it to prove a point, than say no?

3. The mayor says you were (either in writing or via staff) offered at least three roles – the Toitu board role, a spot on the grants subcommittee, and a third one he can’t recall. Do you recall the grants subcommittee offer? And, if so, why did you turn that down (my understanding is that subcommittee would be an internal role)?

Chris.

—

On 30/10/2013 6:40 PM, Lee Vandervis wrote:

Re: Appointments

I was refused all 3 outside appointments that I indicated I would be prepared to work at, as well as all possible inside appointments by Mayor Cull.
I was only belatedly offered Toitu [which I had already just served 3 years on] and one other reserve nothing type appointment because staff could not get anyone else to agree to serve on them.

Mayor Cull has been unusually true to his word when he said “I have given you nothing”. That he now tries to pretend he has given me something after all is laughable.

I do not just claim to be sidelined, but to have been personally abused by Mayor Cull who has accused both me and Cr Calvert on nationwide TV as ‘having shonky policies’ without saying what these are.
I have great ability and experience which the biggest-spending and money-wasting Infrastructure Services Committee desperately needs and now will not get as its Chair because of a petulant Mayor who can not bear being exposed or criticised, and has given the Chair to a well-meaning Councillor with irrelevant legal training and no engineering understanding.

I wanted the University role because I have strong University connections, knowledge and mutually beneficial ideas for the University/DCC relationship which has stagnated in recent years. My wife is a senior lecturer there, I still have staff relationships for when I got my degree there, I have been a provider of sound and lighting system to the University for 30 years [and lived in Dundas st for 15] and want to improve parking, 30 km safety zones, better conference business cooperation rather than the current competition, and get real Uni/DCC joint ventures happening.

I wanted Otago Museum because I have worked there [eg supplied Butterfly House and other sound] because it is a Committee I have never been on before, and because Dr. Ian Griffin is a brilliant bloke who is open to new ideas. We share a love of astronomy and technology which few other Councillors understand.

Gasworks is again a Committee I have not been on before, and the opportunities for what could be done there became evident in my time as Chair of the Heritage Fund, and Heritage Buildings re-use Committee. Love of technology and its history also make this attractive.

My time on the Toitu Board was unrewarding mainly because of a management [since moved on] that were impervious to suggestions or my input. The extraordinary amount of money that was not well spent on the Toitu development was kept out of reach in terms of information [especially by Graeme Hall] and then Linda Wigley. I always felt that I was being treated like the proverbial mushroom when trying to get better value for the enormous spend at Toitu.
I am unaware of being offered any 3rd role unless it was some reserve Committee that nobody wanted to go on and staff were trying to get anybody at all.

—

On 30/10/13 3:02 PM, “Chris Morris” [ODT] wrote:

Hi Lee,

You’re probably aware I’ve had released to me today some emails relating to your run-in with Mayor Cull over the appointments process. In particular I’ve had emails relating to the outside appointments process released. They show you went for three roles, including the University Council role, but also that you were offered (and turned down) the offer to continue in your Toitu board role. Cull has also told me, in a subsequent interview this afternoon, that you were offered at least two other outside appointments verbally, the grants subcommittee and another (which he couldn’t recall), but also turned them down.

I’m interested in your comments on all this, particularly given your comments last week about the Mayor wanting to “completely sideline” you.

Can you respond to the following by 5pm:

1. Why did you turn down the outside appointments?
2. How can you claim to be sidelined, when you are offered roles and reject them?
3. The Mayor says you have sidelined yourself – what is your response?
4. Why did you want the University Council role, when it is (I’m told) traditionally always taken by the Mayor of the day?
5. Why did you want the other two roles (Otago Museum and Gasworks)?
6. Why did you consider your time on the Toitu board “unrewarding”, and the offer to continue in that role “insulting”? Aren’t there other councillors that have also accepted roles they would rather not have?
7. What was the third role you were offered and turned down? Were there any others, and why did you say no?

Feel free to add anything else and I’ll take a look.

Cheers,

Chris.

—— End of Forwarded Message

—

Above, Cr Vandervis says: I do not just claim to be sidelined, but to have been personally abused by Mayor Cull who has accused both me and Cr Calvert on nationwide TV as ‘having shonky policies’ without saying what these are.

[Interviewed by 3News before the elections] Mr Cull says he’s quietly confident he’ll get another term in office, and isn’t worried about his eight rivals. “Six of them have no public office experience, and the other two that do have a pretty shonky record at public office experience. You know, extreme, nutty policies.”

Screenshot —Mayor Cull (3News 7.10.13), read and view the item here.

—

Related Posts and Comments:
31.10.13 FYI Dunedin, through the post
29.10.13 DCC: First meeting, tidy or not
26.10.13 Mayors ‘more culpable for their council’s failings’
25.10.13 Dunedin: “no-growth city”
20.10.13 Doh, low growth for Dunedin
18.10.13 DCC: Final vote tally + St Clair boat ramp
13.10.13 Pressuring Cull and his GD Party . . .
29.9.13 Alert: Dunedin voters —Mayors gain more powers

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

DCC: New chief financial officer

### dunedintv.co.nz October 14, 2013 – 6:36pm
DCC appoints new chief financial officer
The DCC has appointed the University of Otago’s director of financial services, a former Allied Press accountant, as its chief financial officer.
Grant McKenzie has been chosen for the newly created role, with responsibility for the management of the council’s group finances.
A graduate of the University of Otago, McKenzie has a Bachelor of Commerce, majoring in accounting, is a chartered accountant, and a member of the Institute of Directors.
His role will include the provision of financial advice and support to the board of Dunedin City Holdings Limited, which looks after the council’s group of companies.
Ch39 Link

—

Dunedin City Council – Media Release
Group Chief Financial Officer Appointed

This item was published on 14 Oct 2013.

The University of Otago’s Director of Financial Services, Grant McKenzie, has been appointed as the Dunedin City Council’s Group Chief Financial Officer (GCFO).

Announcing the appointment of Mr McKenzie to this newly-created role, DCC Chief Executive Paul Orders says, “Grant will bring a wealth of knowledge and experience to the role and will be instrumental in ensuring the effective and efficient management of DCC group finances.”

Mr McKenzie is a graduate of the University. He has a Bachelor of Commerce, majoring in accounting, and is a Chartered Accountant. He is also a member of the Institute of Directors.

For the past eight and a half years, Mr McKenzie has been the University’s Director of Financial Services. In this role he has been responsible for the overall accounting function for the University and the wider University group.

Mr McKenzie is a director for several subsidiary companies within the University group, including the University of Otago Foundation Studies Limited, Unipol Recreation Limited and University Union Limited. He is also an elected trustee of the New Zealand University Superannuation Scheme.

Before working at the University, Mr McKenzie was the Group Accountant at Allied Press Limited. He has also worked for Dunedin business advisory firm Taylor McLachlan.

Mr McKenzie says, ”I’m very pleased to have been appointed to the role and look forward to the new challenges ahead.”

The new position of Group Chief Financial Officer replaces the DCC’s Chief Financial Officer (currently a vacant post),with the role expanded to include the provision of financial advice and support to the Board of Dunedin City Holdings Limited (DCHL). The role will also create more cohesive financial management between the DCC and Dunedin City Holdings Limited. Twenty eight applications were received for the position, from New Zealand and overseas.

DCHL Chair Graham Crombie says, “I’m really pleased Grant is joining us and look forward to having his experience and ideas around the table.”

The current position of Chief Executive of DCHL will be disestablished when Mr McKenzie takes up his GCFO role in late January. Mr Crombie says the significant contribution of DCHL Chief Executive Bevan Dodds will be recognised and an appropriate handover arranged.

Contact Chief Executive, Dunedin City Council on 477 4000.

DCC Link

—

Related Posts and Comments:
21.3.13 DCC: Opportunity created by Stephens’ departure
15.3.13 DCC: Stephens gone. It took way too long.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr

Mr Orders, sir! About your staff expertise…

“We don’t need consultants to tell us the time.”

### ODT Online Sat, 18 Aug 2012
Consultants cost DCC $32m
By Chris Morris
After spending more than $30 million on consultants in three years, Dunedin City Council staff are under pressure to slash spending on outside help, it has been confirmed. Figures released to the Otago Daily Times this week show the council spent $32.59 million on consultants, within Dunedin and further afield, over the past three years. Annual spending was dropping steadily, down from $13.34 million in 2009-10 to $8.66 million in 2011-12, a trend council chief executive Paul Orders was keen to see continue.
Read more

****

Comment at ODT Online:

The skills are there
Submitted by topsy on Tue, 21/08/2012 – 7:09pm.

One of the major weaknesses within the DCC organisation is the lack of a central skills database. All too often, department managers reach out to consultants because the required skill does not exist within their own department. That same skill, meanwhile, is sitting unused within a neighbouring DCC department, usually within the same building.
The DCC currently has qualified project managers, quantity surveyors, valuers, etc. The problem today is that no-one outside of that employee’s department knows that the person exists. Often that person is not employed in a role which uses their specialist skill, making it even more difficult for other department managers to identify that skill from within the DCC ranks.
I would recommend that Mr Orders conduct an in-depth staff skills survey – not amongst the managers, but directly with the staff. He may well find that he already owns the solution.

—

Posted by Elizabeth Kerr