Connect with us

New Zealand’s bipartisan housing reforms offer a model to other countries

Over the past decade, many cities around the world have experienced a significant rise in housing costs, and the large cities of New Zealand are no exception. The small nation’s median house price rose by approximately 130% between 2011 and 2021, far…

Published

on

By Ryan Greenaway-McGrevy

Over the past decade, many cities around the world have experienced a significant rise in housing costs, and the large cities of New Zealand are no exception. The small nation’s median house price rose by approximately 130% between 2011 and 2021, far outpacing household income growth and eroding housing affordability. 

Undersupply has contributed to these rising housing costs. Census data reveals that New Zealand’s population increased by 10.8% between 2013 and 2018, but the stock of occupied dwellings only increased by 6.6% over the same period—indicating that there are chronic shortages of housing in the locations where people want to live. 

In response, the New Zealand government recently passed sweeping zoning reform legislation to permit medium-density housing in all of the country’s major cities. This policy builds on the earlier success of upzoning in the country’s largest city, Auckland, to redress housing shortages by encouraging higher-density housing. The reform is also part of a broader policy shift to encourage housing construction by allowing cities to build up. 

New Zealand’s past zoning restrictions have led to increased housing costs and decreased homeownership rates 

In October 2021, New Zealand’s center-left Labour government announced the zoning reform to stimulate housing construction through redevelopment. The so-called “Medium Density Residential Standard” will require the country’s most populous cities to permit up to three stories and three dwellings on all existing residential parcels of land. The policy would allow a parcel with a detached single-family dwelling to be redeveloped into row houses or a small apartment block.

The reforms represent a significant reversal in the nation’s approach to urban planning and development. Since the 1980s, New Zealand has adopted land use policies that encouraged low-density housing in residential areas, entrenching detached single-family housing in its suburbs. Consequently, construction of high-rise apartment buildings has been limited to central business districts and areas zoned for commercial use. Construction of medium-density housing, such as the rowhouses that are commonly found in the cities on the East Coast of the United States, has been missing from the mix. 

Although local governments are responsible for the design and implementation of zoning regulations, the prevalence of low-density housing was underpinned by national-level legislation governing land use. The 1991 Resource Management Act restricted urban development and has been repeatedly criticized for insufficient recognition of housing and infrastructure in its purpose and guiding principles. The act not only presented an impediment to building vertically, but it also hampered the ability of cities to grow horizontally. A long series of official inquiries has identified its shortcomings.  

The Resource Management Act restrained housing supply and attendant infrastructure during a period of significant population growth. Between 1991 and 2018, New Zealand’s population grew by approximately two-thirds. Over the same period, the social impacts of increasing housing costs have become more acute. Housing costs for low-income New Zealanders have doubled as a proportion of their income since the 1980s, and homeownership rates have fallen while household debt has increased substantially.  

Encouraging redevelopment is a bipartisan issue 

Over the past decade, both center-left and center-right governments have deployed policies intended to rein in runaway house prices. These include both demand- and supply-side policies, such as a capital gains tax targeted at housing speculation, a ban on foreign investment in residential housing, fast-tracked inclusive housing developments, and state-subsidized housing development projects.  

The effect of monetary and macro-prudential policy on house prices has also increasingly been put under the spotlight. Upon the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the country’s central bank dropped interest rates to all-time lows and removed macro-prudential restrictions on mortgage credit, fueling a further 20% to 40% increase in house prices in different regions across the country. The government reacted by pushing for the central bank to consider house prices when setting interest rates, raising concerns that the long-held independence of the central bank was being undermined.  

Typically, a political party’s housing policies are criticized by the opposing party. However, the original announcement of the Medium Density Residential Standard in October was notable for being bipartisan. The minister for housing, Dr. Megan Woods, shared the podium with members of the opposition National Party when making the announcement, who made their own statements voicing their support. The bill was subsequently passed in December with bipartisan support. 

Bipartisanship lends the zoning reform credibility. Policies to promote redevelopment and densification are often unpopular with local residents, which raises the possibility that the policy will be overturned after the next election. But the opposition party’s public support for the bill indicates that the law will remain in place even if it wins the next election in 2023. A bipartisan commitment removes political uncertainty and encourages developers and homebuyers to incorporate the policy changes into their decision making.  

Construction in New Zealand’s largest city is booming 

This is not the first time New Zealand has turned to zoning reforms to encourage housing construction. In 2016, the nation’s largest city, Auckland, upzoned approximately three-quarters of its residential land area under the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP). Auckland houses about a third of the nation’s 5 million people, and is also the country’s commercial capital, accounting for 38% of the gross domestic product

Although motivated by a variety of factors, the undersupply of housing and erosion of housing affordability were the prominent justifications for the zoning reforms introduced under the AUP. The municipal government for the entire metropolitan area, the Auckland Council, estimated that the plan tripled the dwelling capacity of the city. 

My work with Peter Phillips shows that the AUP has enabled a construction boom. New housing units permitted have increased every year since the policy was enacted, with all of these increases occurring in the city’s upzoned areas. 

Figure 2

Immediately prior to the plan, new housing units permitted peaked at about 6,000 in 2015. By 2020, that figure had climbed to over 14,300.  

The policy also shifted residential construction into attached multifamily housing. Immediately prior to the plan, new dwelling permits for attached housing peaked at 1,300 in 2015; by 2020, that figure had climbed to 8,100. This means that most of the 14,300 new dwelling permits issued in 2020 were for attached housing. The policy also stimulated an increase in detached housing, but the increase is not nearly as great. Prior to the policy, detached permits peaked at about 4,700 in 2015; by 2019, that figure had risen to just under 6,200.   

Figure 3

Upzoning also encouraged a more compact city by stimulating construction in Auckland’s inner suburban areas, which span a radius of approximately 20 to 25 kilometers from the central business district. In 2015, about two in three housing permits issued were in the inner suburbs. By 2020, six out of every seven permits issued were for construction of a home in the inner suburbs.

The success of upzoning in Auckland provided the blueprint for more recent national zoning reforms, with the business case for the policy change based on construction activity and outcomes in the city’s medium-density zones. 

Transit-oriented housing development further encourages more compact cities 

The Medium Density Residential Standard comes on the heels of another national policy directive to encourage housing densification along public transit corridors. In 2020, the Labour government issued the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, which requires large cities to zone for residential structures of up to six stories within walking distance of rapid transit stations (approximately 800 meters, at the minimum recommendation).  

In addition to redressing the housing shortages that have accumulated over the past three decades, transit-oriented housing development is intended to lower energy consumption through shorter commutes and increased patronage of public transit, assisting the country to meet its carbon neutrality goals

New Zealand’s reforms have increased housing construction, but home prices are still high 

New Zealand’s three zoning reform policies enacted over the past five years—the Auckland Unitary Plan, the National Policy Statement on Urban Development, and the Medium Density Residential Standard—add up to a shift to encourage more housing construction through a more compact form of urban development.  

The results from Auckland to date indicate that these reforms can enable housing construction and redevelopment. This is important, as rezoning reforms do not always achieve their anticipated goals. Understanding and identifying the catalysts that enabled construction in Auckland can help policymakers in the design and implementation of zoning reforms in the future.  

What remains to be seen is the extent to which zoning reforms can enhance affordability. If the increase in housing supply in Auckland and other cities can bring down house prices in the years to come, New Zealand’s reforms can be a model for other countries struggling with housing affordability to follow.

Read More

Continue Reading

International

IVI starts technology transfer to Biological E. Limited to manufacture oral cholera vaccine for India and global markets

  Credit: IVI IVI will complete the technology transfer by 2025 Oral Cholera Vaccine to be manufactured by Biological E. Limited for India and international…

Published

on

 

Credit: IVI

  • IVI will complete the technology transfer by 2025
  • Oral Cholera Vaccine to be manufactured by Biological E. Limited for India and international markets

 

March 20, 2024, SEOUL, Republic of Korea and HYDERABAD, India — The International Vaccine Institute (IVI), an international organization with a mission to discover, develop, and deliver safe, effective, and affordable vaccines for global health, today announced that it has commenced a technology transfer of simplified Oral Cholera Vaccine (OCV-S) to Biological E. Limited (BE), a leading India-based Vaccines and Pharmaceutical Company.

 

Following the signing of a technology license agreement in November last year, IVI has begun providing the technical information, know-how, and materials to produce OCV-S at BE facilities and will continue to support necessary clinical development and regulatory approvals. IVI and BE entered this partnership during an unprecedented surge of cholera outbreaks worldwide and aim to increase the volume of low-cost cholera vaccine in India as well as the global public market.

 

IVI will complete the technology transfer by 2025 and the oral cholera vaccine will be manufactured for India and international markets by Biological E. Limited.

 

Dr. Jerome Kim, Director General of IVI, said: “In an era of heightened risk of poverty-associated infectious diseases such as cholera, the world needs a sustainable source of high-quality, affordable vaccines and committed manufacturers to supply them. We are pleased to partner with Biological E., a company with a proven history of making life-saving vaccines accessible globally, to address this supply gap and protect communities from this deadly, though preventable, disease.”

 

Ms. Mahima Datla, Managing Director, Biological E. Limited, said: “We are glad to be in collaboration with IVI for the manufacture of simplified Oral Cholera Vaccine. Our efforts are aimed to not only combat the disease but to also be part of a sustained legacy of innovation, collaboration, and health stewardship. Together with IVI, we are happy to be shaping a healthier and more resilient future by making this vaccine accessible globally.”

 

This technology transfer and licensing agreement is the sixth of its kind for IVI, transferring such technology to manufacturers in India, the Republic of Korea, Bangladesh, and South Africa. All these partnerships have led to or seek to achieve, pre-qualification (PQ) from the World Health Organization, a designation that enables global agencies such as UNICEF to procure the vaccine for the global market. BE already has 9 vaccines with WHO PQ in its portfolio, and IVI and BE will pursue WHO PQ for OCV-S as well, following national licensure in India.

 

Dr. Julia Lynch, Director of IVI’s Cholera Program, said: “The cholera situation is dire, and the availability and use of oral cholera vaccine is an essential part of a multifaceted approach to cholera control and prevention, especially as outbreaks increase and the global vaccine supply remains strained. With more manufacturers like BE entering the market, the future supply situation looks strong. IVI remains committed to ensuring the availability of the oral cholera vaccine and to developing new and improved vaccines that are equally safe, effective, and affordable and made around the world, for the world.”

 

OCV-S is a simplified formulation of OCV with the potential to lower production costs while increasing production capacity for current and aspiring OCV manufacturers. IVI’s development of OCV-S and ongoing technology transfers are part of an institutional strategy to confront cholera with 3 main goals: 1) Ensure supply of OCV 2) Improve cholera vaccines 3) Support OCV use and introduction. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has been supporting IVI’s cholera program since 2000 and is funding this latest technology transfer to BE.

 

###

 

About the International Vaccine Institute (IVI)

The International Vaccine Institute (IVI) is a non-profit international organization established in 1997 at the initiative of the United Nations Development Programme with a mission to discover, develop, and deliver safe, effective, and affordable vaccines for global health.

IVI’s current portfolio includes vaccines at all stages of pre-clinical and clinical development for infectious diseases that disproportionately affect low- and middle-income countries, such as cholera, typhoid, chikungunya, shigella, salmonella, schistosomiasis, hepatitis E, HPV, COVID-19, and more. IVI developed the world’s first low-cost oral cholera vaccine, pre-qualified by the World Health Organization (WHO), and developed a new-generation typhoid conjugate vaccine that also achieved WHO prequalification in early 2024.

IVI is headquartered in Seoul, Republic of Korea with a Europe Regional Office in Sweden, an Africa Regional Office in Rwanda, a Country Office in Austria, and a Country and Project Office in Kenya. IVI additionally co-founded the Hong Kong Jockey Club Global Health Institute in Hong Kong and hosts Collaborating Centers in Ghana, Ethiopia, and Madagascar. 39 countries and the WHO are members of IVI, and the governments of the Republic of Korea, Sweden, India, Finland, and Thailand provide state funding. For more information, please visit https://www.ivi.int.

 

 

About Biological E. Limited

Biological E. Limited (BE), a Hyderabad-based Pharmaceuticals & Biologics Company founded in 1953, is the first private sector biological products company in India and the first pharmaceutical company in Southern India. BE develops, manufactures and supplies vaccines and therapeutics. BE supplies its vaccines to more than 130 countries and its therapeutic products are sold in India, the USA and Europe. BE currently has 8 WHO-prequalified vaccines and 10 USFDA approved Generic Injectables in its portfolio. Recently, BE has received Emergency Use Listing (EUL) from the WHO for CORBEVAX®, the COVID-19 vaccine. Recently, DCGI has approved BE’S 14-Valent Pneumococcal Conjugate vaccine.

In recent years, BE has embarked on new initiatives for organizational expansion such as developing specialty injectable products for global markets as a means to manufacture APIs sustainably and developing novel vaccines for the global market.

Please follow us on Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter

 

 

MEDIA CONTACTS

IVI

Aerie Em, Global Communications & Advocacy Manager
+82 2 881 1386 | aerie.em@ivi.int

 

Biological E. Limited

K. Vijay Amruth Raj
Email: Vijay.Kammari@biologicale.com
www.biologicale.com/news


Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Apartment permits are back to recession lows. Will mortgage rates follow?

If housing leads us into a recession in the near future, that means mortgage rates have stayed too high for too long.

Published

on

In Tuesday’s report, the 5-unit housing permits data hit the same levels we saw in the COVID-19 recession. Once the backlog of apartments is finished, those jobs will be at risk, which traditionally means mortgage rates would fall soon after, as they have in previous economic cycles.

However, this is happening while single-family permits are still rising as the rate of builder buy-downs and the backlog of single-family homes push single-family permits and starts higher. It is a tale of two markets — something I brought up on CNBC earlier this year to explain why this trend matters with housing starts data because the two marketplaces are heading in opposite directions.

The question is: Will the uptick in single-family permits keep mortgage rates higher than usual? As long as jobless claims stay low, the falling 5-unit apartment permit data might not lead to lower mortgage rates as it has in previous cycles.

From Census: Building Permits: Privately‐owned housing units authorized by building permits in February were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,518,000. This is 1.9 percent above the revised January rate of 1,489,000 and 2.4 percent above the February 2023 rate of 1,482,000.

When people say housing leads us in and out of a recession, it is a valid premise and that is why people carefully track housing permits. However, this housing cycle has been unique. Unfortunately, many people who have tracked this housing cycle are still stuck on 2008, believing that what happened during COVID-19 was rampant demand speculation that would lead to a massive supply of homes once home sales crashed. This would mean the builders couldn’t sell more new homes or have housing permits rise.

Housing permits, starts and new home sales were falling for a while, and in 2022, the data looked recessionary. However, new home sales were never near the 2005 peak, and the builders found a workable bottom in sales by paying down mortgage rates to boost demand. The first level of job loss recessionary data has been averted for now. Below is the chart of the building permits.



On the other hand, the apartment boom and bust has already happened. Permits are already back to the levels of the COVID-19 recession and have legs to move lower. Traditionally, when this data line gets this negative, a recession isn’t far off. But, as you can see in the chart below, there’s a big gap between the housing permit data for single-family and five units. Looking at this chart, the recession would only happen after single-family and 5-unit permits fall together, not when we have a gap like we see today.

From Census: Housing completions: Privately‐owned housing completions in February were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,729,000.

As we can see in the chart below, we had a solid month of housing completions. This was driven by 5-unit completions, which have been in the works for a while now. Also, this month’s report show a weather impact as progress in building was held up due to bad weather. However, the good news is that more supply of rental units will mean the fight against rent inflation will be positive as more supply is the best way to deal with inflation. In time, that is also good news for mortgage rates.



Housing Starts: Privately‐owned housing starts in February were at a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 1,521,000. This is 10.7 percent (±14.2 percent)* above the revised January estimate of 1,374,000 and is 5.9 percent (±10.0 percent)* above the February 2023 rate of 1,436,000.

Housing starts data beat to the upside, but the real story is that the marketplace has diverged into two different directions. The apartment boom is over and permits are heading below the COVID-19 recession, but as long as the builders can keep rates low enough to sell more new homes, single-family permits and starts can slowly move forward.

If we lose the single-family marketplace, expect the chart below to look like it always does before a recession — meaning residential construction workers lose their jobs. For now, the apartment construction workers are at the most risk once they finish the backlog of apartments under construction.

Overall, the housing starts beat to the upside. Still, the report’s internals show a marketplace with early recessionary data lines, which traditionally mean mortgage rates should go lower soon. If housing leads us into a recession in the near future, that means mortgage rates have stayed too high for too long and restrictive policy by the Fed created a recession as we have seen in previous economic cycles.

The builders have been paying down rates to keep construction workers employed, but if rates go higher, it will get more and more challenging to do this because not all builders have the capacity to buy down rates. Last year, we saw what 8% mortgage rates did to new home sales; they dropped before rates fell. So, this is something to keep track of, especially with a critical Federal Reserve meeting this week.

Read More

Continue Reading

Government

Young People Aren’t Nearly Angry Enough About Government Debt

Young People Aren’t Nearly Angry Enough About Government Debt

Authored by The American Institute for Economic Research,

Young people sometimes…

Published

on

Young People Aren't Nearly Angry Enough About Government Debt

Authored by The American Institute for Economic Research,

Young people sometimes seem to wake up in the morning in search of something to be outraged about. We are among the wealthiest and most educated humans in history. But we’re increasingly convinced that we’re worse off than our parents were, that the planet is in crisis, and that it’s probably not worth having kids.

I’ll generalize here about my own cohort (people born after 1981 but before 2010), commonly referred to as Millennials and Gen Z, as that shorthand corresponds to survey and demographic data. Millennials and Gen Z have valid economic complaints, and the conditions of our young adulthood perceptibly weakened traditional bridges to economic independence. We graduated with record amounts of student debt after President Obama nationalized that lending. Housing prices doubled during our household formation years due to zoning impediments and chronic underbuilding. Young Americans say economic issues are important to us, and candidates are courting our votes by promising student debt relief and cheaper housing (which they will never be able to deliver).

Young people, in our idealism and our rational ignorance of the actual appropriations process, typically support more government intervention, more spending programs, and more of every other burden that has landed us in such untenable economic circumstances to begin with. Perhaps not coincidentally, young people who’ve spent the most years in the increasingly partisan bubble of higher education are also the most likely to favor expanded government programs as a “solution” to those complaints.

It’s Your Debt, Boomer 

What most young people don’t yet understand is that we are sacrificing our young adulthood and our financial security to pay for debts run up by Baby Boomers. Part of every Millennial and Gen-Z paycheck is payable to people the same age as the members of Congress currently milking this system and miring us further in debt.

Our government spends more than it can extract from taxpayers. Social Security, which represents 20 percent of government spending, has run an annual deficit for 15 years. Last year Social Security alone overspent by $22.1 billion. To keep sending out checks to retirees, Social Security goes begging to the Treasury Department, and the Treasury borrows from the public by issuing bonds. Bonds allow investors (who are often also taxpayers) to pay for some retirees’ benefits now, and be paid back later. But investors only volunteer to lend Social Security the money it needs to cover its bills because the (younger) taxpayers will eventually repay the debt — with interest.

In other words, both Social Security and Medicare, along with various smaller federal entitlement programs, together comprising almost half of the federal budget, have been operating for a decade on the principle of “give us the money now, and stick the next generation with the check.” We saddle future generations with debt for present-day consumption.

The second largest item in the budget after Social Security is interest on the national debt — largely on Social Security and other entitlements that have already been spent. These mandatory benefits now consume three quarters of the federal budget: even Congress is not answerable for these programs. We never had the chance for our votes to impact that spending (not that older generations were much better represented) and it’s unclear if we ever will.

Young Americans probably don’t think much about the budget deficit (each year’s overspending) or the national debt (many years’ deficits put together, plus interest) much at all. And why should we? For our entire political memory, the federal government, as well as most of our state governments, have been steadily piling “public” debt upon our individual and collective heads. That’s just how it is. We are the frogs trying to make our way in the watery world as the temperature ticks imperceptibly higher. We have been swimming in debt forever, unaware that we’re being economically boiled alive.

Millennials have somewhat modest non-mortgage debt of around $27,000 (some self-reports say twice that much), including car notes, student loans, and credit cards. But we each owe more than $100,000 as a share of the national debt. And we don’t even know it.

When Millennials finally do have babies (and we are!) that infant born in 2024 will enter the world with a newly minted Social Security Number and $78,089 credit card bill for Granddad’s heart surgery and the interest on a benefit check that was mailed when her parents were in middle school. 

Headlines and comments sections love to sneer at “snowflakes” who’ve just hit the “real world,” and can’t figure out how to make ends meet, but the kids are onto something. A full 15 percent of our earnings are confiscated to pay into retirement and healthcare programs that will be insolvent by the time we’re old enough to enjoy them. The Federal Reserve and government debt are eating the economy. The same interest rates that are pushing mortgages out of reach are driving up the cost of interest to maintain the debt going forward. As we learn to save and invest, our dollars are slowly devalued. We’re right to feel trapped.  

Sure, if we’re alive and own a smartphone, we’re among the one percent of the wealthiest humans who’ve ever lived. Older generations could argue (persuasively!) that we have no idea what “poverty” is anymore. But with the state of government spending and debt…we are likely to find out. 

Despite being richer than Rockefeller, Millennials are right to say that the previous ways of building income security have been pushed out of reach. Our earning years are subsidizing not our own economic coming-of-age, but bank bailouts, wars abroad, and retirement and medical benefits for people who navigated a less-challenging wealth-building landscape. 

Redistribution goes both ways. Boomers are expected to pass on tens of trillions in unprecedented wealth to their children (if it isn’t eaten up by medical costs, despite heavy federal subsidies) and older generations’ financial support of the younger has had palpable lifting effects. Half of college costs are paid by families, and the trope of young people moving back home is only possible if mom and dad have the spare room and groceries to make that feasible.

Government “help” during COVID-19 resulted in the worst inflation in 40 years, as the federal government spent $42,000 per citizen on “stimulus” efforts, right around a Millennial’s average salary at that time. An absurd amount of fraud was perpetrated in the stimulus to save an economy from the lockdown that nearly ruined itTrillions in earmarked goodies were rubber stamped, carelessly added to young people’s growing bill. Government lenders deliberately removed fraud controls, fearing they couldn’t hand out $800 billion in young people’s future wages away fast enough. Important lessons were taught by those programs. The importance of self-sufficiency and the dignity of hard work weren’t top of the list.

Boomer Benefits are Stagnating Hiring, Wages, and Investment for Young People

Even if our workplace engagement suffered under government distortions, Millennials continue to work more hours than other generations and invest in side hustles and self employment at higher rates. Working hard and winning higher wages almost doesn’t matter, though, when our purchasing power is eaten from the other side. Buying power has dropped 20 percent in just five years. Life is $11,400/year more expensive than it was two years ago and deficit spending is the reason why

We’re having trouble getting hired for what we’re worth, because it costs employers 30 percent more than just our wages to employ us. The federal tax code both requires and incentivizes our employers to transfer a bunch of what we earned directly to insurance companies and those same Boomer-busted federal benefits, via tax-deductible benefits and payroll taxes. And the regulatory compliance costs of ravenous bureaucratic state. The price paid by each employer to keep each employee continues to rise — but Congress says your boss has to give most of the increase to someone other than you. 

Federal spending programs that many people consider good government, including Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and health insurance for children (CHIP) aren’t a small amount of the federal budget. Government spends on these programs because people support and demand them, and because cutting those benefits would be a re-election death sentence. That’s why they call cutting Social Security the “third rail of politics.” If you touch those benefits, you die. Congress is held hostage by Baby Boomers who are running up the bill with no sign of slowing down. 

Young people generally support Social Security and the public health insurance programs, even though a 2021 poll by Nationwide Financial found 47 percent of Millennials agree with the statement “I will not get a dime of the Social Security benefits I have earned.”

In the same survey, Millennials were the most likely of any generation to believe that Social Security benefits should be enough to live on as a sole income, and guessed the retirement age was 52 (it’s 67 for anyone born after 1959 — and that’s likely to rise). Young people are the most likely to see government guarantees as a valid way to live — even though we seem to understand that those promises aren’t guarantees at all.

Healthcare costs tied to an aging population and wonderful-but-expensive growth in medical technologies and medications will balloon over the next few years, and so will the deficits in Boomer benefit programs. Newly developed obesity drugs alone are expected to add $13.6 billion to Medicare spending. By 2030, every single Baby Boomer will be 65, eligible for publicly funded healthcare.

The first Millennial will be eligible to claim Medicare (assuming the program exists and the qualifying age is still 65, both of which are improbable) in 2046. As it happens, that’s also the year that the Boomer benefits programs (which will then be bloated with Gen Xers) and the interest payments we’re incurring to provide those benefits now, are projected to consume 100 percent of federal tax revenue.

Government spending is being transferred to bureaucrats and then to the beneficiaries of government spending who are, in some sense, your diabetic grandma who needs a Medicare-paid dialysis treatment, but in a much more immediate sense, are the insurance companiespharma giants, and hospital corporations who wrote the healthcare legislation. Some percentage of every college graduate’s paycheck buys bullets that get fired at nothing and inflating the private investment portfolios of government contractors, with dubious, wasteful outcomes from the prison-industrial complex to the perpetual war machine.

No bank or nation in the world can lend the kind of money the American government needs to borrow to fulfill its obligations to citizens. Someone will have to bite the bullet. Even some of the co-authors of the current disaster are wrestling with the truth. 

Forget avocado toast and streaming subscriptions. We’re already sensing it, but we haven’t yet seen it. Young people are not well-informed, and often actively misled, about what’s rotten in this economic system. But we are seeing the consequences on store shelves and mortgage contracts and we can sense disaster is coming. We’re about to get stuck with the bill.

Tyler Durden Tue, 03/19/2024 - 20:20

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending