A visit to art deco central – and its poverty

I visited my home town of Napier a few weeks back and was stunned by the obvious poverty now evident across the place – this in the past twelve months, since a disastrous cyclone. This much poverty hasn’t generated that quickly, but it’s as if the cyclone made it visible.

There are homeless people trying to live on the Marine Parade beach where I used to kick around as a kid. It didn’t feel safe to walk on streets that I’d happily walked about – day and night – years ago. Social media is awash with reports of break-ins, petty thefts and vandalism. And there’s a major gang problem.

This, it seems, is twenty-first century New Zealand.

Napier’s Gilray Fountain and the ‘Spirit of Napier’ statue, on the beach where I used to play as a kid. The azure Pacific crashes and roars behind.

The local New Zealand problems are shared with the rest of the western world, one way or another. How has it happened? The cause is the neo-liberal economic system, which structurally syphons wealth from the poor into the pockets of rich corporates whose sole purpose is to maximise profit for shareholders.

The first mechanism by which this happens is price stability, the darling of the neo-liberal movement because it helps corporate financial planning and thus profits. To an extent price stability also helps households – but not if you look deeper into the mechanisms. Back in the 1960s-70s, high inflation eroded the value of savings – but also debts. Income, however, was typically inflation-corrected. Thus an everyday middle-class mortgage could be paid off purely through the erosion of its value in what economists call ‘real’ terms. This had the effect of transferring wealth from lenders to house-owners. The lenders, quite rightly, didn’t much like it – but the problem since has been that this inequity has simply been reversed, not given equitable treatment. With ‘price stability’ reigning supreme for all but the last three or four years, mortgages hold their value. People can’t so easily own homes – and worse, there is a looming debt crisis.

Second, deregulation has opened the door for monopolies and increasing corporate control over everyday lives. People are paying more and more for vital services where they have little say over pricing, including necessities of life. Here in New Zealand food prices are controlled by a foreign-owned monopsony, for instance. Already people can’t always pay.

Thirdly, the tax system has swung from a mid-twentieth century focus on income taxes to one in which corporate and income taxes are lowered and where the difference is made up with sales taxes. This discriminates against the poor. Consider: Person A has a weekly income of $1000 and costs of $200. Person B has a weekly income of $100 and costs of $100.  Government then sets a ten percent sales tax. That’s no problem for Person A, who still has a $780 weekly excess of income over costs, but suddenly Person B has costs that exceed income and can’t make ends meet. Eventually, Person B can’t cut back any further. Various countries have addressed this by, for instance, excluding food from sales tax. But that isn’t the case in New Zealand, where Goods and Services Tax applies to everything.

We’ve had 40-odd years of this system across the western world, and it’s fast approaching the point where debts will be unable to be paid, where middle income earners won’t be able to make ends meet, and where poverty is endemic. Add to that the consequences of 40 years of infrastructure under-funding, and the fact that every new government does nothing to change the failed system, and I keep thinking that the twenty first century isn’t going to end very well.

Thoughts?

Copyright © Matthew Wright 2024


13 thoughts on “A visit to art deco central – and its poverty

  1. My thought is you’re one of the few voices of sense in the mania of everything. And I know that’s not an ego boost, it’s just… I don’t think this is anything new. The history books I’ve read and this has been the structure for a long time. Overpaid types, underpaid most.

    Such a simple solution – distribute wealth fairly. The humans at the top won’t do it, which is the FOLLY. Or avarice. I believe.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Yes exactly. History offers repeated lessons in what happens when one group manages to funnel wealth to themselves. None of them end well. The problem today in terms of finding proper equitability is that the corporate neoliberal system – which is only a version of capitalism, not capitalism as a whole – has dominated to the point where even discussion of alternatives has been shut down.

      What worries me in the immediate is the disproportionate power held by corporates, whose sole purpose is to make money for their shareholders, irrespective of any other consideration. If you consider a corporate as a person, they’d be psychotic. I also question whether this version of capitalism is the one actually envisaged by Messrs Smith, etc, whose markets involved hundreds of players, not just a few dominators who call the shots.

      But this aside, the way in which wealth continues to be funnelled away from large parts of the western population is unsustainable. What worries me is that governments have repeatedly failed to address the problem, leading to erosion of faith in the democratic system. And while it’s not a great system, it’s undoubtedly the best humanity has come up with for governing on scales larger than groups of about 150 (a number I use deliberately, vide Robin Dunbar). Democracy is precious, but all I can see coming is breakage. Amidst all the chaos, the principles of reason – both reasoning and reasonableness – have been lost. Damn.

      Here’s a piece on the corporate/psychotic issue from 2011. Interesting stuff: https://www.psychologytoday.com/nz/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/why-corporations-are-psychotic

      Liked by 3 people

      1. It’s going to be interesting to see what America does with the election later this year. In England our general election will be later this year, too.

        Thanks for the link! “Psychopath” and “narcissist” do get thrown around a lot and overused, but they’re very applicable in the business world. Some of my bosses have been nuts.

        I think most people don’t want to address the issue and breeze over it all with the standard maxims, “If you’re poor you should work harder” etc. Bit of denial there.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Ah yes, the ‘it’s the fault of the victims’ mentality. I ran into an aspect of that a few months ago when I met a local businessman who employs a fair number of people and insisted they were being paid too much. Apparently he was having problems with absenteeism, which he decided was because his workers were awash with money and felt they didn’t need to work all the hours in the day. His answer was to cut back their pay. I’d met the guy to discuss a possible book he wanted written, but felt I couldn’t in ethical honesty hook my band-wagon to this mind-set.

          Apropos the US elections – well, interesting times. What worries me is the way the US legal system is struggling to conduct what should be normal processes, due to the political overtones. In that, I’m less worried about what will happen when a certain ‘orange gentleman’ wins, as the legacy of any changes he will make to the checks-and-balances of Jefferson’s system. Once that particular door is opened it can’t be easily closed, if at all. Ouch. Meanwhile, I really don’t know what is happening in British politics – it looks to me as if it’s mirroring the NZ experience, in which governments keep being voted out, but there’s no firm mandate for a new one and the incoming administrations then cobbled up out of the electoral mess don’t tackle the need for new direction. Instead they attempt to re-run the old policies, only harder and faster. It’s like a comedy in which the absurdity keeps getting madder and madder as the end approaches. And history tells me there’s only one way this can end.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. That boss sounds a bit delusional. I do think overprivilege leads to a sense of pomposty and paranoia (all the ps). Well done for skipping on him.

            Thankfully, for my current boss is very decent. So, they’re not all bad… just a big chunk of them. *ahem* If you’ve not heard of him, check out what Dan Price did in the US. Trump wouldn’t like that.

            Liked by 1 person

    1. It’s part of the human condition, I fear: large swathes of the western population are powerless to change the situation – a product of the way in which corporate power now dominates even politics. Easy explanations, however, foolish, become appealing in such circumstance, giving the illusion that some of the power, at least, has been clawed back. That’s led to some really crazy conspiracy theories gaining traction – and opened the door for self-interested politicians to promise whatever the dispossessed want. It won’t be delivered, of course, but that’s not why it’s being offered. The scary part is that this particular phenomenon has happened many times across history, and it’s always gone badly.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. We have a 10% GST as well, but back in the day, fresh food was made exempt. There have been rumblings to either increase the GST or make it cover food as well, but so far we’ve dodged that bullet. Homelessness and poverty have increased a lot though.
    On a personal level, we have a roof over our heads, but the income vs cost situation of person B is looming.
    There needs to be a crackdown on corporations, but they’re now so big, I doubt that many governments are game to touch them.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. On this side of the Tasman, alas, GST is 15 percent. It was raised by a National government over a decade ago, in compensation for ‘tax cuts’ that, certainly in my household, were more than swallowed by the GST increase. Poverty is getting really bad these days, as is petty theft – often, it seems, of basic foodstuffs. Kids with no hope or prospect of jobs wander around vandalising things and stealing from letterboxes. The current government – a conglomerate of the political rubbish left after the last election, which got rid of the last government without clearly identifying a successor – is led by a grinning imbecile who re-defines ‘stupid’. He’s backed by two other parties, one led by a right-winger who’s a dead ringer for Rimmer from Red Dwarf and about as inane. The other is purely a vehicle for its leader, a cunning old politician who’s likely to be the one actually calling the shots behind the scenes. So far their solution to New Zealand’s problems has been to ‘crack down’ on crime and slash government spending. They were going to compensate for all of this by (wait for it) cutting taxes, but news this morning indicates that’s dubious now. So New Zealand will basically just get thumped.

      Amidst all of this the key issue – an economic system that has enabled large foreign corporates to dominate the domestic economy – is untouched. A few years back I found the Japanese occupation plan for New Zealand, sitting in the Prime Minister’s papers in Archives New Zealand. It was the usual formula by which a conquering nation can economically exploit the defeated and occupied loser via its own private-enterprise base – every single step of which was actually done by the neo-liberals when they came to power forty-odd years later. Matters remain that way today. The worst of it is that, had NZ been invaded and occupied in 1942, anybody helping the occupiers exploit the economy in this manner would have been charged with treason. Half a century later, the neo-liberals who did the same thing got knighthoods. Ouch.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ouch, indeed. Have you written this book yet? Because most ordinary people haven’t even heard of neo-liberalism. They know nothing about economics, or history, so they don’t even know when they’re voting against their own best interests. 😦

        Liked by 1 person

  3. p.s. Just finished reading that article about corporate entities being ‘psychotic’. It’s a fabulous article and highlights the chasm between corporate ‘shareholders’ and small business/partnerships. Shareholders face no consequences for the misdeeds of the corporations they ‘own’, where as small business owners can lose everything if they’re caught doing the wrong thing.

    I know this is much too simplistic to ever get off the ground, but wouldn’t it be nice if Board members and shareholders were made liable for the actions of the corporation they control?

    Personally, I’d love to see Zuckerberg doing time. 😉

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Your blog and especially your final thought makes me wonder which of the last twenty centuries have ended well. As long as human nature does not change, history will keep repeating itself.

    Like

    1. History offers dismal lessons about humanity, unfortunately. Specific narrative events never repeat per se, but the frameworks and broad outcomes are often similar. As Mark Twain once remarked, history often echoes.

      Like

Comments are closed.