I also agree that supply is not limiting if we change our mindset about the 1/4 acre and build up instead of out. But continuing to sprawl out fails in so many ways.

Regulation is driven by two things – and this is happening all over the world.

1. Too many people and not enough jobs – so we train them in “theory” without “practice” to b e “chiefs” and then we have to find them jobs – and hey guess what chiefs like to do – tell others what to do!

2. As supply gets scarce it the commodity seems to get focused on for regualtion – we see this with protein – with fisheries collapsing and meat prices rocketing and the associated regulation of meat trade; oil, and many other commodities previous generations tended to take for granted.

So supply and demand are very hard to separate, but the underlying problem is the demand caused by the oversupply of people on a global scale.

the second part of my second to last comment disappeared, but basically I think you raise an interesting point about regulation and ‘limits of supply’ being interdependent.

As you can probably see I disagree because deciding when we have reached the limit and that regulation is justified is a trade off between affordable housing and planners’ visions of what a city should be. If we really had reached some natural limit no regulation would be necessary to prevent further development, but it clearly is. You might think we have reached the ‘limit of growth’ in Orewa, but a quick trip to the gold coast shows quite how ridiculous that idea is.

The comments above about growth depending on creative use of resources rather than the actual amount of resources applies to you too. If you want a practical example, take my cellphone:

It does voice, data, text messaging, holds 2GB of audio, has a 3.2MP camera, a radio tuner, and a host of other ‘personal organiser’ features like notes etc. 20 years ago I would have had to carry around a backpack of batteries, CDs, camera films (full of chemicals), and numerous plastic boexes full of electronic components. In other words, apart from the fact that a recent graduate like me couldn’t have afforded or carried around the functionality I now get from my cellphone, I now get all that value from a fraction of the plastic, copper, silicon and other ‘environmental resources’ that would have been required 20 years ago.

Now here is a question, do you think you just happen, in 2007 to live in a time when we have finally reached the ‘limits to growth?’

I predict that in 2027 I will remember my cellphone the same way I currently think of my ‘backpack’ from 1987.

For one thing Demographia doesn’t include coastal land unless you want to include Kohimarama. For another, if you think supply can be ‘used up’ then I wonder if you are a descendent of the US Patent office official who resigned in 1890 because ‘everything that could be invented already had been?’ Perhaps you are one of Malthus’ descendents who has miraculously failed to starve?

Supply depends on better and more creative use of the resources we have to provide the things we want, it is limited only by the creativity of the human mind.

I did not mean to imply it was only immigaration – it was also fueled by the panic of the baby boomers seeing their retirement looming and house prices flattening off. Now, I would be prepared to have a bad retirement if my kids could afford houses, so its backfired at least on us thinking baby boomers.

While it is true that housing is very difficult to afford in New Zealand’s major centres it is also very naive to explain this purely in terms of demand. Perhaps housing demand has been increased by foreign investment and immigration (I suspect its emotional appeal far exceeds its true impact), but around the world the correlation between house price rises and land use restrictions by city planners, not trade liberalisation. Prices are set bu demand AND supply (see http://www.demographia.com/ for more).

As for the comment about not a single Nat writing anything comparable, I think the answer IS obvious. The culture of the National party is conservative and, rhetoric aside, visionless. Rodney’s book is a great example of why NZ needs ACT. That is not to say that National is unnecessary, just insufficient.

Personally I would have preferred that my kids and other hard working kiwis could have afforded houses.

So like labour, National would rather invest in property speculation and siphoning money through the government than in the productive economy. So please don’t play the dumb little innocent Adolf, when you know very well what we are referring to.

OK Mr Bean if your that dumb I will have to spell it out for you. New Zealand is appearing to probper because we earn a small amount of money but the government cycles it through the economy at a rapid rate. In addition to keep the consumber economy afloat the government relases rules on borrowing. It hopes to pay this back by stealing off the farmers and exporting enough land before the next time Beijing sneezes.

Can you see any flaws in this approach?

Do you realise that this photo orginally appeared on Rodney Hide’s blog (rodneyhide.com) or do you not read it?

Yep, traditionally people did have to work to earn a buck. But now too many people just sit on their sorry arses in Rotovegas and bash 3 yr olds to death while I pay them to do so each Thursday morning. And yes, ACT is closely aligned to successful people. ACT shouldn’t apologise for that.