This entry was posted
on Thursday, April 16th, 2009 at 7:38 am and is filed under Uncategorized.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
Ahhhh, able to take relaxing hot shower with plenty of pressure, under the brightness of my 50w halogens and thinking “how lucky we are not to have a government dictating my shower pressure or lighting ability”
It’s a wonderful world indeed Patrick and how happy you will be knowing that the generous tax cut you received recently will cover the increase to your power bill, maybe…
Last week (April The Southland Timesreported on an elderly woman who had been attacked by two mastiff dogs. She was treated in hospital for bite wounds.
The next day it was reported that the dog’s owner would fight to keep one of them alive. She blamed the victim for the attack:
But Renee Bartlett said her dogs were boisterous rather than vicious and she did not believe they intended to hurt pensioner Noeline Shaw. They had become excited and jumped on Mrs Shaw in a playful fashion but when Mrs Shaw had “freaked out” they had also freaked out, Ms Bartlett believed.
Today The Southland Timesreports that the dogs have been stolen from the council pound in a “commando raid”.
The dogs’ owner blames The Southland Times for the theft:
The owner of the two dogs, Renee Bartlett, said she had no idea who had stolen her dogs or where they were. She blamed The Southland Times for the thefts as the paper had named her as the dogs’ owner, which had alerted people to the identity of the dogs in the pound, she said.
Unconfirmed rumour from an unreliable source in the Labour party that Winston is paying back all the stolen taxpayers money from his Horse racing winnings on Vela surpise apparently the cash is being handed over in an old copy of the fishing times kindly supplied from one his fishy friends who is Scampying off for the winter.
If her dogs had wanted to hurt Mrs Shaw they could have, she said. “There’s over 100kg of dogs there. If they wanted to destroy that lady they would have done a hell of a lot more damage than was done.”
I’m sure that makes the victim feel much better, if not totally ashamed she freaked out those poor (presumably roaming free) dogs.
Meanwhile, on the flipside, you’ve got to feel sorry & relieved for this old guy
Inventory2 – lucky indeed, though I’d already done three hours work before I logged on to Kiwiblog.
Read the papers early as well. Noted that Eric Roy is still talking about ‘ongoing tax cuts’ in the Southland Times. Does National have a common song sheet for its MPs to sing from or are they all just winging it? Thinking of Nick Smith and his plastic bag proposal (No! says John Key, No Nick!) or any number of other misfires and miscommunications from outspoken, or just spoken, MPs) Is it going to be No! No Eric? ‘Spect so.
“knowing that the generous tax cut you received ” – wont need it for the power bill greenfly, Im thinking of putting it toward a bigger V8 – You know…. the pressures off now that we have a kyoto suplus and everything
And since March 2009 was the coolest March this century we can all now relax on GW, the earth is starting to cool down now.
On holiday today, looking forward to spending my extra tax cut on a motorised scooter for my boys.
Patrick – at around $10 a week, you’ll be waiting a long time for your V8! If National do follow up their ‘helping the high-end’ tax cut with others, how well do you think the New Zealand public (those that fall outside of the ‘rich’ bracket that did best from the first round of national’s tax cuts) will receive that slap-in-the-face ?
The Kyoto surplus is great news indeed. Is Rodney Hide going to give it all back because it’s just a con?
Whilst watching the advertorials on NZONE TV, and my life is truly sparse. I don’t have an adaptable ladder set. A 4×4 sucker upper that is magic at collecting dry cat food, raisins, and all type of items at this size which are dry and light.
A laser hair remover, some sheepskin under-blanket with a few magnets in it, or thin lizzy and the 6 in one beauty treatment.
Now an erasing sponge that gets rid of every blight in the house or garage. Or a new type of execise machine that transforms your body for 2 minutes use a day, and fits so well under the bed.
The presenters of these products have all escaped from the regular round of home shows. Their presentation is slick, and pointless.
“This product is built to last a lifetime, and so we are giving you a full year guarantee” WTF, like the consumer legislation has no bite.
The most presenter is the robotic blond who is delusional enough to believe that she is attractive, looks 15 years younger than her age, and bizarrely inserts PURAZ 100% COLLAGEN twice in every sentence.
Why would you want to put COZ/BOVINE extracts into your body, and pay for the priveledge.
These advertorials are inane, boring, and full of products that will soon find themselves in the bin, garage store, or even the spare bedroom that you never use.
Fairplay to the supporting presenters who ask patsy questions, so sincerely. God, I want to vomit. (Must be all that Cow Shit I have been swallowing every night!!)
Good to see you talking about taxes and national policies again. It’s refreshing that left wing ideology is more important to you than the environment. It’s refreshing because it tells me that the Green supporters are true to form and are more concerned about keeping taxes high, people poor and maintaining state control over what we can and cannot do. This stuff is sooo much more important than the environment. Keep it up Mr. Watermelon.
burt – good suggestion! I’ll leave talk of taxes and policies to those who know of such things. Here’s the thing I’m following at the moment: dairy cows are saturating the soils of New Zealand with effluent and the health-threatening bacteria that flourish in it. The health of rural people (and those who drink water that originates in these areas) is threatened by cryptosporidium, ecoli etc. yet the farmers response is to deny, deny, deny. Fonterra attempt to fudge the issue by citing the ‘Clean Streams Accord’ but that is a sop to confuse the public. It boils down to farmers saying – don’t criticise our activities, we are creating prosperity. This sounds like a right-wing view and unacceptable to a fair-minded person like myself (who likes to drink water). Whaddya reckon burt?
I was just saying THIS to some anti-human greenie on another blog, too:
What would you prefer to do about “the people problem”, Iain Parker? Make it too expensive for them to live; collapse their economies?
Why don’t you just advocate the gas chambers now and be done with it?
I don’t believe the earth is running out of resources at all, I think that is part of the next great fascist mass-murderer’s movement’s propaganda.
The best arguments I would point you to, are two books:
“The Ultimate Resource”, by Julian Simon
“The Skeptical Environmentalist”, by Bjorn Lomborg
And a magnificent intellectual essay; “Environmentalism Refuted”, by George Reisman.
You are not going to convince me, or anyone who is familiar with the facts, with your propaganda.
BTW I just read something interesting in “The Australian” yesterday by Bjorn Lomborg (unlike the Fairfax machine, they actually print a lot of fair and balanced stuff like this). It was called “No, We Don’t Need Five Planets”, and it blew away the ridiculous myth that has been put about by the WWF to that effect.
And THIS: (We were debating the housing bubble and land rationing issue, which is why I said what I did about making it too expensive for people to live and collapsing their economies).
…that eliminate all other causes except land rationing? I think that most analysts are looking in the wrong place, like the guy in the joke who was looking for the wallet he had dropped, only he was looking for it where the light was better than in the place he actually dropped it.
I defy you to find that “expectation formation” regarding house prices, leading to a bubble, occurring anywhere other than where there are conditions of land use rationing.
One of the problems analysing what the historical literature calls “housing bubbles”, is that the term is also used for “supply” manias, where too many houses got built.
I am arguing that property PRICE bubbles, with home affordability deteriorating and prices increasing way out of proportion to incomes, have developed subsequent on “Green” land use restrictions.
“Bubbles” where house building occurred at too high a rate, had a positive effect on affordability. Hugh Pavletich uses the term “building boom”, to describe this. These “booms” contain their own safety valve; the economic fallout from them will always be limited to the comparatively small (percentagewise) “malinvestment” in building too many houses.
But the price bubbles that are a result of land rationing are a different beast altogether. They feed their own mania, and will only blow up when a range of economic factors have played out, by which time the whole economy is nearly destroyed. We can have years of declining productivity and declining real incomes (when the cashing out of property value increases is removed) along with property prices ramping up year after year?
I gather from Steve Keen’s recent analysis of the Australian situation, that they have actually had both a boom and a bubble; driven by greed-crazed speculators who bought up overpriced new houses. We have the absurd situation that existing home owners use the increasing value of their own homes, as security to buy more overpriced homes. What eventually happens to first home buyers in this situation? Can anyone say “Ponzi”? The result will be interesting as it unwinds.
The same situation possibly applied in some of the other parts of the world such as Ireland and Spain where “enough” new homes have been built but prices remained severely unaffordable. This is an absurd defiance of all laws of supply and demand. Clearly there is serious interference occurring with the “supply” mechanism.
The case is clear that only a completely free supply of land would prevent such a situation from starting in the first place.
I would argue that to periodically have an oversupply of housing, with low prices as a result, is of substantial net benefit to society and the economy. No “planners” are going to get it right; and avoiding PRICE bubbles is clearly of all importance to our economic future.
We avoided them up till the last decade or so, simply because we were not sucked in by Green conservation mania and “local community” “empowerment” policies, and we constantly had new homes being supplied on land at affordable prices.
I argue that the inhabitants of particularly desirable areas should NOT be “entitled” to prevent further in-migration to their area through policies that make property unaffordable. If greed and selfishness on Wall Street requires legal restriction to prevent damage to whole economies resulting, then so does greed and selfishness in green and pleasant local communities. People have to live somewhere, and these selfish policies at root are saying to people of the next generation and poorer people, “…do us a favour……don’t exist….no, you can’t live THERE…….no, you can’t build THAT….yes, that is the cheapest accomodation you are allowed to live in…”. The bottom 3 rungs have been knocked out of the social mobility ladder. But “combating inequality” is all about “transferring wealth” via taxes and government spending, isn’t it…. not about ensuring that homes are affordable.
This is just as basically anti-human as many other “Green” policies are. It says in effect, that if these policies are the only right ones, that not only are humans not wanted here, they are not wanted anywhere. I am not joking or exaggerating. Sanctimonious Californians condemn Texas for its policies of cheap housing, growth, and high energy living (due to the heat and aridness).
If these sanctimonious and anti-human (essentially fascist) policies were in the trashcan of history where they belonged, California would be a lot more populated and the people living there would have smaller environmental footprints than if they were forced to live somewhere unpleasant like Texas. As usual, the sanctimonious policies have the exact opposite consequences than what they are alleged to be in the purpose of in the first place.
Greed and selfishness are clearly seriously destructive of humanity whether they occur on Wall Street or in green and pleasant neighborhoods.
New Zealand could, and should, have ten times the population it does have. The environmental footprint of those people would be lower in temperate NZ than in Texas or many other parts of the world.
“…….Nations in the 20th century that either adopted, or had democratic institutions imposed upon them, proceeded immediately to the one-person-one-vote method of election rather than going through the property ownership stage – which in England lasted over 800 years. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why such democracies have proven so fragile. Without property of their own, voters have limited interest in protecting the property of others……
“……..The fact that not just people on average incomes, but many on less than average incomes, could become home owners, was an important factor in Australia’s political stability since federation. Australia was a property owning democracy, a nation of home owners.
Since World War II the average Australian was able to buy their first home on the average wage. Traditionally, the median house price was around three times the median household income. For example, when the median income was just 1,000 pounds per annum in the early 1960s, one could buy a basic house on a basic block of land for around 3,000 pounds. When the median income was $10,000 per annum in the 1970s the median house price was $30,000. And when the median income was $40,000 per annum in the early 1990s the median house price in most capital cities was $120,000. Young couples could get a start in the housing market, manage a home loan on one income, start a family, and work their way up from there.
Today, in Adelaide, Melbourne and Brisbane, the median house price is more than six times the median income and in Sydney and Perth it is more than eight times. The long-standing nexus between house prices and incomes has been broken……
“……..Think about that for a moment – a ten fold increase for a commodity (land) controlled by Government (with a so-called ‘price containment’ policy), compared with virtually no increase at all for a commodity (the house) controlled by the private sector (with no price containment policy). One can only conclude that had the private sector been allowed to manage land supply like it has managed housing supply, we’d be enjoying land prices significantly lower than they are today.
This massive escalation in the price of land carries with it a multitude of detrimental impacts. Establishing affordable rental accommodation for those in greatest need becomes even more difficult for social and public housing authorities as they seek to purchase land and houses in a greatly inflated market. Road widening and major infrastructure projects experience cost blow-outs as land acquisition costs sky rocket, and the cost of establishing schools, community centres, health services and business facilities becomes difficult, and at times impossible. Inevitably the whole community suffers as a result of increased tax, transaction, finance and establishment costs……
“……..urban growth boundaries are the surest way of limiting supply. The government sets the rules, plays in the game and then decides who else can and cannot play against them. Not only that, they make millions from extra Stamp Duty as property prices rise. If that isn’t a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is. State and Territory governments have made windfall profits at the expense of Australia’s first home buyers.
It is important to remember that the scarcity that drove land prices is wholly contrived. As anyone who flies into our major cities can observe by looking out the aeroplane window, this so-called ‘land shortage’ is not real. It is the product of restrictions inposed through planning regulation and zoning. The so-called ‘land shortage’ is a matter of political decision, not of geographical reality. Australia did not, and does not, have to suffer this housing affordability crisis.
But as well as the profit motive, State and Territory Governments have been spurred along by an ideologically driven, urban planning cabal obsessed with curbing the size of our cities and pushing a policy of urban consolidation or ‘urban infill’. Between them they have excluded more low and middle income earners from home ownership than at any other time in Australia’s history.
The case for urban consolidation has been advanced on the back of a number of arguments – namely, that it is good for the environment; that it stems the loss of agricultural land; that it encourages people on to public transport; that it saves water and energy; that it leads to a reduction in motor vehicle use, and that it saves on infrastructure costs for government. All of these claims, I repeat, all of these claims are false. The facts and evidence from around the world refute each and every one of them.
Urban consolidation is not good for the environment; it doesn’t stem the loss of agricultural land; it doesn’t encourage people onto public transport; it doesn’t save water or energy; it doesn’t lead to a reduction in motor vehicle use, and it doesn’t save on infrastructure costs. In fact building brand new infrastructure on the fringe is significantly cheaper than renewing or upgrading old infrastructure in the inner suburbs that was not designed for higher density living. Infrastructure developed to accommodate 1,000 to 2,000 people per square kilometre simply cannot withstand housing densities double that number.
It has also been suggested that the housing affordability crisis is all part of a world wide trend. Not true. An international housing affordability study by Hugh Pavletich and Wendell Cox of Demographia has confirmed that land rationing of the very kind we have seen in Australian cities is the principal cause of escalating land prices. The authors found that housing unaffordability was not the worldwide problem it was made out to be but was largely confined to Australian cities and cities on the East and West Coasts of America where constrictive land use polices are in place……
“……….In human affairs there has been an imprecise, and at times neglected, moral contract between generations which dictates we should leave things better than we found them. In other words, we shouldn’t arrange our lives simply to serve our own needs but we should consider those who are to follow.
When it comes to home ownership however, we are clearly breaking our contractual obligations. We are making home ownership much harder for the next generation. If we do not act to ensure that housing affordability is restored we will most certainly deny vast numbers of young people the opportunity to become home owners.
The social and economic consequence of large numbers of people reaching retirement as renters will not only effect the quality of their lives and the choices they are able to make but it will also create an enormous burden for government in funding housing and social services.
The economic consequences of all that has happened over these past few years have been as profound as they have been damaging. The capital structure of our economy has been distorted to the tune of many hundreds of billions of dollars and getting it back into alignment will take time. But it is a realignment that is necessary. We cannot deny the rising generation a home of their own merely to satisfy the ideological fantasies of town planners and the financial concerns of State and Territory Treasury officials. We cannot deny ourselves the joys of grandchildren because the young women of Australia have to work to pay mortgages instead of raising a family. The joke that high mortgages are the new contraceptive is becoming no laughing matter. Young women used to be afraid of getting pregnant, now, as they approach 40, they are afraid of not getting pregnant. We have to get back to the situation where a couple can pay off a mortgage on one income so they can start a family in their late 20s, not in their late 30s or early 40s.
One of the more pernicious aspects of high land prices ie high mortgages, is the forced misallocation of capital and family income into mortgage payments instead of higher standards of living, assets, goods, travel, children’s education, appliances or even foregone income to spend more time at home. The most serious manifestation of this gross distortion in our capital structure, is the postponement of raising a family, and the impact on fertility rates which accompanies this trend…….
“……….Let me touch now on the financial problems which are spreading around the world as a result of the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market in the United States.
California, the birthplace of the sub-prime mortgage industry, is paying the highest price of any State in America as the housing meltdown persists. California had nearly 500,000 foreclosures on properties last year and by far the biggest decline in house prices. By the end of 2008 property values in that State alone will have fallen by $600 billion.
Not surprisingly, almost half of the 25 biggest US subprime lenders were based in California.
California also happens to have one of the strictest urban planning regimes in the world. It, along with Florida, another highly regulated urban planning regime, account for around 70-80% of all sub-prime losses in the US.
Wall Street believes that investors will lose between $300 billion and $400 billion on sub-prime loans. And it’s not over yet. The Chicago futures market for house prices suggests there could be another 8 to 9 per cent price decline during the next 12 months. Fourteen million people who purchased homes during 2006 and 2007 could end up with negative equity in their homes.
Foreclosure losses however are significantly lower in States like Texas and Georgia where planning and regulation were held at bay. Losses there are one tenth the losses in California and Florida.
Like most epidemics, the US sub-prime (and now ‘prime’) mortgage housing crisis can be traced back to this one source – urban planning laws……..”
There is more from Bob Day in the latest “Quadrant” magazine. This is not online, unfortunately, so I will wear my fingertips out now to give you all the benefit of his wisdom:
“Anthony Richards, Reserve Bank Economics Analysis Dept, recently said:
“…..In principle, the price of housing should be close to its marginal cost, determined as the sum of the cost of new housing construction, land development costs, and the cost of raw land. In the absence of any restrictions on supply, the price of raw land on the fringes should be tied reasonably closely to its value in alternative uses, such as agriculture…”
(End of Anthony Richards quote).
“…….Home owners have better health, their children do better at school, they move less frequently, they are more involved in their communities…….in communities where home ownership is higher, crime is lower, household incomes are higher……divorce rates lower……
“…….With changing demographics, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT PEOPLE OWN THEIR OWN HOMES BY THE TIME THEY RETIRE. Future pensions will never be able to meet mortgage or rent payments……..
“…….The escalation of house prices has led to A CONCENTRATION OF HOME OWNERSHIP IN THE HANDS OF THE OLD AT THE EXPENSE OF THE YOUNG. This has produced inequity between generations that will only be fully realised over time, and has diminished the tangible stake emerging generations have in the democracy of which we are so proudly a part………”
greenfly; so you think Smith is alright do you? Well you should for he is really a greenie in a blue suit. Won’t be long and he will swap waka’s and join you guys. Not going to be a leader where he is so will move over when Jeanette leaves and snuggle up to Norman. Exciting prospect for you guys but even more so for the rest of us.
Apologies to all for bestirring PhilBest into a cut-and-paste fire-storm! As Phil said himself, ‘ Sigh !
burt – I think this business of cows polluting waterways is just a beat up by journalists
Now do you see why I talk about issues other than the environment here? Your ‘it’s a media beat-up’ comment reveals the complete lack of depth to your knowledge of the issues. I know you aren’t anywhere near ‘dairy country’ or you’d know full-well what the reality is. I am. I do.
freethinker – the Tari Take claims my pound of flesh, same as anyone else.
Viking2 so you think Smith is alright do you? How the hell did you extrapolate that out ?
No, I don’t. No he isn’t. Yes it will (be long, very, very long) and no, he won’t. No he won’t and no he won’t. No it isn’t and you Natty’s are going to just suck it up and keep him as your very own. He’s not our kind at all. He’s National, through and through. Lucky, lucky Nats!
I know you aren’t anywhere near ‘dairy country’ or you’d know full-well what the reality is.
I know exactly what the reality is. You just can’t help yourself with this “I know all about you” approach to blogging can you.
So where do I live greenfly? What street and what number on that street ? What family do I have (or not have) who are dairy farmers? How many years did I work at the Dairy Board/Fonterra ? Come on greenfly you are great at this assuming to know more than others and what is even more amusing is you have no fricken idea when people are taking the piss out of you.
burt – well’ true, I don’t know anything much about where you live (it’s not my business) but your comments about dairying lead be to believe that you no next to nothing about the real situation. Am I wrong? Do you live in the heart of cow-country and are the streams flowing through your backyard clean and drinkable? Do you and your fine family swim at a beach in sight of dairy farms, where the water is cool, clear and clean, not a hint of cow-shit dribbling on its way to the ocean? You asked me to involve myself with discussions on the environment, but could only contribute with ‘it’s a media beat-up’.
People are taking the piss out of me? You are right. I had no idea.
I know a shit load (pun intended) about the damage cows (actually any grazing stock) do to waterways. I’ve also been a “mountain man” all of my life and I know all about drinking from the clear clean waters of our streams and rivers and the shit-holes that would tip you out around our farms.
The solution to clean water ways is remarkably simple, and the message is slowly getting out there which is good.
And i still think Smiths one of yours incognito. Won’t be long and he will go to the other side.
Key will find him out and agree to a transfer,no fee! Especially now they are hugging the same polar bear.
“…….The escalation of house prices has led to A CONCENTRATION OF HOME OWNERSHIP IN THE HANDS OF THE OLD AT THE EXPENSE OF THE YOUNG. This has produced inequity between generations that will only be fully realised over time, and has diminished the tangible stake emerging generations have in the democracy of which we are so proudly a part………”
While I have no argument with what this quote is saying or the emphasis you have chosen I think we also need to acknowledge changing expectations of the generations in that equation. A person of my parents generation was conditioned to accept that they would buy their first home and it would be a shit box miles from where they really wanted to live at that time. My generation less so and the current generation almost not at all. A part of this equation is the availability of longer term rental properties fueled by tax advantages in property investment.
Today it is completely viable to rent close to town, in a reasonable or better property than you could possibly afford. Why would the current generation of “I want it now” folk consider a 15 year plan to own a house they can live in today?
(Generalising) Today first home buyers want a double garage with internal access close to shops and public transport with central heating and all day sun. First home owners of the past wanted their first step on the property ladder.
“…….Home owners have better health, their children do better at school, they move less frequently, they are more involved in their communities…….in communities where home ownership is higher, crime is lower, household incomes are higher……divorce rates lower……
Communities where home ownership rates are high would possibly correlate strongly with communities with higher household incomes. Not a bad thing to study in itself but I’m not convinced which factor (including home ownership) should be given credited with causality.
It’s quite scathing of everything the socialist stood for;
It noted New Zealand’s economy was now among the most indebted in the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) group of 30 industrialised nations.
While a process of debt reduction had started, persistent, large current-account deficits and a high external debt rendered the economy especially vulnerable in the recession.
The economy was likely to remain in recession throughout 2009, before recovering “only hesitantly” in 2010 as major deleveraging continued, it said.
The report said boosted productivity growth was critical for closing the large income gap with other OECD countries, and that government ownership should be reassessed to spur competition in certain sectors.
The Emissions Trading Scheme and Resource Management Act needed attention to improve regulatory quality and eliminate uncertainty,while the financially struggling health sector needed restructuring.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:11 am
Gave away the idea of a relaxing ride along the ‘John Key Cycleway’ and thought I’d take a mortgage holiday instead.
Hang on!
April 16th, 2009 at 8:51 am
Ahhhh, able to take relaxing hot shower with plenty of pressure, under the brightness of my 50w halogens and thinking “how lucky we are not to have a government dictating my shower pressure or lighting ability”
April 16th, 2009 at 9:13 am
It’s a wonderful world indeed Patrick and how happy you will be knowing that the generous tax cut you received recently will cover the increase to your power bill, maybe…
April 16th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Last week (April
The Southland Times reported on an elderly woman who had been attacked by two mastiff dogs. She was treated in hospital for bite wounds.
The next day it was reported that the dog’s owner would fight to keep one of them alive. She blamed the victim for the attack:
Today The Southland Times reports that the dogs have been stolen from the council pound in a “commando raid”.
The dogs’ owner blames The Southland Times for the theft:
Gee, it’s always someone else’s fault isn’t it.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:18 am
Unconfirmed rumour from an unreliable source in the Labour party that Winston is paying back all the stolen taxpayers money from his Horse racing winnings on Vela surpise apparently the cash is being handed over in an old copy of the fishing times kindly supplied from one his fishy friends who is Scampying off for the winter.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:20 am
greenfly, you’re lucky to have all this spare time to consider such recreations – some of us have to work
April 16th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Heh, S.Russell
That link says
I’m sure that makes the victim feel much better, if not totally ashamed she freaked out those poor (presumably roaming free) dogs.
Meanwhile, on the flipside, you’ve got to feel sorry & relieved for this old guy
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/wellington/2334636/Stolen-for-fight-bait
April 16th, 2009 at 10:03 am
Inventory2 – lucky indeed, though I’d already done three hours work before I logged on to Kiwiblog.
Read the papers early as well. Noted that Eric Roy is still talking about ‘ongoing tax cuts’ in the Southland Times.
Does National have a common song sheet for its MPs to sing from or are they all just winging it? Thinking of Nick Smith and his plastic bag proposal (No! says John Key, No Nick!) or any number of other misfires and miscommunications from outspoken, or just spoken, MPs) Is it going to be No! No Eric? ‘Spect so.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:06 am
greenfly – just sad dude! get a hobby or something.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:09 am
“knowing that the generous tax cut you received ” – wont need it for the power bill greenfly, Im thinking of putting it toward a bigger V8 – You know…. the pressures off now that we have a kyoto suplus and everything
April 16th, 2009 at 10:24 am
And since March 2009 was the coolest March this century we can all now relax on GW, the earth is starting to cool down now.
On holiday today, looking forward to spending my extra tax cut on a motorised scooter for my boys.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:34 am
actually, i get paid tonight… my tax cut is going on hard liquor
April 16th, 2009 at 10:34 am
Patrick – at around $10 a week, you’ll be waiting a long time for your V8!
If National do follow up their ‘helping the high-end’ tax cut with others, how well do you think the New Zealand public (those that fall outside of the ‘rich’ bracket that did best from the first round of national’s tax cuts) will receive that slap-in-the-face ?
The Kyoto surplus is great news indeed. Is Rodney Hide going to give it all back because it’s just a con?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:58 am
Just going off to have my back fixed again.
Whilst watching the advertorials on NZONE TV, and my life is truly sparse. I don’t have an adaptable ladder set. A 4×4 sucker upper that is magic at collecting dry cat food, raisins, and all type of items at this size which are dry and light.
A laser hair remover, some sheepskin under-blanket with a few magnets in it, or thin lizzy and the 6 in one beauty treatment.
Now an erasing sponge that gets rid of every blight in the house or garage. Or a new type of execise machine that transforms your body for 2 minutes use a day, and fits so well under the bed.
The presenters of these products have all escaped from the regular round of home shows. Their presentation is slick, and pointless.
“This product is built to last a lifetime, and so we are giving you a full year guarantee” WTF, like the consumer legislation has no bite.
The most presenter is the robotic blond who is delusional enough to believe that she is attractive, looks 15 years younger than her age, and bizarrely inserts PURAZ 100% COLLAGEN twice in every sentence.
Why would you want to put COZ/BOVINE extracts into your body, and pay for the priveledge.
These advertorials are inane, boring, and full of products that will soon find themselves in the bin, garage store, or even the spare bedroom that you never use.
Fairplay to the supporting presenters who ask patsy questions, so sincerely. God, I want to vomit. (Must be all that Cow Shit I have been swallowing every night!!)
April 16th, 2009 at 11:00 am
greenfly
Good to see you talking about taxes and national policies again. It’s refreshing that left wing ideology is more important to you than the environment. It’s refreshing because it tells me that the Green supporters are true to form and are more concerned about keeping taxes high, people poor and maintaining state control over what we can and cannot do. This stuff is sooo much more important than the environment. Keep it up Mr. Watermelon.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
GREENFLY…..Todays the day…why not hold a tea party I might even join you.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
burt – good suggestion! I’ll leave talk of taxes and policies to those who know of such things. Here’s the thing I’m following at the moment: dairy cows are saturating the soils of New Zealand with effluent and the health-threatening bacteria that flourish in it. The health of rural people (and those who drink water that originates in these areas) is threatened by cryptosporidium, ecoli etc. yet the farmers response is to deny, deny, deny. Fonterra attempt to fudge the issue by citing the ‘Clean Streams Accord’ but that is a sop to confuse the public. It boils down to farmers saying – don’t criticise our activities, we are creating prosperity. This sounds like a right-wing view and unacceptable to a fair-minded person like myself (who likes to drink water). Whaddya reckon burt?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
baxter – if I were American, rich and a Obama-hater, I’d be on! But I’m not. Are you?
April 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Greenfly
Are your nocturnal endeavours the taxable or non taxable variety?
April 16th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
greenfly
I think this business of cows poluting waterways is just a beat up by journalists who have their own agenda.
As the mega brain Cullen (the hero of the Green party) would say;
A billion dollar dairy bonus payout and no care for the environment – wotz the cunnection – there isn’t one.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Greenie, maybe you could get your mate Sue Kedgley to start ranting about banning cows? Or perhaps cow-shit?
April 16th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
SIGH. Here we go again.
When you analyse Greenie beliefs, at root it is always “down with humans”.
Feed humans. Farmers. Cows. Shit. Runoff.
Either a question of “where”……NZ? Bangladesh? or wherever…..?
OR, “less humans, please”.
Which is it, Greenfly?
April 16th, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I was just saying THIS to some anti-human greenie on another blog, too:
What would you prefer to do about “the people problem”, Iain Parker? Make it too expensive for them to live; collapse their economies?
Why don’t you just advocate the gas chambers now and be done with it?
I don’t believe the earth is running out of resources at all, I think that is part of the next great fascist mass-murderer’s movement’s propaganda.
The best arguments I would point you to, are two books:
“The Ultimate Resource”, by Julian Simon
“The Skeptical Environmentalist”, by Bjorn Lomborg
And a magnificent intellectual essay; “Environmentalism Refuted”, by George Reisman.
You are not going to convince me, or anyone who is familiar with the facts, with your propaganda.
BTW I just read something interesting in “The Australian” yesterday by Bjorn Lomborg (unlike the Fairfax machine, they actually print a lot of fair and balanced stuff like this). It was called “No, We Don’t Need Five Planets”, and it blew away the ridiculous myth that has been put about by the WWF to that effect.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
And THIS: (We were debating the housing bubble and land rationing issue, which is why I said what I did about making it too expensive for people to live and collapsing their economies).
Oh, so you are one of THAT crowd, Iain Parker?
What do you think of the analyses I link to HERE:
http://www.interest.co.nz/ratesblog/index.php/2009/04/09/housing-special-why-the-march-housing-market-surge-is-an-indian-summer/#comments
…that eliminate all other causes except land rationing? I think that most analysts are looking in the wrong place, like the guy in the joke who was looking for the wallet he had dropped, only he was looking for it where the light was better than in the place he actually dropped it.
I defy you to find that “expectation formation” regarding house prices, leading to a bubble, occurring anywhere other than where there are conditions of land use rationing.
One of the problems analysing what the historical literature calls “housing bubbles”, is that the term is also used for “supply” manias, where too many houses got built.
I am arguing that property PRICE bubbles, with home affordability deteriorating and prices increasing way out of proportion to incomes, have developed subsequent on “Green” land use restrictions.
“Bubbles” where house building occurred at too high a rate, had a positive effect on affordability. Hugh Pavletich uses the term “building boom”, to describe this. These “booms” contain their own safety valve; the economic fallout from them will always be limited to the comparatively small (percentagewise) “malinvestment” in building too many houses.
But the price bubbles that are a result of land rationing are a different beast altogether. They feed their own mania, and will only blow up when a range of economic factors have played out, by which time the whole economy is nearly destroyed. We can have years of declining productivity and declining real incomes (when the cashing out of property value increases is removed) along with property prices ramping up year after year?
I gather from Steve Keen’s recent analysis of the Australian situation, that they have actually had both a boom and a bubble; driven by greed-crazed speculators who bought up overpriced new houses. We have the absurd situation that existing home owners use the increasing value of their own homes, as security to buy more overpriced homes. What eventually happens to first home buyers in this situation? Can anyone say “Ponzi”? The result will be interesting as it unwinds.
The same situation possibly applied in some of the other parts of the world such as Ireland and Spain where “enough” new homes have been built but prices remained severely unaffordable. This is an absurd defiance of all laws of supply and demand. Clearly there is serious interference occurring with the “supply” mechanism.
The case is clear that only a completely free supply of land would prevent such a situation from starting in the first place.
I would argue that to periodically have an oversupply of housing, with low prices as a result, is of substantial net benefit to society and the economy. No “planners” are going to get it right; and avoiding PRICE bubbles is clearly of all importance to our economic future.
We avoided them up till the last decade or so, simply because we were not sucked in by Green conservation mania and “local community” “empowerment” policies, and we constantly had new homes being supplied on land at affordable prices.
I argue that the inhabitants of particularly desirable areas should NOT be “entitled” to prevent further in-migration to their area through policies that make property unaffordable. If greed and selfishness on Wall Street requires legal restriction to prevent damage to whole economies resulting, then so does greed and selfishness in green and pleasant local communities. People have to live somewhere, and these selfish policies at root are saying to people of the next generation and poorer people, “…do us a favour……don’t exist….no, you can’t live THERE…….no, you can’t build THAT….yes, that is the cheapest accomodation you are allowed to live in…”. The bottom 3 rungs have been knocked out of the social mobility ladder. But “combating inequality” is all about “transferring wealth” via taxes and government spending, isn’t it…. not about ensuring that homes are affordable.
This is just as basically anti-human as many other “Green” policies are. It says in effect, that if these policies are the only right ones, that not only are humans not wanted here, they are not wanted anywhere. I am not joking or exaggerating. Sanctimonious Californians condemn Texas for its policies of cheap housing, growth, and high energy living (due to the heat and aridness).
If these sanctimonious and anti-human (essentially fascist) policies were in the trashcan of history where they belonged, California would be a lot more populated and the people living there would have smaller environmental footprints than if they were forced to live somewhere unpleasant like Texas. As usual, the sanctimonious policies have the exact opposite consequences than what they are alleged to be in the purpose of in the first place.
Greed and selfishness are clearly seriously destructive of humanity whether they occur on Wall Street or in green and pleasant neighborhoods.
New Zealand could, and should, have ten times the population it does have. The environmental footprint of those people would be lower in temperate NZ than in Texas or many other parts of the world.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:59 pm
THIS GUY really lays it on the line:
http://erudito.livejournal.com/710656.html
“Bob Day’s address on housing policy”
“…….Nations in the 20th century that either adopted, or had democratic institutions imposed upon them, proceeded immediately to the one-person-one-vote method of election rather than going through the property ownership stage – which in England lasted over 800 years. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why such democracies have proven so fragile. Without property of their own, voters have limited interest in protecting the property of others……
“……..The fact that not just people on average incomes, but many on less than average incomes, could become home owners, was an important factor in Australia’s political stability since federation. Australia was a property owning democracy, a nation of home owners.
Since World War II the average Australian was able to buy their first home on the average wage. Traditionally, the median house price was around three times the median household income. For example, when the median income was just 1,000 pounds per annum in the early 1960s, one could buy a basic house on a basic block of land for around 3,000 pounds. When the median income was $10,000 per annum in the 1970s the median house price was $30,000. And when the median income was $40,000 per annum in the early 1990s the median house price in most capital cities was $120,000. Young couples could get a start in the housing market, manage a home loan on one income, start a family, and work their way up from there.
Today, in Adelaide, Melbourne and Brisbane, the median house price is more than six times the median income and in Sydney and Perth it is more than eight times. The long-standing nexus between house prices and incomes has been broken……
“……..Think about that for a moment – a ten fold increase for a commodity (land) controlled by Government (with a so-called ‘price containment’ policy), compared with virtually no increase at all for a commodity (the house) controlled by the private sector (with no price containment policy). One can only conclude that had the private sector been allowed to manage land supply like it has managed housing supply, we’d be enjoying land prices significantly lower than they are today.
This massive escalation in the price of land carries with it a multitude of detrimental impacts. Establishing affordable rental accommodation for those in greatest need becomes even more difficult for social and public housing authorities as they seek to purchase land and houses in a greatly inflated market. Road widening and major infrastructure projects experience cost blow-outs as land acquisition costs sky rocket, and the cost of establishing schools, community centres, health services and business facilities becomes difficult, and at times impossible. Inevitably the whole community suffers as a result of increased tax, transaction, finance and establishment costs……
“……..urban growth boundaries are the surest way of limiting supply. The government sets the rules, plays in the game and then decides who else can and cannot play against them. Not only that, they make millions from extra Stamp Duty as property prices rise. If that isn’t a conflict of interest, I don’t know what is. State and Territory governments have made windfall profits at the expense of Australia’s first home buyers.
It is important to remember that the scarcity that drove land prices is wholly contrived. As anyone who flies into our major cities can observe by looking out the aeroplane window, this so-called ‘land shortage’ is not real. It is the product of restrictions inposed through planning regulation and zoning. The so-called ‘land shortage’ is a matter of political decision, not of geographical reality. Australia did not, and does not, have to suffer this housing affordability crisis.
But as well as the profit motive, State and Territory Governments have been spurred along by an ideologically driven, urban planning cabal obsessed with curbing the size of our cities and pushing a policy of urban consolidation or ‘urban infill’. Between them they have excluded more low and middle income earners from home ownership than at any other time in Australia’s history.
The case for urban consolidation has been advanced on the back of a number of arguments – namely, that it is good for the environment; that it stems the loss of agricultural land; that it encourages people on to public transport; that it saves water and energy; that it leads to a reduction in motor vehicle use, and that it saves on infrastructure costs for government. All of these claims, I repeat, all of these claims are false. The facts and evidence from around the world refute each and every one of them.
Urban consolidation is not good for the environment; it doesn’t stem the loss of agricultural land; it doesn’t encourage people onto public transport; it doesn’t save water or energy; it doesn’t lead to a reduction in motor vehicle use, and it doesn’t save on infrastructure costs. In fact building brand new infrastructure on the fringe is significantly cheaper than renewing or upgrading old infrastructure in the inner suburbs that was not designed for higher density living. Infrastructure developed to accommodate 1,000 to 2,000 people per square kilometre simply cannot withstand housing densities double that number.
It has also been suggested that the housing affordability crisis is all part of a world wide trend. Not true. An international housing affordability study by Hugh Pavletich and Wendell Cox of Demographia has confirmed that land rationing of the very kind we have seen in Australian cities is the principal cause of escalating land prices. The authors found that housing unaffordability was not the worldwide problem it was made out to be but was largely confined to Australian cities and cities on the East and West Coasts of America where constrictive land use polices are in place……
“……….In human affairs there has been an imprecise, and at times neglected, moral contract between generations which dictates we should leave things better than we found them. In other words, we shouldn’t arrange our lives simply to serve our own needs but we should consider those who are to follow.
When it comes to home ownership however, we are clearly breaking our contractual obligations. We are making home ownership much harder for the next generation. If we do not act to ensure that housing affordability is restored we will most certainly deny vast numbers of young people the opportunity to become home owners.
The social and economic consequence of large numbers of people reaching retirement as renters will not only effect the quality of their lives and the choices they are able to make but it will also create an enormous burden for government in funding housing and social services.
The economic consequences of all that has happened over these past few years have been as profound as they have been damaging. The capital structure of our economy has been distorted to the tune of many hundreds of billions of dollars and getting it back into alignment will take time. But it is a realignment that is necessary. We cannot deny the rising generation a home of their own merely to satisfy the ideological fantasies of town planners and the financial concerns of State and Territory Treasury officials. We cannot deny ourselves the joys of grandchildren because the young women of Australia have to work to pay mortgages instead of raising a family. The joke that high mortgages are the new contraceptive is becoming no laughing matter. Young women used to be afraid of getting pregnant, now, as they approach 40, they are afraid of not getting pregnant. We have to get back to the situation where a couple can pay off a mortgage on one income so they can start a family in their late 20s, not in their late 30s or early 40s.
One of the more pernicious aspects of high land prices ie high mortgages, is the forced misallocation of capital and family income into mortgage payments instead of higher standards of living, assets, goods, travel, children’s education, appliances or even foregone income to spend more time at home. The most serious manifestation of this gross distortion in our capital structure, is the postponement of raising a family, and the impact on fertility rates which accompanies this trend…….
“……….Let me touch now on the financial problems which are spreading around the world as a result of the collapse of the sub-prime mortgage market in the United States.
California, the birthplace of the sub-prime mortgage industry, is paying the highest price of any State in America as the housing meltdown persists. California had nearly 500,000 foreclosures on properties last year and by far the biggest decline in house prices. By the end of 2008 property values in that State alone will have fallen by $600 billion.
Not surprisingly, almost half of the 25 biggest US subprime lenders were based in California.
California also happens to have one of the strictest urban planning regimes in the world. It, along with Florida, another highly regulated urban planning regime, account for around 70-80% of all sub-prime losses in the US.
Wall Street believes that investors will lose between $300 billion and $400 billion on sub-prime loans. And it’s not over yet. The Chicago futures market for house prices suggests there could be another 8 to 9 per cent price decline during the next 12 months. Fourteen million people who purchased homes during 2006 and 2007 could end up with negative equity in their homes.
Foreclosure losses however are significantly lower in States like Texas and Georgia where planning and regulation were held at bay. Losses there are one tenth the losses in California and Florida.
Like most epidemics, the US sub-prime (and now ‘prime’) mortgage housing crisis can be traced back to this one source – urban planning laws……..”
April 16th, 2009 at 5:00 pm
There is more from Bob Day in the latest “Quadrant” magazine. This is not online, unfortunately, so I will wear my fingertips out now to give you all the benefit of his wisdom:
“Anthony Richards, Reserve Bank Economics Analysis Dept, recently said:
“…..In principle, the price of housing should be close to its marginal cost, determined as the sum of the cost of new housing construction, land development costs, and the cost of raw land. In the absence of any restrictions on supply, the price of raw land on the fringes should be tied reasonably closely to its value in alternative uses, such as agriculture…”
(End of Anthony Richards quote).
“…….Home owners have better health, their children do better at school, they move less frequently, they are more involved in their communities…….in communities where home ownership is higher, crime is lower, household incomes are higher……divorce rates lower……
“…….With changing demographics, IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT PEOPLE OWN THEIR OWN HOMES BY THE TIME THEY RETIRE. Future pensions will never be able to meet mortgage or rent payments……..
“…….The escalation of house prices has led to A CONCENTRATION OF HOME OWNERSHIP IN THE HANDS OF THE OLD AT THE EXPENSE OF THE YOUNG. This has produced inequity between generations that will only be fully realised over time, and has diminished the tangible stake emerging generations have in the democracy of which we are so proudly a part………”
(My emphases).
April 16th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
greenfly; so you think Smith is alright do you? Well you should for he is really a greenie in a blue suit. Won’t be long and he will swap waka’s and join you guys. Not going to be a leader where he is so will move over when Jeanette leaves and snuggle up to Norman. Exciting prospect for you guys but even more so for the rest of us.
April 16th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Apologies to all for bestirring PhilBest into a cut-and-paste fire-storm! As Phil said himself, ‘ Sigh !
burt – I think this business of cows polluting waterways is just a beat up by journalists
Now do you see why I talk about issues other than the environment here? Your ‘it’s a media beat-up’ comment reveals the complete lack of depth to your knowledge of the issues. I know you aren’t anywhere near ‘dairy country’ or you’d know full-well what the reality is. I am. I do.
freethinker – the Tari Take claims my pound of flesh, same as anyone else.
Viking2 so you think Smith is alright do you? How the hell did you extrapolate that out ?
No, I don’t. No he isn’t. Yes it will (be long, very, very long) and no, he won’t. No he won’t and no he won’t. No it isn’t and you Natty’s are going to just suck it up and keep him as your very own. He’s not our kind at all. He’s National, through and through. Lucky, lucky Nats!
April 16th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
greenfly
I know exactly what the reality is. You just can’t help yourself with this “I know all about you” approach to blogging can you.
So where do I live greenfly? What street and what number on that street ? What family do I have (or not have) who are dairy farmers? How many years did I work at the Dairy Board/Fonterra ? Come on greenfly you are great at this assuming to know more than others and what is even more amusing is you have no fricken idea when people are taking the piss out of you.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I swear, every time i am in the unfortunate position to listen to Shortland street i can hear Goebbels laughing his ass off in the background.
April 16th, 2009 at 7:59 pm
burt – well’ true, I don’t know anything much about where you live (it’s not my business) but your comments about dairying lead be to believe that you no next to nothing about the real situation. Am I wrong? Do you live in the heart of cow-country and are the streams flowing through your backyard clean and drinkable? Do you and your fine family swim at a beach in sight of dairy farms, where the water is cool, clear and clean, not a hint of cow-shit dribbling on its way to the ocean? You asked me to involve myself with discussions on the environment, but could only contribute with ‘it’s a media beat-up’.
People are taking the piss out of me? You are right. I had no idea.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:32 pm
On the other hand burt …
April 16th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
greenfly
I know a shit load (pun intended) about the damage cows (actually any grazing stock) do to waterways. I’ve also been a “mountain man” all of my life and I know all about drinking from the clear clean waters of our streams and rivers and the shit-holes that would tip you out around our farms.
The solution to clean water ways is remarkably simple, and the message is slowly getting out there which is good.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:01 pm
greenfly
Cows, Geopolitics, and Big Business
April 16th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
burt – my apologies for the bolshy, smart-arse, know-it-all crap.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
greenfly, I accept you apology.
April 16th, 2009 at 9:53 pm
And i still think Smiths one of yours incognito. Won’t be long and he will go to the other side.
Key will find him out and agree to a transfer,no fee! Especially now they are hugging the same polar bear.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
greenfly
Make that ‘your’ apology. Thanks.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
PhilBest
While I have no argument with what this quote is saying or the emphasis you have chosen I think we also need to acknowledge changing expectations of the generations in that equation. A person of my parents generation was conditioned to accept that they would buy their first home and it would be a shit box miles from where they really wanted to live at that time. My generation less so and the current generation almost not at all. A part of this equation is the availability of longer term rental properties fueled by tax advantages in property investment.
Today it is completely viable to rent close to town, in a reasonable or better property than you could possibly afford. Why would the current generation of “I want it now” folk consider a 15 year plan to own a house they can live in today?
(Generalising) Today first home buyers want a double garage with internal access close to shops and public transport with central heating and all day sun. First home owners of the past wanted their first step on the property ladder.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
PhilBest
Communities where home ownership rates are high would possibly correlate strongly with communities with higher household incomes. Not a bad thing to study in itself but I’m not convinced which factor (including home ownership) should be given credited with causality.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
The OECD telling it like it is:
NZ’s low productivity singled out in OECD report
The OECD doesn’t think Helen Clark and Michael Cullen’s legacy is that flash.
They recommend the new Government start selling state assets. I would agree with that assessment.
April 16th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
OECD rank 22 Kiwi
It’s quite scathing of everything the socialist stood for;
It noted New Zealand’s economy was now among the most indebted in the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) group of 30 industrialised nations.
While a process of debt reduction had started, persistent, large current-account deficits and a high external debt rendered the economy especially vulnerable in the recession.
The economy was likely to remain in recession throughout 2009, before recovering “only hesitantly” in 2010 as major deleveraging continued, it said.
The report said boosted productivity growth was critical for closing the large income gap with other OECD countries, and that government ownership should be reassessed to spur competition in certain sectors.
The Emissions Trading Scheme and Resource Management Act needed attention to improve regulatory quality and eliminate uncertainty,while the financially struggling health sector needed restructuring.
So that’s Clark & Cullen’s legacy…