Greens say there are too many New Zealanders

December 2nd, 2012 at 11:00 am by David Farrar

Steve Kilgallon at Stuff reports:

Rather proving Ballingall’s assertion that politicians have steered clear of debate because it touches upon such sensitivities as immigration, the remain the only party with a policy.

Theirs is based on New Zealand’s “ecological carrying capacity”, basically how many people per hectare the environment can sustain. says 5.7 million has been suggested as a possible population limit.

Graham says the world’s ecological footprint is already 50 per cent over-capacity; New Zealand requires 4.9 hectares per person when we should need only 1.8, making us the 32nd worst country in the world. Therefore, says Graham, you could argue there are already enough of us.

Graham seems to be suggesting we should ideally have 2.8 million fewer New Zealanders. That’s an even more ambitious popullation reduction target than their climate change policy which is to shoot one in five cows  to reduce their methane emissions.

The Greens official population policy states we should have an upper limit for NZ’s population and “The population cannot be increased beyond its capacity to offset its greenhouse gas emissions“.

They also are worried not about NZers going to Australia but vice-versa:

With predictions of continuing drought and water shortages it is possible that there could be an increase in immigrants from Australia, who are not covered by the immigration quota.The ability of the environment to sustain the present and future population is not a consideration in current immigration policies. A surge in population could see the population pushed beyond a sustainable level.

No, no, the invasion of the Australians must be stopped!

But the Greens do have hope for us:

By reducing our ecological footprint through means such as more densely clustered housing and a simpler (low meat/ low dairy) diet, we may be able to increase our population levels while remaining within the carrying capacity of the land.

Yes, if we all become vegans and give up dairy then you may be allowed to have children!

Tags: , ,

104 Responses to “Greens say there are too many New Zealanders”

  1. Pete George (21,796 comments) says:

    It was interesting to hear what Metiria Turei had to say about the Q & A topic of increasing the population – it was suggested it should be substantially higher.

    She said nothing. She avoided talking about population and immigration and instead reverted to normal Green talking points (investing in 250,000 young people etc etc).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Halconero (6 comments) says:

    No doubt they’ll come up with a “final solution”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Lance (2,309 comments) says:

    So will the Greens lead the way and stop breeding?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. thor42 (759 comments) says:

    “Too many New Zealanders”?
    Oh well – will the Greens lead by example and sterilise themselves?
    Nah, not a chance. Bunch of hypocrites.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Nookin (2,887 comments) says:

    Maybe Russel can go back to where he came from?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Alan Johnstone (907 comments) says:

    They are right in so much that we should have a wider debate about population levels in NZ.

    My personal preference is that we should aim for somewhere around 8m, with the bulk of the growth largely driven by skilled immigration from Europe.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. mikenmild (8,721 comments) says:

    More myth making DPF? You apparently have no issue with their calculations of what would be a sustainable human of bovine population, but would like to invent themes such a shooting one in five cows.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. flipper (3,266 comments) says:

    Graham is best summed up by my colleague Rupert C. E. Wyndham who recently wrote to the pompous ex MFAT prat (who will be advocating eugeniucs next… or is he doing so now?) from the UK, as follows:

    “ …… Let’s too get to the real reason for the Greens’ avoidance of open debate – er, with Monckton or anyone else. It is that, on the few occasions on which they have summoned up the courage to do so, they have invariably been eviscerated. I was at one such debate myself in London, involving such illuminati from your side as Prof. Mike Hulme. It was embarrassing albeit, from my perspective, an enjoyable example of shadenfreude.

    “Your comment relating to the ‘precautionary principle’ is illuminating. It has always seemed to me that the ‘principle’ is a rather sanctimonious contrivance that allows people of your claimed persuasion to continue to engage in the delightful task of self-preening without the need to temper this indulgence with any obligation to think. I make no comment on what might have been the condition of mankind had this foolishness prevailed throughout human history.

    RW

    “PS. In passing, I use the word ‘claimed’ because, to be frank, I do not believe that it is intellectually possible to promote Green claims with honesty of purpose.”

    The sad thing is that Graham, apparently posessed of at least average intelligence, gives every impression that he truly believes in the garbage he espouses.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Liberty (211 comments) says:

    The Greens “final solution”
    With the green hatred of the dairy industry. Dairy farmers will be restricted to one house cow.
    Exports will plummet. Which will lead mass unemployment. Coal production will be banned.
    To save a few slug and snails. To reduce the population over time real marriages would be banned.
    It will be compulsory same sex.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. mikenmild (8,721 comments) says:

    Godwin already Liberty?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. wat dabney (3,422 comments) says:

    It makes absolutely no sense to talk about a given area of land being over-populated.

    mm,

    Well, it can’t be denied that the left has done everything possible to depopulate the world over the last few decades…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. mikenmild (8,721 comments) says:

    Yes, it can be denied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. davidp (3,319 comments) says:

    The Greens say that their support for the Khmer Rouge is a thing of the past. But they still support Khmer Rouge people-hating policies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. mikenmild (8,721 comments) says:

    ‘they still support Khmer Rouge people-hating policies’
    Evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. flipper (3,266 comments) says:

    Alan J…
    Arising from the Sutch/Lewin prescription for NZ’s post 19340s economic growth (protected by an import regulation wall) the immediate post war plan was for 5 million plus by 1965-70.

    Then Walsh/Skinner et al found out and sanity(?) returned. The FOL killed it. Stone dead.
    At 4.4M in late 2012 we are on a very slow uphill grind. We do need a bigger population to sustain local “production”…..but how many? And when?
    :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. kowtow (6,685 comments) says:

    So they’ll be against Muslim immigration then?

    No didn’t think so.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. MikeG (359 comments) says:

    Well if we combine Farrar’s view that urban sprawl is ok, with a lack of population policy, we will see a reduction in the number of cows as more and more productive land will be taken up by housing and “life-style” blocks. So Greens policy = National Party policy!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ChardonnayGuy (1,023 comments) says:

    I think that New Zealand does need a population policy. What is a sustainable population and what is New Zealand’s optimal carriage capacity? Moreover, those who comment about the dairy industry are also overlooking the contribution that eco-tourism makes to our economy.

    Another point that you might want to consider is that the Greens today are more centrist than they were during the time of Rod and Jeanette. In the Economist, I see that they’re seriously discussing the prospect of a German Christian Democrat-Green coalition after their next Bundestag election, if, as widely predicted, the Free Democrats finally end up crashing out of the federal German national assembly, based on opinion polls and adverse German state polls.

    If I were National, I’d be more pragmatic about that prospect in our own context. Given the marginality of ACT and United Future and Maori Party voter erosion, at least one may not be around after the next election. Moreover, Winstonism is just that. Winstonism. It will die after the aforementioned figure does.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    New Zealand needs a population increase of at least 15 million over the coming years.

    We need migrants who want to invest in NZ not refugees .

    Half of our problems as a country are caused by us being so underpopulated.

    @MikeG

    we will see a reduction in the number of cows as more and more productive land will be taken up by housing and “life-style” blocks.

    Only x amount of our land is suitable for diary- we have shit loads of land. I for one can’t see someone setting up a major city anytime soon on the Edgecumbe plains or the people of Tahuna being driven out by scrap metal yards popping up as a new industrial park is opened.

    Chardonnay Guy

    I think that New Zealand does need a population policy

    yep no trouble, the headiy bunch of intellectuals that populate out Parliament will solve that little problem in no time!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. annie (533 comments) says:

    1. Send home Bunny McDairmid, Russel Norman and any other imported greens.
    2. Dispose of any children in excess of 2 per 2 parents in Green families. Sue Bradford comes to mind.

    Once the hypocrisy has been dealt with, then I’ll listen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Bob R (1,250 comments) says:

    1. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey the majority of people in developed and developing countries think that immigration should be reduced.

    http://www.pewglobal.org/2007/10/04/world-publics-welcome-global-trade-but-not-immigration/

    2. Why don’t politicians acknowledge this? Possible reasons include of fear of demonization (“that’s raciss!!”), and pressure from big money backers?

    3. The reality acknowledged in that article is people move to places like NZ for the lifestyle – that will be compromised with ongoing population expansion. It also threatens social cohesiveness and prospects for cultural assimilation (see Robert Putman’s research*).

    * http://www.american.com/archive/2009/august/dealing-with-diversity-the-smart-way

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Pauleastbay (5,030 comments) says:

    Bob R

    Why should we stay relatively poor as a country so others can have a life style?

    This all sounds typically New Zealand in that we always seem to do the extreme, either too much or too little. With common sense we can have it all – as long as the green gooses are told to bugger off

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. queenstfarmer (696 comments) says:

    So the Greens think there are too many cows. Now they think there are too many people, making too many problems. And, no doubt, not much love to go round. They must see this is a land of confusion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Bob R (1,250 comments) says:

    Another aspect of that, is affordable family formation. Mass immigration tends to make family formation less affordable for existing voters — due to supply and demand, housing prices go up and wages go down. Conservatives particularly benefit from affordable family formation.

    “This theory suggests that, in order to encourage marriage and children among voters, Republicans should pursue policies that raise wages, lower demand for houses, and keep the public schools from eroding further. The most obvious way to move the country toward a more Republican future is to restrict immigration.”

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/value-voters/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Ross12 (926 comments) says:

    Chardonnay Guy — I would beg to differ about where the Greens are on the political spectrum. I think when Jeanette and Rod were leading them they were genuinely concerned about the environmental issues and pushed them hard. Today they are basicly far left and trading on that environmental heritage. They might like to think or try to portray themselves as centrist but they aren’t.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Keeping Stock (9,787 comments) says:

    Christian World Service launched its annual Christmas appeal today. The theme this year is “My place…to till and keep”.

    In the literature handed out to us was this:

    In Colombia alone the UN reports that an area the size of Switzerland has been stolen from its rightful owners. In Uganda a farmer woke up one day to find ancestral land had been “sold” when the bulldozers began crushing his crops. Tragically, it’s a common story. A place “to till and keep” is unjustly stolen again. Big business…big agriculture is pushing small farmers out of the way for monoculture and biofuels.

    http://christmasappeal.org.nz/about-the-theme/

    Remind me again; which party wants to see less fossil fuels burnt and more use of biofuels? The Greens moan about poverty, but their policies are actually CONTRIBUTING to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Reid (15,501 comments) says:

    The Gweens hate we human beings. To the Gweens, we’re a blight on what’s really important, Gaia. Bit’s of dirt matter more to the Gweens, than people. Apparently. What other conclusion can we draw?

    It’s a shame the Gweens haven’t explained how to make human beings eschew meat in order to put less pressure on Gaia. Perhaps they think we’ll all voluntarily become vegans once we have been “educated” about the health benefits. I wonder if it occurs to them that everyone who cares to educate themselves already has and there probably won’t be a flock of new converts no matter how many state-funded ads they throw at prime time. Once they see this not working after a few hundred mil has been thrown at the futile program, plan B will no doubt be: very well then, we’ll make them. [Stamp.] So they’ll prevent butcher shops from displaying meat, it’s behind cupboards like the smokes are and tax the heck out of it so a decent steak costs $195 kg and a milkshake is $20 and icecream is banned because it’s poison. (Not to humans but to Gaia.)

    And these people will be in govt and around 5% of people think they’re a great party with fresh ideas and the only ones who weally weally care. Crikey.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Harriet (4,002 comments) says:

    Milko#

    “…….‘they still support Khmer Rouge people-hating policies’…….Evidence?…….”

    Yep! The International Federation of Greens has policy on afterbirth abortions – to practice it!

    How’s that ‘killing tree’ of yours that you are growing in the middle of your backlawn Milko ?……big eneough yet? :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. mikenmild (8,721 comments) says:

    I don’t have a back lawn – but thanks for asking. As for the rest of your comment – WTF??

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Harriet (4,002 comments) says:

    Shoddygayguy#

    “…….In the Economist, I see that they’re seriously discussing the prospect of a German Christian Democrat-Green coalition after their next Bundestag election….”

    The few debates that the Greens fronted up to on their No1 topic ‘climate science’ – they were eviscerated!

    Good luck with Theology Shoddygayguy! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. elscorcho (138 comments) says:

    The Greens are nutcases – except in this example

    The vast majority of problems in the world, from pollution through to inflation etc, are caused by over population. There’s a famous quote I forget, where someone says ‘you can’t solve problems X and Y unless you deal with the underlying cause.’

    I drive to work at 545am. There are already heaps of cars on the road – because Auckland is overcrowded. Look at rush hour traffic. There are crowds everywhere. Look at holiday time on the highways.

    Until we say: no more population growth, we can never start to create a better world. Fewer people means more room for all of us. It means a move away from seeing people as mere cogs in a greater wheel to individuals with worth.

    It means no filthy apartments next to rail lines (to borrow from Whaleoil). Fewer people means we can all have our quarter acre paradise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. big bruv (12,319 comments) says:

    Are these not the same Greens who want to open NZ up to every refugee who want to come here?

    Even the convicted terrorists who flush their passports down the toilet.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Reid (15,501 comments) says:

    The Greens are nutcases – except in this example

    No they are in this example as well.

    See, IF the enviwonment really is in trouble, then why spend all your energy trying to convert a country that only contributes a tiny fraction toward the problem? Isn’t the pwanet more important than petty politics? Only true nutcases would continue to bang their heads on something which will never address the actual issue and never talk about the actual issue, which is for example the Indian and Chinese vehicle fleets. If the idiots really wanted to make a difference, why the hell don’t they talk about solutions for those. Why munt around about cow farts?

    So if you count tilting at windmills as being nutcase material, then the Gweens demonstrate this almost every single press release.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Scott1 (357 comments) says:

    reid,
    Because not all of the issues that elscorcho is talking about are internationally speaking “public goods”.

    I agree with you however regarding what you seem to be saying about the kyoto method, what is surprising is that that took so long for everyone to realise it was never going to work..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    From the article:

    The Green Party has a policy on “regional optimal populations” but its population spokesman Kennedy Graham admits he’s not sure how you can encourage or compel people to stay in the provinces.

    By allowing mining and oil & gas exploitation Kennedy. That will create jobs in provinces.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. wat dabney (3,422 comments) says:

    elscorcho,

    You choose to live in Auckland, yet you complain about overcrowding.

    Hmm.

    Why don’t you go and live in Alice Springs?

    And I’m afraid you are simply wrong to claim that “over-population” causes inflation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Steve (North Shore) (4,313 comments) says:

    This Friday I am having a Colonoscopy. I will be thinking of the Greens every minute of my two day preparations

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Dave Stringer (182 comments) says:

    ” The Greens are on the political spectrum, . . when Jeanette and Rod were leading them they were genuinely concerned about the environmental issues . . . today they are basicly far left and trading on that environmental heritage.”

    Never was a truer sentence writ!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    @Steve (Northshore)

    That’s never much fun. All the best!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Griff (6,263 comments) says:

    Steve
    Best of luck on the results Of your anal exam
    Please remember the aliens do it to implant their control devices :grin:
    Are you getting a methane tax meter installed as well?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    @Keeping Stock

    Remind me again; which party wants to see less fossil fuels burnt and more use of biofuels? The Greens moan about poverty, but their policies are actually CONTRIBUTING to it.

    More mythmaking. While in the early days biofuels did seem to represent a step in the right direction, the error was quickly seen. However, the big biofuel push was in the US, under G W Bush who distributed vast subsidies to US farmers with the aim of self-sufficiency in fuel, not GHG reduction.

    It’s a sad reflection on the state of politics in the US that even though it is well known now that that policy has caused severe distortions in food prices and supply, it remains a sacred cow in that dysfunctional nation.

    Brazil, on the other hand, offers biofuels without the damage to food crops – sugar beet grown on previously unproductive areas – and offering an overall reduction in emissions.

    In this, as in so many issues, the US is truly the Great Satan.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    But the Greens do have hope for us:

    By reducing our ecological footprint through means such as more densely clustered housing and a simpler (low meat/ low dairy) diet, we may be able to increase our population levels while remaining within the carrying capacity of the land.

    Yes, if we all become vegans and give up dairy then you may be allowed to have children!

    Yes, DPF is fond of his reductio ad absurdum presentations, but beware, do not reply in kind!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    the big biofuel push was in the US, under G W Bush

    Yeah that’s right Luc !

    Bush was heavily into alternative energy and the whole planet saving, green movement. Bush is practically synonymous with environmentalism. It defined his entire time in office. Bush the greeny. Not like that big oil loving “Gore the planet wrecker”. Nope, it was Bush.

    Do you really think people can’t see through you and your vile lies Luc? Are you really that self absorbed…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    kowtow (3,287) Says:
    December 2nd, 2012 at 11:56 am

    So they’ll be against Muslim immigration then?

    No didn’t think so.

    Although I have avoided joining political parties – I’m just not an organisation kind of guy – I may just join the Greens to promote a policy plank of compulsory emigration for all Islamophobes.

    Starting with your good self!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    @Kea

    Are you truly that ill-informed?

    Wow!

    Bush was not interested in alternatives for the good of the planet. Like all US presidents, he attempted to lead the US out of what he called its ‘addiction to oil’. He introduced ethanol subsidies to promote that policy.

    http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/moneymatters/a/The-Federal-Ethanol-Subsidy.htm

    The US is hugely influential in any market, but especially so in commodities, and its internal subsidies are a drag on the developing world/emerging economies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Komata (962 comments) says:

    Re: ‘means such as more densely clustered housing’

    A minor point which might interest some: ‘more densely clustered housing’ has two interesting side-effects: the close proximity of humans to each other permits the spread of highly infectious diseases – TB, Cholera, Meningitis, Poliomyelitis (to name a few), while creating slums which create a self-perpetuating cycle.

    But, as these conditions and diseases will result in more ‘natural’ deaths, it could perhaps be suggested that it serves the gween’s ends perfectly and that Giaia will be pleased.

    A thought: IF the gweens are advocating the systematic destruction of the population (and are against the use of modern medicines), presumably they will / already do forego the use of antibiotics etc. and pray for protection from Giaia when the diseases start to effect them as well. When they also start to die from these self-same diseases, one has to wonder what lengths they will go to to ‘protect’ themselves. The use of modern medicines perhaps? Perhaps then we will see how many have the courage of their convictions. Or, perhaps, one rule for a privileged (gween) some, but not for all.

    The possibilities are interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Manolo (12,612 comments) says:

    You made a mistake, Lucy.
    Should have said: “a policy plank of compulsory emigration for all Islamophiles” and appeasers like yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. SPC (4,609 comments) says:

    There is an undeniable link between population growth and demand for land and that in an economy of low wages makes housing difficult to afford. Those who cannot afford to own a house will struggle to support themeselves in retirement.

    As for population – the Green approach is ” based on New Zealand’s “ecological carrying capacity”, basically how many people per hectare the environment can sustain. Kennedy Graham says 5.7 million has been suggested as a possible population limit.”

    If the UN agrees on a global carbon emission policy, this sort of detail will become relevant to government policy – so it is something that puts calls for a 15M level into some sort of reference point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Yeah Luc its all BUSH’s fault !!!

    I have seen him bulldozing millions of hectares of rain forest in Indonesia and South America (cleverly disguised as a local), all to plant his bio fuel crops.

    Stop the lies, if you want to be taken seriously.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. mikenmild (8,721 comments) says:

    Point one – the Greens do not advocate such destruction.
    Point two – cities are the healthiest places to live.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. SPC (4,609 comments) says:

    The Green policy is not for more refugees – it is in support of current policy (bi-partisan with National and Labour) to take in refugees under our UN commitments. Some here are misrepresnting it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Kea

    I’m at a loss trying to comprehend your point.

    Just quote what you allege is a lie from me, please, and I’ll do my best to address that issue.

    OK?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Manolo (12,612 comments) says:

    If the UN agrees on a global carbon emission policy, this sort of detail will become relevant to government policy..

    Only an utterly stupid government will follow UN directives when comes to the fraud AGW is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. SPC (4,609 comments) says:

    Manolo – the current government has said that it is moving from Kyoto (not joining Kyoto stage 2) but taking direction from the UN group position.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. cha (3,524 comments) says:

    Who gives a fuck when, according to Jeremy Grantham, we’re all fucked as the world heads toward a disaster of biblical proportions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    No need Luc. I have agreed with you that Bush was behind the whole world-wide green movement. AGW, organics etc, the whole thing is all Bush’s doing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    I disagree entirely with the idea of population policies.

    The problem is resource mis-allocation and wealth mal-distribution, not the number of people.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Sure Kea

    Can you quote me where I suggested that Bush was some kind of environmental saint?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Manolo (12,612 comments) says:

    the current government has said that it is moving from Kyoto (not joining Kyoto stage 2) but taking direction from the UN group position.

    Exactly. It proves my point about this feeble Labour lite government.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    I agree (again) with you Luc.

    I should get the same as everyone else, even if I choose not to work for it. Its my “right” to have rich peoples money and I should not be forced to work. The armed state should implement wealth re-distribution, just like you say.

    PS. I already quoted where you claimed Bush is behind the whole green movement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    @cha

    There are a couple or so nice hockey stick graphs in that presentation!

    Did Michael Mann have a hand in that article?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Reid (15,501 comments) says:

    Please remember the aliens do it to implant their control devices

    It’s hard to see how people can deny this Griff.

    After all, it was on the very first episode of the SouthPark doco, so there, skeptics.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    The armed state should implement wealth re-distribution, just like you say.

    Sorry Kea, my computer is obviously playing up because I can’t spot those posts of mine you keep referring to.

    Just give me a few days to get it fixed, OK?

    And leave me alone till I tell you it is!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. cha (3,524 comments) says:

    It’s all a conspiracy by private equities Luc.

    //

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. SPC (4,609 comments) says:

    Luc, the issue of resource mis-allocation and wealth mal-distribution are a subset of resource availability to sustain the economy of the population.

    The cake can only grow so large built on resource use alone. Technology and scientific advances are becoming more important to this – which is why cutting off post graduate access (loss of student allowances) is a major error.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Reid (15,501 comments) says:

    The problem is resource mis-allocation and wealth mal-distribution, not the number of people.

    So why do lefties pretend that we don’t need 7.something billion cars then Luc?

    What are ya?

    A commie?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Manolo (12,612 comments) says:

    Lucy is hinamanu’s sister stolen at birth.
    Everything can, must and should be blamed on capitalism.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    Kennedy Graham is wasted in his current career. The sooner he goes back to being a diplomat the better.

    Talk of population limits is anti-family and misguided. The left does seem to be anti-humanity in this respect. Voting the Greens is all very well and caring for animals and the rainforests is admirable, but the center right cares more about people.

    This is what one voter who has since taken their medical consultancy skills to Australia told me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Sorry Kea, my computer is obviously playing up

    Luc, No your computer is fine, its your thinking that is wrong.

    So tell us,how do suggest “wealth and resources” should be “allocated and distributed” ?

    Who do you suggest should undertake this important work?

    (Just a reminder muppet, the Government is the armed state. Laws and power are backed up with arms. I know of no place in the world where it is any different.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. SPC (4,609 comments) says:

    Monique if the right cared about people – why would it not ensure insulation of rentals was mandatory, why deny student allowances to post graduate students from low income families? Why are the Greens associated with spending more to support those in need if they do not care?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    SPC,

    Given the Greens policies would raise the cost of living, constrain investment, constrain wage growth and increase unemployment, it most certainly can be argued that they don’t really care at all. (Well, other than caring about imposing a socialist state of course.)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. wat dabney (3,422 comments) says:

    The problem is resource mis-allocation and wealth mal-distribution, not the number of people.

    Resource allocation can only be performed with anything like efficiency by a free market.

    As for wealth “mal-distribution” there is simply no such thing, not in a free economy anyway. Wealth is created. In a free market the rich are not rich at the expense of the poor; just as wealthy countries are not wealthy at the expense of the poorer ones.
    Of course, when the state is involved in “redistribution” then it is not the worthy but the politically powerful who benefit, by plundering everyone else. This is the mob rule that Luc is effectively advocating.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. wat dabney (3,422 comments) says:

    if the right cared about people – why would it not ensure insulation of rentals was mandatory

    There is no end to such a list of things which you could mandate, is there.

    If you care about people, why would you dramatically force up their cost of living by making their purchases so much more expensive? Forcing them to buy things which you think are good for them?

    Who are you to decide?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    just as wealthy countries are not wealthy at the expense of the poorer ones.

    Go to the dunces corner, fast!

    This is the mob rule that Luc is effectively advocating.

    Adopting Kea’s style, I see. I presume Kea is flattered.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Adopting Kea’s style, I see. I presume Kea is flattered.

    You lefties don’t understand, but if people do the right thing they do not need to flock together. It is about working as individuals towards a common goal.

    On the other hand, your type think people will only do the right thing if they are forced to and must all join (by more force) to act collectively.

    You still have not answered my questions about how (and who) wealth will be redistributed. ???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    SPC (1,601) Says:
    December 2nd, 2012 at 6:52 pm

    The mis-allocation of resources I refer to is excess consumption by a section of the global population at the expense of the rest.

    There are more obese people in the world than malnourished souls. A simple transfer of that excess to the rest would resolve problems of food insecurity. How that would be achieved is another matter, but it is the crux of the problem, not the number of people.

    As regards the efficiency of the free market, wat and others, the term ‘market failure’ exists for a reason. Sometimes, intervention is necessary, like it or not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Bob R (1,250 comments) says:

    ***Why should we stay relatively poor as a country so others can have a life style?***

    @ Pauleastbay

    Why do you think that having a larger population will increase per capita GDP? As noted above, mass immigration tends to make family formation less affordable for existing voters — due to supply and demand, housing prices go up and wages go down.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    @Kea

    I hesitate to answer because of the distortion that would inevitably result, but there are a number of avenues.

    An example would be worldwide carbon/financial transactions taxes, administered transparently by an independent body and distributed according to need.

    The time has arrived for such taxes, but it needs a revolution in political thinking for that to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Bob R (1,250 comments) says:

    ***How that would be achieved is another matter, but it is the crux of the problem, not the number of people.***

    One significant problem in terms of population growth is that it is occuring in the low IQ regions. As a certain level of national IQ seems to be is a prerequisite for maintaining a stable modern economy, this means there will be more global poverty in future.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_4ify7vDXrDs/TBJybHjBEzI/AAAAAAAAF_8/g4rsHjtA-ec/s1600/IQ+of+Nations.gif

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    There are more obese people in the world than malnourished souls. A simple transfer of that excess to the rest would resolve problems of food insecurity. How that would be achieved is another matter

    No it is not “another matter”.

    Given the history of the lefts attempts at addressing this issue, it is very relevant. So far we have around 150 million dead (still climbing). Many from STARVATION. It is still happening, right now, in North Korea.

    I guess that cures the obesity problem !

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Scott1 (357 comments) says:

    ” The problem is resource mis-allocation and wealth mal-distribution, not the number of people.”

    Luc,

    there can be 2 or more causes for a outcome like this.. in fact… I think… there are ALWAYS multiple causes…

    And besides – now you have walked straight into the comical leftist stereotype of the person who reallocates ever smaller amounts each year to everyone equally.

    FWIW I can hardly believe anyone was dumb enough to think biofuels were a good idea.. it took me all of about 5 minutes to realise that was going to have the obvious result when i first heard of it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Monique Watson (1,062 comments) says:

    SPC – that all comes under the category of: (Life is not fucking fair). This is a basic lesson that most learn in their teenage years, You have to work fucking hard to A) beat your inner demons) and B) beat every other fucker to the top.
    My friends ask me,”Monique, but why is socialism so bad?” I say: ” It sounds all very well and caring in practice but inevitably it becomes all about preservation of the collective and commonsense flies out the window, along with any sense of entrepreneurial spirit as the state becomes the ultimate parent.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Kea (10,451 comments) says:

    Luc, thanks for answering my question.

    So you reckon a global governing body, to tax people, is the answer.

    1) What say a country votes against it?

    2) Who will enforce this tax?

    3) HOW will it be enforced?

    I am really interested in the “HOW” part Luc…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    now you have walked straight into the comical leftist stereotype of the person who reallocates ever smaller amounts each year to everyone equally.

    The problem with that statement is that I didn’t advocate that.

    But to call lifting people out of poverty and hopelessness by simple reallocation of excess consumption says all one needs to know about the right.

    And I listed the two central causes of the problems often associated with population growth. Other factors can and do compound those two causes, eg trade restrictions, climate change, governance issues, US “national interests’…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Kea, me too.

    History shows that although it can be a long and tortured road, with sufficient advocacy by the major powers and others a global consensus can be arrived at.

    This is the only path I would argue for.

    In the meantime, we do what we can to alleviate the worst excesses of the ex-Empires (who remain rich largely with the plunder of that almost half-millenium of belligerent colonialism).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Scott1 (357 comments) says:

    Luc,
    “An example would be worldwide carbon/financial transactions taxes”
    “A simple transfer of that excess to the rest would resolve problems of food insecurity.”

    the environmental movement needs to learn to stop making proposals that have 0% chance of working… we already tried that for 15 years…

    I also note your “simple transfer” is rather more difficult than you make it sound even if you could get over the impossible political task of getting everyone in the world to agree to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    oops…Scott, I missed the word ‘comical’ between ‘consumption’ and ‘says’, sorry.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Scott1 (357 comments) says:

    “The problem with that statement is that I didn’t advocate that.”

    you dont need to have done so explicitly for my point to hold. It is maybe a misinterpretation of your position but it is what peopel will read in it here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Luc Hansen (4,573 comments) says:

    Scott, the world is awash with successes once deemed as having 0% chance of working and are now mainstream.

    I didn’t say the process would be simple, just the principle.

    And in reply to your latest post, I did say ‘according to need’. In my view, a basic standard of living for all the world needs to be determined and provided for, somehow (not by a Chairman Mao, thanks). Then it can be more of a free for all.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. SPC (4,609 comments) says:

    bhudson, the Green’s policies would create jobs (Labour housing policy is a steal off Greens after all) and boost wages (a higher minimum wage does create pressure on employers paying between $15 and $20 an hour to also increase wages).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. SPC (4,609 comments) says:

    wat, is it smart to provide subsidy incentives to landlords to do something they can be mandated to do? The same applies to Kiwi Saver – when the cost comes from borrowing (while we have a budget deficit)?

    The cost of not having insulation rentals comes from higher energy demand (upward pressure on power prices) and the educational and health consequences for those in unhealthy homes – given this means welfare dependency and health costs that are met by the government/taxpayer.

    PS Housing cost in the form of rent is not landlord cost plus – of that was the case why is there profiteeering in Chrsitchurch and Auckland from the rental shortage?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. SPC (4,609 comments) says:

    Monique – precisely the right do not are about all of the people and so do not want a government that

    1. taxes all forms of income – thus oppostion to a CGT, CG being the income those with spare capital can earn, which those without capital cannot (the classic capital haves vs low wager labour worker have nots political divide in display on this issue).
    2. has a focus on ensuring either sufficient jobs or housing for all
    3. ensures healthy housing for the poor
    4. continues access to post graduate tertiary education for all

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    SPC,

    The only this the Greens higher minimum wage would create is greater unemployment.

    The only place printing money would lead is inflation – a higher cost of living

    The Greens are an economic disaster waiting to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. SPC (4,609 comments) says:

    bhudson, greater spending by those receiving higher wages helps to sustain and create jobs.

    Printing money is no more inflationary than borrowing it offshore from those who created it by printing money. They then laundered it through banks on-lending it to us as an asset they now have in our debt to them. Thus we pay for the re-capitalisation of foreign banks so they can meet new Basel standards.

    Or to summarise – does having a debt interest cost for use of money created offshore really reduce the inflationary impact of borrowing the money we could have printed ourselves?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. V (660 comments) says:

    Suicide pills all-round at the Green Party convention.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. sparky (235 comments) says:

    bhudson: The only this the Greens higher minimum wage would create is greater unemployment.

    The only place printing money would lead is inflation – a higher cost of living

    The Greens are an economic disaster waiting to happen.

    How RIGHT you are. The Greens laced with Labour, would be an ECONOMIC disaster for NZ, with dopes like Shearer and Norman. who haven’t got a clue. I hope we are not going to see this come 2014. Tax and Spend Spend Spend, and oh we match Europe.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. bhudson (4,720 comments) says:

    SPC,

    Increasing the minimum wage bill increases cost to the business. In the absence of being able to charge more (and we live in a competitive world) the business will have to take action to control cost and maintain profit = fewer jobs.

    This is not a marginal effect. As Keeping Stock often points out, increasing the wage of the lowest paid worker will have implications throughout the workforce as those with greater skills and/or experience demand increases to maintain their wage value premium. This makes for very large cost impacts to businesses.

    Your Keynesian magical multiplier effect does not take into consideration the fact that fewer people will be working, which will counter the extra spending capability claimed. Also, allowing for just a moment that unemployment didnt rise immediately, it doesn’t consider the implications of where the money would come from. Their are two potential sources:

    1. Reduced profits
    2. Increased taxes

    Both options reduce saving and investment – the business owner having less profit to reinvest (which is, after all, the hallmark of capitalism) and taxpayers having less to save/invest as more of their income is taken to fuel consumption [your claim, in fact the key reason according to your comment], not saving.

    The net result is a reduction in productive investment, constraining job growth, and worsened private debt position, threatening a credit downgrade which will then have the effect of raising the cost of living and further suppressing productive investment as the cost of credit will be higher.

    As for printing money, how is that working out for Zimbabwe??

    As I said, the Greens are an economic disaster waiting to happen.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Elaycee (4,058 comments) says:

    Printing money is no more inflationary than borrowing it…

    What bollocks. Someone else has pointed out the obvious: printing money is not the answer, just ask anyone in Zimbabwe who had to use a $1,000,000,000,000 note to buy a loaf of bread! A one trillion dollar note! Sure, printing more money worked there, didn’t it? At one stage in 2009, a Zim 100 trillion dollar note couldn’t even buy a bus ticket in Harare!

    Jesus wept – are these fiscal illiterates the same people who think that an increase in the minimum wage to $15 will also solve all ills for minimum wage earners – but somehow it won’t result in a corresponding increase in the cost of goods and a lift in inflation?

    Anyone who really believes the Gween version of economics would somehow be good for NZ, is in urgent need of help.

    Last one out, turn off the lights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    How can there be too many kiwi’s when they all running over seas and being replaced by foreigners mostly Muslim

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Sam Buchanan (498 comments) says:

    Can’t understand why such an obvious beat-up on DPF’s part yields so many comments. This debate was fundamentally ridiculous from the start.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. hinamanu (2,352 comments) says:

    @Sam

    Helps devalue the Greens which is DPF’s strategy

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Manolo (12,612 comments) says:

    Helps devalue the Greens which is DPF’s strategy.

    No need to. The communist Luddites devalue themselves daily with their backward-looking behaviour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Sam Buchanan (498 comments) says:

    How many times do you have to call a clearly social democrat party ‘communist’ before it becomes true, Manolo?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. LabourDoesntWork (278 comments) says:

    People in the Third World just don’t have the luxury of indulging in the Green’s wealth destroying, anthrophobic insanity. See, the greenies feel guilty about driving SUVs, sipping white wine, living till their 90, being White, and not eating dirtclods like all those quaint dark people “close to nature”…. It so often goes hand in hand with hippy dippy crap.
    More fruits of the baby boomer generation that has to create its own problems to have any.
    Excuse me while I have another cup of don’t give a crap.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.