Is Labour’s policy in breach of the FTA they signed?

July 30th, 2013 at 5:27 am by David Farrar

blogs:

The Party’s new policy to prevent non-residents from buying existing houses seemed inconsistent with the equal treatment Article of the NZ China FTA. That FTA was a proudly claimed achievement of the last Labour PM – Helen Clark.

The FTA’s definition of “investor” refers to a person “who seeks to make, is making, or has made an investment….”. So it clearly looks at prospective investments.

But a technical reading of the equal treatment Article suggests that it may demand equal treatment once an investment has been made, but does not protect intending investors.

Under Article 138 of the NZ FTA (National Treatment)  all investments and activities associated with such investments made by investors of both parties must be treated, “with respect to management, conduct, operation, maintenance, use, enjoyment or disposal”  no less favourably than investments of its own investors. The list does not include “acquisition” or similar words.

So under that provision a Chinese house buyer must be treated the same as a New Zealander after acquiring residential property, but the protection does not extend to prospective buyers. Whew for Labour!

But wait – another Article (the most favoured nation clause) commits New Zealand not to pass law that discriminates against Chinese investors in comparison with other overseas investors (such as Australians).

Article 139 requires that investors of [China] be treated no less favourably than investors of any third country [Australia] “with respect to admission, expansion, management, conduct, operation, maintenance, use, enjoyment and disposal” of investments.

So Chinese would-be  investors do not get direct rights to insist on investor equality but they can’t be treated worse than Australians.

Labour has said Australians would still be allowed to buy residential property under their policy. This would breach Article 139.

The policy may also breach the Malaysia FTA and the ASEAN FTA it seems.

Also at NBR reports:

It is a mark of how bogus the debate has become that Labour’s figures about foreign owners of New Zealand houses almost definitely include former leader Helen Clark and her four  houses.

The current Labour leader and Miss Clark’s successor as MP for Mt Albert, David Shearer, claimed at the weekend there are “more than 11,000 overseas investors [who] own properties here that they don’t live in”.

What Mr Shearer did not say is the figure comes from Inland Revenue’s numbers about “non-resident” taxpayers who pay taxes on houses they  own in New Zealand.

“Non-resident” taxpayers are largely made up of  expatriate New Zealanders and in this context are those who have gone overseas and who have rented out their properties here.

There are no figures on this but it is a highly common practice – although most who go overseas will have only one, or maybe two, properties to rent out and not, as in the case of Miss Clark, who departed to the United Nations in 2009, who owns four.

Half the Labour caucus have investment properties. If they all sold them to aspiring first home buyers, that would probably do more to help the market, than this policy!

Last year’s Productivity Commission report looked at the issue, but only in the context of immigrants buying houses.

In that context, it found the main inflow was – again– not from Asians, as Mr Shearer dog whistled at the weekend, but expatriate New Zealanders.

There is, the commission said, “no evidence of an inflow of foreign-born immigrants to an  area impacting on house prices”.

There is, though, “a strong positive relationship between inflows of returning New Zealanders into an area and local house prices (with a 1% increase in population resulting from an inflow of returning Kiwis associated with a 6%-9% increase in house prices)”.

The commission concluded the main cause for higher house prices in recent years is  shortage of supply, driven by a mix of investment nervousness since the end of 2007, plus poor regulation leading to slow consenting processes for new developments and some evidence of high building  costs because of a lack of competition.

Labour’s bid on housing, in short, is not aimed at what is causing problems in the housing market and will do nothing to solve them. It is aimed rather at the party’s political problems.

Mr Shearer’s weekend launch was a clear, unsubtle and some would say desperate bid to pick up votes from the segment of the population which does not like foreigners, especially foreigners of a different coloured skin, very much.

Labour is, in short, dog whistling for the New Zealand First and Green Party xenophobic vote.

It is classic dog whistle politics. Blame the immigrants and foreigners.

Tags: , , , , ,

47 Responses to “Is Labour’s policy in breach of the FTA they signed?”

  1. Keeping Stock (10,098 comments) says:

    And it is policy conceived and announced on the hoof, without any thought for the consequences.

    And just as an interesting sideline, according to the May BNZ-REINZ survey, more houses were actually SOLD by non-residents than purchased by non-residents; 4.5% to 3.7%. Effectively, there was a nett gain in the percentage of NZ-resident ownership!

    Vote: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. big bruv (13,271 comments) says:

    I heard Jim Hopkins describe Labour’s housing policy perfectly yesterday. In keeping with recent events inside the Labour party camp Hopkins has labelled the new housing policy the “Chan Ban”

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. vibenna (305 comments) says:

    Does that mean kiwis can buy land in China then? Presumably an FTA implies reciprocal rights ….

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. thedavincimode (6,531 comments) says:

    Major Fuckup Alert

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. thedavincimode (6,531 comments) says:

    And it is policy conceived and announced on the hoof, without any thought for the consequences.

    Yes, but I’m not quite sure what your point is KS :lol:

    The pull policy out of your arse strategy is in full swing. Is anybody keeping track of these?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. martinh (1,155 comments) says:

    the fya wouldnt stop capital gains being added and also reading Stephen franks website this morning he says it might well be able to be worked around

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. thedavincimode (6,531 comments) says:

    Stephen franks website this morning he says it might well be able to be worked around

    Of course, Shearer knew that. LOL

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. martinh (1,155 comments) says:

    The biggest blow out is Nicki hager and his no proof, reminds me of Shearer and the non existent gcsb video

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Nigel Kearney (864 comments) says:

    If it takes enough votes away from Winston to drop him below 5% it may be most useful thing the Labour Party has done in quite a while.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. martinh (1,155 comments) says:

    @Nigel
    Very very true.
    I suppose thats why Winston came out shrieking it must be done immediately

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Monique Angel (251 comments) says:

    Would appear many of us are in the compAny of the good Helen Clark. What a hoot. I’ll be sitting on the sidelines enjoying the scrap knowing there is nothing that can be done to break open any of the companies that I’m a longtime director or shareholder of.
    And breaking open companies and trusts are only way that they could force me as an expat to sell property that I have an interest in.

    Never going to happen. What a bunch of muppets.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Pita (366 comments) says:

    Did Phil Goff sell his Wellington property, you know, the one he had on the market that was always on the verge of sale?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. martinh (1,155 comments) says:

    Monique, i dont think it applies to existing owners at all, I havent read anywhere that its retrospective

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    Noelene Sanderson (Christchurch)
    10:12 AM Monday, 29 Jul 2013
    >>..”The problem with house price growth is that it is typically the only thing in the New Zealand economy that is growing..”

    So the more it grows, the more disadvantaged are most New Zealanders! – Unless wage-growth and other relevant factors catch up! Yeah,right!? (I haven’t voted Labour, but) Labour’s proposal, together with a Capital Gains tax and other allied initiatives, would recover New Zealanders’ rights and opportunities to be able to afford a home.

    The negative, self-serving attempt by National and its cohort parties, to try to present the policy as racist (any excuse to try to scuttle the opposition) does not hoodwink thinking people, who can see that this is by no means xenophobia, but the determination by Labour, N.Z.First and Greens to take measures which will ensure democratic action, and the wellbeing and progress towards house-buying of ‘ordinary’ New Zealanders.

    Such attacks by the government do not command any respect!
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10904640

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    Good to see National, United Tobacco Act and it’s rent-seeking supporters cuddling up to China. In the past we have had difficulty differentiating the target.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 14 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. insider (1,000 comments) says:

    Interesting that Denmark has followed labour’s policy by banning foreigners and having a capital gains taxes on residential property investment.

    Denmark has the most unaffordable housing in Europe

    http://www.housingeurope.eu/www.housingeurope.eu/uploads/file_/CECODHAS%20Observatory%20Briefing_Housing%20Affordability%202012.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Lance (2,448 comments) says:

    @hj
    You use democratic and Labour in the same sentence.

    Bra ha ha ha ha ha

    The same Labour that is anti anything resembling freedom of choice.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    So the Government has research which says that migrants don’t put up house prices?

    From The Landlord Says:
    Meanwhile the National Party released its immigration policy. You may wonder what this means for the property market. It is clear from research that immigration is one of the key drivers of house price growth.
    The logic is simple. If you import more people into the country, then you need more houses. Supply and demand means that prices are then pushed up, this is particularly so in Auckland.
    While the latest immigration numbers show the number of people coming into New Zealand is starting to rise, the Nat’s policy looks like it wants to increase immigration levels even further. (Although it is unclear what sort of number they are targeting.)
    This policy is, arguably, a plus for people who want house prices to rise. (But may be not so good for first home owners wanting to buy.)
    My guess has always been that property investors lean heavily towards the right rather than the left. (This was made clear in an email newsletter I saw from one developer this week.)
    ………

    The BNZ Chief Economist’s view on the Auckland House Prices
    Posted by David Whitburn on 1 November 2012 | 0 Comments
    Tags: Tony Alexander, BNZ, BNZ house prices, Auckland housing issues, Auckland house prices, housing unaffordability, government intervention
    Tony Alexander’s view on house prices
    In BNZ Chief Economist Tony Alexander’s weekly overview, Auckland house prices are set to move upwards nicely. Here are his 19 reasons why:
     
    1. Auckland did not enter the 2008 recession then late-2008 into 2009 global financial crisis with an over-supply of property. Shortages of personnel constrained house construction from 2004 through 2008.
    2. The shortage has become worse in the past four years and last year annual consent numbers were at a four decade low.
    3. The government is explicitly aiming to grow Auckland’s population as a means of achieving “agglomeration” benefits for economic growth which accrue from high interaction amongst economic players.
    …..

    80% of our population growth in the last couple of decades has been the net inflow of non NZ citizens .
    “Among policy and analytical circles in New Zealand there is a pretty high degree of enthusiasm for high levels of immigration. Some of that stems from the insights of literature on increasing returns to scale. Whatever the general global story, the actual productivity track record here in the wake of very strong inward migration is poor. In an Australian context, the Productivity Commission – hardly a hot-bed of xenophobia or populism – concluded that any benefits from migration to Australia were captured by migrants and there were few or no discernible economic benefits to Australians. And that was in a country already rich and successful and with materially higher national saving and domestic investment rates than those in NZ.”
    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/downloads/pdfs/mi-jarrett-comm.pdf
    Government policies blamed for house prices
    “Immigration and tax breaks for investment in residential property are being cited as the underlying causes of steep increases in the cost of housing over the past decade.
    New Zealand now boasts one of the highest rates of home unaffordability in the world as a result of prices rising far faster than incomes, and the government’s Savings Working Group blames that squarely on the policies of successive governments.
    Although “the favourable tax treatment of property investment” accounted for about 50% of house price increases between 2001 and 2007, the working group said, there was also strong evidence that rapid swings in immigration brought about price-rise “shocks”.
    There was a sharp spike in immigration in 2001, 2002 and 2003 and, said working group committee member Dr Andrew Coleman, it appeared that property prices did not fall anywhere near as greatly when immigration fell again.
    The report added that there was little evidence that immigration boosted local incomes. In fact, the need to build roads and schools meant that net migration contributed to the national deficit. ”
    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/4622459/Government-policies-blamed-for-house-prices

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Rick Rowling (801 comments) says:

    So Chinese would-be investors do not get direct rights to insist on investor equality but they can’t be treated worse than Australians.

    Oh well, Labour will still be able to keep other foreigners out, maybe not Chinese, but maybe South Americans.

    No Chan Ban, but a Juan Ban.

    And no Scots – we can also have a Clan Ban.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. itstricky (1,555 comments) says:

    So what about reciprocal rights? Do we? And why does one who ask such questions get down votes?

    I’m sure this conversation has been had on here before. Something Winston said of course?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    Go Labour!

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    insider (969) Says:
    July 30th, 2013 at 8:08 am
    Interesting that Denmark has followed labour’s policy by banning foreigners and having a capital gains taxes on residential property investment.

    Denmark has the most unaffordable housing in Europe
    ….
    Haaaaa! a clear case of interference with the free market!?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. markm (98 comments) says:

    Yes HJ
    Go Labour….. And never come back

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    Yes HJ
    Go Labour….. And never come back
    ….
    You need a microscope to see Act’s support these days?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Paulus (2,500 comments) says:

    Do you think that a Green/Labour/NZFirst/Mana Government will take any notice of any FTA once in power ?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. kiwi in america (2,436 comments) says:

    hj
    Quite interesting – you say the policy is not xenophobic and then in the very next post you accuse people of cuddling up to China. I guess Eurasia is no longer at war with Eastasia.

    Go check out the Global Property Guide at http://www.globalpropertyguide.com – it has an interesting section for each country called Buying Guide where it details the policies towards foreign ownership. Only 4 countries of the 32 in the OECD have outright bans. Two of them (Switzerland and Denmark) have very expensive housing markets and in the case of Switzerland its quite overheated so good luck with the stated intention of affordable housing. Another 7 countries have some restrictions but where foreign ownership is relatively easily approved and the rest have effectively no restrictions (or restrictions so limited with processes for approval simple and uncomplicated). A full 1/4 of foreign sales are to Aussies who would be exempt so we are talking about maybe 3% of the property market here.

    More significantly is that the list of countries where foreign ownership is allowed (or easily achieved) is dominated by the world’s wealthiest countries and the list of countries that ban foreign ownership is dominated by 3rd world countries, corrupt and/or despotic regimes and countries where government expropriation of wealth is commonplace through high taxes, fees and licensing/approval costs. What camp does Labour want NZ to be in?

    It underscores how clueless Labour and the Greens are about wealth creation and its flow on effects. Progressively more and more of the many things on the Greens ban list (http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/10/the_greens_banned_list.html) are migrating to Labour’s ban list

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. dime (9,422 comments) says:

    i know its a hard ask, but it would be great if some journalist researched any houses sold by sitting labour mp’s. just to see if anyone sold a house to an evil chinaman

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    vibenna>Does that mean kiwis can buy land in China then? Presumably an FTA implies reciprocal rights ….

    China is slowly changing from a dodgy socialist place to a free market. No one, including NZers, have the right to own property in China. Although presumably some Chinese nationals resident in NZ own property in China. But then neither do we reciprocally implement corrupt courts to rule on cases involving Chinese businesses in NZ, or prevent Chinese NZers from accessing the internet freely.

    It’s part of a long term plan to position ourselves as one of China’s most trusted trading partners as they develop in to the world’s biggest economy. And as they develop democracy, a proper legal system, and a free property market. At the moment that is benefitting us in billions of dollars or trade and thousands of NZ jobs. In the long term the sky is the limit.

    The small minded individuals who lead Labour, the Greens, and NZ First risk throwing away the long term prize so they can indulge themselves in some racist-minded popularism. National (and Helen Clark previously) were thinking ahead fifty years. The “give me back my flag” threesome are thinking about as far as the next polls.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Morgy (169 comments) says:

    There is an elephant in the room……after all that’s been said over the last couple of days I think EVERYONE including the opposition are still in the dark about the most obvious points in what you would expect to have been a well researched policy statement:
    1. How many non residents not including ex pats buy houses per annum and where?
    2. How many non residents not including ex pats sell houses per annum and where?
    3. What is the net figure of those two BUT with the removal of Australians?
    4. By activating this policy, what do their research unit estimate the impact on the average purchase price to be?

    Regardless of all the political posturing going on here and throughout the MSM or other blogs aren’t these the fundamentals that need clarity?

    Or, as I (and most of us here suspect) there isn’t a problem!!!!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Morgy (169 comments) says:

    EDIT: There isn’t a problem that is caused by foreign buyers.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Jack5 (4,584 comments) says:

    David P posted at 9.38:

    …It’s part of a long term plan to position ourselves as one of China’s most trusted trading partners as they develop in to the world’s biggest economy. And as they develop democracy, a proper legal system, and a free property market

    And the Communist Party, with its 80 US dollar billionaires, is giving up the reins of power, the perks, the police state protection, and will return to privately owned property and freedom of religion and multi-party politics, and a financial system that is ruled by fiat rather than market.

    What a dreamer you are, David P.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. tvb (4,201 comments) says:

    Labour have vacated the sensible centre as they try and head off the Greens. That leaves clear blue water for the National Party. John Key has cleverly repositioned the National Party to stride the broad centre meanwhile holding the right He has left some room for the religious right by taking a fairly liberal stance on social issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Jack5 (4,584 comments) says:

    Labour is on a winner for marginal votes on this issue.

    Many middle voters resent the ethnic re-engineering of New Zealand not so much because they don’t like the new mix, but because there was never open political debate on it, let alone was it an issue they could vote on. Some such people feel this is the second foreign colonisation of this country, this time without a Treaty of Waitangi.

    Mai Chen was saying on Radio NZ’s Labour Programme this week that soon one in three New Zealanders will be Asian. The election in 15 months or so will likely be the last chance for Caucasians and Maori to have a meaningful vote on the ethnic change.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. burt (7,805 comments) says:

    hj

    You need a microscope to see Act’s support these days?

    Yes that’s right – becasue ACT supporters aren’t just voting like their mummy told them too when they first turned 18. The people who have abandoned ACT are smart enough to judge a party on it’s policies and what it has (or might achieve) rather than on the colour of it’s logo and it’s rhetoric.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. wreck1080 (3,730 comments) says:

    Auckland house prices are exceptionally high, but, just wait a few years. Growth @ 12% p/a, will see prices double again in just over 6 years .

    And, if you don’t think it could happen, check Vancouver house prices where the average price is above 1.2 million NZD and avg wages around 40k (CAD but you do the conversion ha ha).

    I think this could be a good rule to trim future speculation by foreign buyers. But, it should only apply to areas with supply based price pressures.

    Tauranga for example, where house prices are still falling in real terms and have dropped 30% since 2007 after accounting for inflation. Given Tga prices are still static (-0.1% from a year ago), they have fallen another 3% in real terms.

    Preventing foreigners from buying, and the new deposit rules may cause a house price collapse in tauranga (and other simlar markets).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. odysseus (25 comments) says:

    “It is classic dog whistle politics. Blame the immigrants and foreigners.”

    Hypocrisy from DPF plumbs new depths .

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    kiwi in america (1,959) Says:
    July 30th, 2013 at 9:34 am
    hj
    Quite interesting – you say the policy is not xenophobic and then in the very next post you accuse people of cuddling up to China. I guess Eurasia is no longer at war with Eastasia.
    …….
    I don’t claim the policy isn’t xenophobic; I say the xenophobes aren’t wrong and i don’t care if NZ’rs are racist as if ther’re not they’ll be the first people in the world who aren’t (it is characteristic of primate behaviour).

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    Kiwi in America says:

    More significantly is that the list of countries where foreign ownership is allowed (or easily achieved) is dominated by the world’s wealthiest countries and the list of countries that ban foreign ownership is dominated by 3rd world countries, corrupt and/or despotic regimes and countries where government expropriation of wealth is commonplace through high taxes, fees and licensing/approval costs. What camp does Labour want NZ to be in?
    ………………
    So where has Auckland gone wrong?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    There is, the commission said, “no evidence of an inflow of foreign-born immigrants to an area impacting on house prices”.

    “Once Redcliffs was an unprepossessing fishing village, distinguished by a collection of modest fishermen’s cottages. Most have now dissapeared, replaced by more luxurious residences, and property values have escalated.

    “It’s a standing joke that we’re being taken over by the Americans and British, who have taken advantage of the stronger property markets in their own countires and favourable exchange rates”

    “I know an English couple who have summer here and go back to England in the winter”

    “What other parts of the city have such nice walks?…..

    Liar, Liar Pants on Fire!!

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    hj (4,473) Says:

    yes hj, it just goes to show the integrity of the NZ Government and their industry partners!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    Productivity Commision:
    We recommend that you:
    a agree to the inquiry selection process set out in Appendix 1
    Agree/disagree
    b agree that Commission’s second tranche of inquiries be selected on the degree that
    they:
    • are relatively uncontroversial given the desire to establish broad political support for the Commission

    • utilise the Commission’s unique position as an independent agency with high
    quality analytical ability and community engagement approaches
    • support the establishment of the Commission by developing its capability,
    capacity and reputation, and
    • have the potential to improve productivity and support the overall well-being of
    New Zealanders.

    Particular attention should be given, *****without limitation,******* to the following matters:
    (a) factors influencing the supply of land and basic infrastructure for residential
    construction;
    (b) factors influencing the cost of residential construction, including the effect of
    standards, specifications, approval and title requirements on the cost of new
    housing construction;
    (c) the level and growth of productivity in the land development and residential
    construction industries, and the effect of government regulations on productivity
    in these industries;
    (d) the efficiency of taxes, levies and charges imposed at all stages of the housing
    supply chain;
    (e) the efficiency of the tax treatment of owner-occupied and rental housing;
    (f) the influence of changing consumer housing preferences, willingness to pay, and
    financing costs on housing affordability; and
    (g) the operation of the overall housing market, with specific reference to the
    availability of a range of public and private housing types, the demand for
    housing, and the efficiency of use of the existing residential housing stock.
    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/productivitycommission/pdfs/t2011-2000.pdf

    immigration got shafted – Allows Rob Hosking NBR to quote willy-nilly….

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. OneTrack (2,598 comments) says:

    Does hj stand by all his statements?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. Reid (15,939 comments) says:

    In politics, perception is reality. And Aklders see what happens at auctions. Simple as that.

    And whatever objection is raised, you will not be able to change that perception.

    Simple. As. That.

    National’s position on this is mental. They will lose in 2014 if they don’t do something similar. And because Liarbore did it first (and why did it take Liarbore so long) the Nats probably won’t do anything at all except munt, yes munt on like King Canute. As the tide of reality in the form of perception rolls right over them.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Monique Angel (251 comments) says:

    HJ. You know nothing. Go buy a house and get some fucking experience in the real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    Monique Angel (98) Says:
    July 30th, 2013 at 6:33 pm

    HJ. You know nothing.
    ………………………
    would you be more specific?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    David P Says:

    It’s part of a long term plan to position ourselves as one of China’s most trusted trading partners as they develop in to the world’s biggest economy. And as they develop democracy, a proper legal system, and a free property market. At the moment that is benefitting us in billions of dollars or trade and thousands of NZ jobs. In the long term the sky is the limit.
    ………..

    Stephen King, global head of research at HSBC, has an explanation. “Globalisation,” he argues, “isn’t just a story about a rising number of export markets for western producers. Rather, it’s a story about massive waves of income distribution, from rich labour to poor labour, from labour as a whole to capital, and from energy users to energy producers. This is a story about winners and losers, not a fable about economic growth.” Redistribution of income from workers in the west to workers in low-income countries has come about both through capital leaving high-cost sites in north America and western Europe for low-cost greenfield sites in Asia or eastern Europe, and through labour coming in the other direction. The rise in immigration has helped to keep downward pressure on wages in the west. Within western economies, labour’s weak bargaining position has meant capital has been able to increase its share of the cake.
    Lower prices
    The upside of globalisation is that it has led to lower prices and hence raised real incomes in the west. But King says it is not as simple as workers winning on the roundabouts what they lose on the swings. “Consumers and workers are not one and the same thing: consumers include children, students, househusbands and wives, pensioners and the unemployed – none of these receives a wage. Equally, consumers include owners of capital – shareholders – and those who receive income from their savings, whether through bank accounts or through ownership of bond portfolios.”
    It’s not difficult to see why politicians intoning about the challenges of globalisation are met with such cynicism. It’s easy to be enthusiastic about globalisation if you are a winner, less easy if you’re a loser. If you’ve just received a 2% pay rise when your chief executive has pocketed an increase 10 times as big; if your job has just been outsourced to India or China, or if your ability to negotiate a pay rise is limited by the arrival of cheap foreign labour, you’re not necessarily going to buy the argument that it is illegitimate to defend your job and your living standards.
    And as King rightly notes, the losers from globalisation all have votes. To coin a phrase: capitalism is creating its own enemy within.
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2005/nov/07/politics.globalisation

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. hj (6,350 comments) says:

    Monique Angel (98) Says:
    July 30th, 2013 at 7:33 am
    Would appear many of us are in the compAny of the good Helen Clark. What a hoot. I’ll be sitting on the sidelines enjoying the scrap knowing there is nothing that can be done to break open any of the companies that I’m a longtime director or shareholder of.
    And breaking open companies and trusts are only way that they could force me as an expat to sell property that I have an interest in.

    Never going to happen. What a bunch of muppets.
    ……………………………….
    Property Council minus PR.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.