Exactly half of the apartments offered were sold under the hammer at the latest Auckland apartment auctions.
City Sales was first off the blocks, with four apartments on offer.
One had its auction date postponed but there were multiple bidders on the other three with two selling under the hammer.
One was a 91 square metre leasehold unit on Quay St in the CBD that went for $122,000, and the other was a 46 square metre unit on Symonds St that fetched $420,000.
Of the five units due to be offered at Barfoot & Thompson's apartment auction, one was sold prior to the commencement of the auction, one was withdrawn from sale, two sold under the hammer and one was passed in.
Two commercial properties were also offered at the same auction, with one selling and the other passed in.
Things were comparatively restrained at Ray White City Apartments' auction where they have been getting a high success rate recently.
There was competitive bidding on all five apartments on offer but just two were sold under the hammer.
The auction had an unusually high percentage of Chinese people bidding compared to other recent auctions, but they tended to remain cautious on price.
However the level of interest suggested most of the passed in properties would have found new owners by the start of the Easter break.
You can see the results from all three auctions, with the prices achieved on individual properties and details of those that didn't sell, on our Auction Results page.
You can receive all of our property articles automatically by subscribing to our free email Property Newsletter. This will deliver all of our property-related articles, including auction results and interest rate updates, directly to your in-box 3-5 times a week. We don't share your details with third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time. To subscribe just click on this link, scroll down to "Property email newsletter"and enter your email address.
63 Comments
Maybe now that the chinese banks are operational, that can take deposits in china to secure lending here, the thrill ride may start again. It could be that the government knows of an imminent volcanic eruption and is happy for kiwis to vacate the isthmus by flogging it all off to offshore suckers before the big splooge, then we can buy it back cheap after it cools and solidifies. You heard it here first folks....
Good point re the Chinese banks.
It's very important that we prioritise selling Auckland off and out from under the next generations of Kiwis. It's important for people to realise that natives have no inherent right to their land, and it's really about how many muskets and blankets the current occupants can get in for their plot in the here and now.
On another note, you know how bad Auckland's gotten when you can even browse listings in Manhattan and find yourself saying "Oh, that's not too bad for an apartment like that".
If we really want to fix the supposed housing crisis in Auckland all we need to do is this; Introduce a vacant home tax same as Vancouver's new tax: Residents scramble to avoid Vancouver’s vacancy tax
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/residents-scramble…
Really...??? This is what you want.. This is a solution CJ...??
I know a number of people who live in Auckland and go overseas during our winter...
According to this article , they would be charged a vacant property tax..
This kind of ideology , is not solution focused, and is in the same inane toolbox of political solutions as "Price Controls"...
If you want to understand some of the fundamental problems , reread Wymads posts here.
The very first Building block of Affordable housing starts with the cost of Land..
NOT... taxing housing that might be empty for a few mths.
The Real Estate boom is Global... It has even hit Germany..
Play with the linked interactive graph... Check out Germany, Turkey, Sth Africa..etc..etc.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/11/global-house-prices
Its not just Immigration, not just Urban limits, not just compliance costs. At a deeper fundamental level it has to do with money itself, and the quantity and cost of money..and the financialization of the "Western World" over that last 50 yrs ie.. Central Banks and a flawed monetary system.
http://www.doctorhousingbubble.com/real-homes-of-genius-los-angeles-tra…
House prices in LA and San Francisco are worse than they are here.... in my view
Over there, Rents are a huge problem
If guys like you had their way... rents would be a huge problem in Auck. as well. ( ie. From reading you and others posts, you have a -ve view of Investors/Landlords, )
California is building a high speed train system between LA and San Francisco...
At least that is a positive step , rather than a punitive one.
In my view taxes that are simply a knee jerk, band-aid response to a problem, are simply punitive and dont address any of the issues. In terms of ideology , it is just another step down the road in forcing people to do something.
Another step down that road might be to tax households that have empty bedrooms that are not used..
( just saying this to make the point )
Yes, time to get rid of the ghost homes Roelof (Zachary)
Ghost homes - properties lie empty in spite of crisis
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=116…
And I don't give a feck if rich arse holes cry about paying extra tax on holiday homes, time to give young Kiwis a break!
Roelof surely you can understand the very simple concept of taxing 'Empty homes'. But let me spell it out for you to be clear about the benefits, which are:-
1) Those who can afford to leave a property empty and not need to rent it out (Since it's not their main residence) as a holiday home or an investment asset. Can absolutely afford to pay extra tax on this vacant asset. This tax can help generate extra revenue for building new homes.
2) Having an Empty Home tax will also put off would be Investment Speculators from buying up homes with the intention of leaving them empty to further restrict property supply in main cities such as Auckland and increase their capital gains. We all know that if you limit supply that naturally pushes up house prices. So with deterring this type of speculative investment behavior it very much helps to take the pressure off the housing market allowing FTB's to be able to afford homes.
3) To avoid paying the empty home tax, the owner can decide to rent out the property. This takes off the pressure on the rental market and helps to lower rents though having an increased home supply, allowing young Kiwi's to save for a deposit far more easily.
4) If the Investor chooses to not want to pay the extra empty home tax, they can always sell which helps to free up property for occupation.
5) Of course there ca be exceptions to this tax, such as if the property is going through significant renovation work, sufficient evidence would need to be provided if this work was to last longer than six months. And if the property was inherited and is going through probate (But generally that doesn't usually take as long as six months, I know I've been through it).
The Empty Home Tax is certainly not a new concept, there are various forms of the same tax through out the Western world, to help ease home supplies to residents.
ok ..I see where u are coming from..just another tax.. ( someone rich enuf to have an empty house like u describe, for whatever reason, is rich enuf to pay the tax ). My guess is that only a minority of people might keep homes permanently empty as u describe.
The rest of the people will be "collateral damage" , with your tax.. eg. bachs...people who travel overseas...etc.
My guess is that it wont make any difference for a FHB.
More tax more regulation..... (we are drowning in the regulation stuff.)
Not my preferred way to solve what is a very real issue.... In fact, I disagree with more rules and more tax.
I much prefer Waymads point of view . ( see some of his comments in this thread )
http://www.interest.co.nz/property/62711/salvation-army-says-govt-shoul…
The irony is that Waymads ideas, which in my view truly are a long term solution , will NEVER be implemented whereas a "more rules "..."more tax" idea will pass in the blink of an eyelid.
Do u perceive anyone who might own a bach as fair game..??? Why.??
I dont see any connection between a Bach and the FHBs' dilemma of affordability ..??
The Real Estate boom is Global... It has even hit Germany.. Roelof
I believe this is a key point which makes solving it almost impossible. NZ would have to extricate itself from the Global system. My contention is that we don't need to solve it as it is fundamentally a good thing that reflects the desirability of the main global cities. In a globalist world the only way to regulate the ability to live in the most desirable locations is through price.
From the Economist article:
...housing appears to be more than 40% overvalued in Australia, Britain and Canada.
Missing from that list is New Zealand but it should be there. What are the things these countries have in common? English language and British legal system and culture. In the global economy this gives them an edge for attracting foreign interest because English is the only real second language for up and coming foreign people and British culture is considered the safest and most stable. If you consider this these cities are not over priced but are actually correctly priced. For some reason, possibly political correctness, this factor is omitted from the analysis.
I know I sound like a stuck record but I will tell you why. A few years ago I was a proponent of the Anglosphere - a federation of the English speaking countries formed into an economic/military bloc jealosly guarding its borders, resources, culture and power. This was not to be but now appears to be forming sort of naturally even with fairly fluid borders. It is a vindication of my gut feeling.
So what is the end game here? How do cleaners and teachers afford to live in these great cities of the world? Do they all eventually move into mass apartment housing projects? Or do they all catch the bus from nearby cheaper towns, traveling for 3+ hours a day? Is that what we want to happen?
With open immigration, wont the perceived benefits of these great cities very soon be diminished till they are just like everywhere else?
Don't think we do not have a choice in the matter. We can choose the parts of globalism we like, and restrict the parts we don't. Our government is still sovereign.
Cleaners are more than capable of buying one or even two Auckland homes. They are not worried why should you? http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=118…
Why do people buy a property and then borrow money to buy more property? I mean I know why, leverage multiplies the capital gains (and loses) and there can be tax advantages. I wish one of these articles would read - we bought a house and now we are buckling down and paying the debt off before investing in other assets like shares. I don't mind people buying houses with money but the whole maximise debt, keep buying houses on tick really bothers me. If prices drop 20% and a bunch of people have 20% equity that is a 100% loss.
At last weeks auctions I saw a vendor melt down situation, as the two competing bidders both stopped out at 10% less than the property was purchased for last year.
Mind you some places attracted no bids. Most seemed to sell. Often highest bidder and vendor would take a room, later the crowd then told the vendor had accepted the bid.
So they are nearly millionaires, in such a short time, no debt, all taxes legitimately paid. Must earn a lot, no matter how frugal they are. Oh!...and someone else pays their other house. (Savers...who had their interest ...reduced, forcibly, as we all know, but will not admit to the tax free lurk)....while they get their Tax free gains..I suppose...relying on Capital Gains, like most of our leading lights, in Labour, National, even the Greens...etc. Is that how how we all should do, follow their example?.
But what about Bank exposures....who will pay, when there is no further unlimited expansion, in rent and debt?.
The Savers again??.
the jones... yes you ask the good questions..
I can see why the small Pacific Island Nations only allow leasehold ownership of Land to foreigners ..
Its' to do with those reasons\questions you raise... ie. People becoming disenfranchised from the land.
So...Yes..we do have a choice in the matter.
How Nz fits into A Global world is a debate from which the answers probably should be put to a referendum vote ... in my view..
ie. determining what we value, within the context of Globalization
Globalization is a 2 edged sword.... and we have the choice on how we want to fit in.
"How Nz fits into A Global world is a debate from which the answers probably should be put to a referendum vote ..."
- what would be the clear , binary and yet meaningful questions put to the referendum vote ?
- as you say "Globalization is a 2 edged sword" - do you really think one could capture the trade offs involved in a few questions fit to be voted on ?
A debate is certainly a good idea but I do not think a referendum is .
Methinks that ship has long sailed .. there is a lot to like about the results and a lot not to like - but any cure is guaranteed to be worse than the disease. Reading what the likes of CJ009 and RickS have to say paints the picture .
I agree about the desirability of English speaking/cultured countries Zachary.
The same stats are born out in the EU demographics also. The UK has had by far the biggest intake of migrants over the last 20 years of any EU country. Even though during the 70's and 80's population actually decreased with less children being born in the UK, immigration soon reversed this trend because the UK was the country most popular for immigrants.
The UK now has only 1 million or so lower population than France and Germany, who are geographically much, MUCH bigger. People have been predicting the UK's population to stabilise and net migration to decrease for well over a decade in the UK and it HASN'T happened. Even Brexit might not stem the tide when the Brexit government have indicated that they want to change the demographics of those gaining entry, not the number.
NZ looks to be following the exact same pattern. There are endless forecasts that immigration to NZ will reduce or stabilise naturally. That somehow, demand will evaporate for some magical reason. But why would this happen? Unless the government actively reduces immigration, I can't see any natural decline in demand for NZ residency (or OZ for that matter). Stable, english speaking countries surrounded by poorer "emerging markets" who are less stable and have less "soft power". Of course, NZ and Oz are going to remain a wildly popular destination for immigrants. And because Baby Boomer pensions are going to require a sustained injection of young taxable blood to pay their super and healthcare, no government are going to turn off that tap. Not when they are sat with the treasury books laid out in front of them. They will shaft the younger generations on housing affordability to avoid the economic collapse and lack of stability that would occur without immigration to prop it all up.
That isn't to say that something won't pop the bubble in spectacular style. Low interest rates and asset bubbles are a global phenomenon now irrelevant of population growth, but the pain of that bubble popping will be less and shorter lived in the countries that remain popular migration destinations over the coming decade IMO.
Definitely location, location, location. Even better DGZ location for the obvious reason, close to elite schools, close to CBD, close to motorway, close to amenities, close to everything. And I am 101% sure that is why the house prices are so high around these areas - people can see what they are paying for. FHB's or those with lesser income have the option to live outside of the more popular central/inner suburbs...there are affordable houses available in the range of 500-600k in most places. Furthermore our government is doing all they can to encourage building affordable homes and SHAs. We should be grateful that we have the opportunity to live in Auckland and to enjoy what the Super City has to offer.
I'm sure that is what the medieval lords said to their serfs in feudal England too. You are lucky to be alive and be gods children, now work 16 hour days for me and occasional go to war and be happy that you live in paradise. Sounds like a joke but if house prices keep increasing by > wage increases, then most aucklanders will be nothing but serfs working for their existence and the chance to procreate. Or, you know, we could admit there is a problem. One of those two outcomes.
Let's get something straight, shall we, for far too many people, half a million plus is NOT affordable, and for the most part is lousy value for money. Something is seriously, seriously wrong, and it must change. What it changes to, who knows, but change it must, I can only hope it changes for the better.
There has never been a time in all recorded history when there was not socioeconomic stratification. In pre-history there are some tantalising potential examples in the archeological record, but that is it.
There have been times and countries, for brief periods who have had slightly less socioeconomic stratification than the historical norm (NZ was an example of that for a few decades) but other than that, the one constant of all history, is that on the whole, human beings are inherently greedy and that those is power fight hard to maintain their power and privilege at the expense of someone else.
Most peasant revolutions did not succeed in ending socioeconomic stratification longer term. Those who overthrew the aristocracy or plutocracy of the time, soon learned to appreciate the trappings of privilege and eventually behaved in the same way.
I am openly cynical and misanthropic. I admit that. But I don't think an objective examination of history, or awareness of current affairs can lead to any other rational stance.
You can be as idealistic as you like. I have my own moral compass and I **feel** that inequality is wrong. But I also recognise that in our current global corporatocracy, we are all destined to debt slavery, until the worlds resources run out and some new fresh hell is unleashed.
Yes you do sound like a stuck record .... and it is getting very boring repeating the same thing over and over again. Your contention sounds more like a justification for the maintenance of the status quo ( for your own benefit ) rather than a solution to the problem. The "desirability" could also be solved by limiting who New Zealand allows into the country but that would most likely affect price ( and we couldn't have that could we).
You talk of globalization - but how global is the world. In terms of trade most likely not as much as you think.
"To understand that claim, consider a construct from international economics known as the gravity equation. In a world littered with economic theories that fail to pass empirical tests, the gravity equation is a welcome relief because it fits the data fairly well. The equation takes varied forms, but a simple variant suggests that, once we have adjusted for the gross domestic product of countries and some other control variables, trade is on average inversely proportional to distance. More concretely, the U.S. trades much more with Canada than with Australia, even though the economic profiles of Canada and Australia are relatively similar."
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-04-07/one-fact-constrainin…
New Zealand is a small country on the bottom of the world - far from most of it's markets. We trade mostly with Australia and China , with the EU much further down the list (and much further away). My contention is that New Zealand has dug itself a hole and doesn't know how to get out of it.
Yes but some have a greater affect than others - what the Fed does creates ripples around the world but what the NZRB does appears to have no effect whatever - even in New Zealand according to some. While capital flows may be more global, trade flows are more regional. New Zealand relies heavily on trade - New Zealand is not a major player in the financial markets ( unless you include the dubious financial companies resident in the New Zealand).
100% agree with Badrobot on this.
NZ is the 53rd contributor to the world's GDP behind Peru and Romania. Some charts place NZ lower and many don't even bother to rank NZ at all because underneath the top 50, frankly why bother?
What is interesting is that despite its almost complete insignificance to the world economy, the NZD has been among the top 10 most traded currencies over the last 5 years. There is only a very small amount of NZD in the world compared to the butt tonnes of all the majors sloshing about thanks to QE. NZD has been a lovely little toy to play with for carry trade, much to the chagrin of RBNZ.
Not this rubbish again.
Your mindless pursuit of a justification for the superiority of the English language and it as a driver of economic wealth just displays how little you understand about economics.
It is not as you say an omitted fact because of 'political correctness' (something that has no sway in the economic/ any scientific literature. Facts are facts in science and as such are not omitted due to a PC environment - all academics have something very special called academic freedom to protect against this very issue). To assert so further reiterates my point that your understanding of economic theory and its manifestation is rather poor.
I say do yourself a favour; learn what correlation really means, take an elementary course in macroeconomics, read any of the economic literature on the topic, and stop plaguing this site with inept rhetoric.
Rant over.
I never said that the English language was a driver of economic wealth (actually it is economically important in China!). I said it was an important factor to consider when investing in real estate. Along with global city status etc. A lot of factors adding up here. After all what makes a good location? Usually a lot of factors coming together to form a perfect storm. The UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand all have a lot of common factors that have pushed up property prices in key cities. The correlation is primarily British culture and the number of folk that speak English as a second language -at this moment in history. It's very attractive to many buyers. Cairo, Lima or Auckland, hmmm, if I speak English as a second language I wonder which one is the better bet to stake my children's future on?
Again, your understanding of economic theory is very poor.
Jeez, a reference from expat.com? Nearly as relevant as Ham & Eggs' "gailtheactuary.com"..
It has nothing to do with language and everything to do with policy. In the countries you speak of, in each case, the high property prices are purely the result of economic policy. Not language. The only relevant commonality is that they restrict housing supply, not that the primary language, or Lingua Franca, is English - This is the causation factor. How is this not evident to you?
Would you invest in Houston, Atlanta, or Dallas suburban real estate? They all primarily speak English and share western culture...Why then do they not have housing issues despite unprecedented inward migration over the past 10 years...
Would you invest in Detroit?
Would you invest in Waiouru?
Would you invest in Mumbai? How about Tokyo?
The investment decision is indifferent to local language, and has everything to do with the ability for arbitrage. The capital appreciation does not come from increases in demand, but instead the restriction of supply. This is a universal truth in all property markets.
Why then does the Chinese government consider learning English to be so important? Children in China now need to have a good grasp of the language (English) in order to succeed in life
I also think that Canada, Australia and New Zealand are seen as new lands, a modern day new world where immigrants can come and make a new life much more easily than elsewhere. The US may be considered as less safe. All I am saying is that high prices will continue because of these perceptions. It's just an accident of history.
It's really interesting that you get so triggered by my theory. Just ignore it like I do a Ham & Eggs comment. It's rubbish so it's not important right?
Just because a focus is placed on learning another language, it doesn't mean that that will be the driver of success. Here in New Zealand we learn to speak Maori. In Wales they learn Welsh - I don't think they are good prerequisites for economic prosperity, yet they are still taught.
My point being, markets are indifferent to language. Sure, a common language helps, but it doesn't drive economic prosperity - the only commonality that is a requisite is a currency or item of exchange of equality value/utility.
The US is different? How so?
It has excessive house prices in every area that has an issue with supply of housing - Like your Australia, Canada, UK, NZ. The reason I highlighted the sunbelt metro centres was this very fact. Migration and demand is huge in these places, yet prices remain anchored to costs of construction. And of course, they are lucky enough to be anglophones - a factor that you suggest drives asset inflation.
You see, what you don't seem to understand is that you need rules that apply in all common contexts.
It is no accident of history - it is a deliberate act of the present that housing prices are high.
I'm not triggered. I just cannot fathom the fact that if you actually read any of the literature on the topic, you would see that it is not revolutionary/'your' theory and that economists have been trying for years to find a link between language and economic prosperity with no success. This is no accident or conspiracy for political correctness, as you suggest.
It would depend why you are learning a language. The Chinese are learning it specifically for economic success not for fun or to save a dying language. They are learning it to give themselves a competitive edge in the current economic environment. They have assessed the different languages and have clearly concluded, for economic reasons, that English is superior.
There is a ton of stuff about the use of English in China. Here is something more scholarly.
A quote:
Nevertheless the numbers of young bilinguals coming of age are simply astonishing, leaving the linguistic observer to wonder at the ruptures of history and the impact of the changing linguistic world of the society on its younger citizens. This is occurring at a time when China has gained status as an economic and political world power, and is crucially engaged in embracing its own version of modernity at a pace unprecedented in the history of the world.
A rupture of history is occurring, not just in China but in the whole English speaking world I think.
Many years ago I remember people were encouraged to learn Japanese because it was seen as important at the time. English may be useful as a means of communication but only as a means of communication grafting anything else on by inference is just a little misleading at best.
Listen, China, a country of over a billion people has suddenly emerged into the world as a major economic power at a pace unprecedented in the history of the world and it has chosen English as the language, rightly or wrongly, as the language to learn. It's going to have an impact on New Zealand - it's all I am saying.
No. That's not what you were saying, nor remotely related to your rhetoric on the subject of the English language for a long time here.
You specifically refer to English being the language that causes economic prosperity. So, don't try and change the tune now. It was your 'theory', after all.
You say the weirdest things. I don't know what your analysis entails - on the basis of that statement, likely not much..
I don't know of any Asian territories which have French as an official language - the below might proxy, though.
Papua New Guinea is more successful than Tahiti?
Burma is more successful than Vietnam?
As for Africa, what are you even talking about? English is like one of the least spoken languages.
There is no way you could analyse the impact of English in that continent. If anything, you would say that non de jure English speaking countries are relatively better off.
English is like one of the least spoken languages.
English is the official language of Nigeria, Botswana, Kenya, South Africa, Uganda....
French is the official language of the Democratic Republic of the Congo though...
A quick bit of googling reveals that even many francophone African countries are starting to replace French with English - purely for practical reasons.
I feel you are just being a bit silly about this now.
You quote me out of context.
In Africa, I'm pretty sure English is less widely spoken than French. Either way, English doesn't compare on a L1 level relative to the other languages. Hence my confusion as to what you are actually trying to insinuate. Or are you now going to edit your comments like you do the others to specify only sub-saharan states?
Likewise with your Asia comment - learn your languages.
English is an official language, not the only official language in those countries you mention. Very different. Also, I don't know if you realise the size of Africa if you think naming 5 countries is adequate to justify your assertion. What about all the Arabic speaking nations?
Did you know this?
ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) Charter
Article 34
The Working Language of Asean
The working language of ASEAN shall be English
--------------------
Malaysia decided to give up on English. Ooops big mistake!
Poor English Led To More Than 1,000 Trainee Doctors Giving Up On Their Medical Career
Poor proficiency in English does not only plague the local medical industry, a survey from the Malaysian Employers Federation (MEF) also found that 60% of employers identified poor command of the English languages as the main problem with young recruits.
Again, what's your point?
You keep going off on some tangent trying to validate your point.
It doesn't matter if ASEAN chose English or Sami. Its just a mechanism for standardisation. You do know that everything gets translated back into native languages, right?
As for the Malaysian doctors - again, what's your point?
They live in a former Commonwealth nation where English is a key working language. It makes sense that they should fail their studies if they are not fluent in the adjunct main working language of their country. All their universities teach in English. Just like if you were training to be a doctor in Finland, you're likely going to fail if you don't speak Finnish.
It is plausible that ASEAN chose English because it is the Global language of business. It doesn't really get simpler than that. It is plausible that the Chinese invest in New Zealand because they want their kids to learn English amongst other things.
It is plausible that Malaysian nationalists decided to give up English and this had a major impact on the Malaysian economy if the world is a place where English is the language of business.
This is all entirely plausible.
How about I prefix all my statements with, "I think it is plausible that..." ? Will that make you less annoyed? I just thought we could simply assume that and then comments could be less wordy.
I don't understand the rationale in arguing over a single causal factor. When is there ever a simple, easily isolated single causal factor? Very infrequently.
It is perfectly possible that everyone is right. That immigration to English speaking countries is desirable AND that Canada, UK, Australia and NZ have policies that have contributed to house inflation. We also can't ignore that every period of low interest rates in known history have also been linked to asset bubbles.
I would like to state very plainly, that I am not attaching a value judgement to English language or culture. I'm not putting forward this point because i'm patriotic of because I believe my language, cultural or heritage is inherently superior. However, cultures do no merely dominate militarily and economically....soft power is a huge factor.
After the second world war America was responsible for more than 50% of the worlds GDP. They bear all the hallmarks and behaviours of an empire. Before them, the British Empire, which held sway over 23% of the world's population (I can't speculate on the global GDP then but I imagine it was as big as post war America).
Both these empires, like every empire before them, have caused breathtaking advances along side tremendous atrocities. However, you cannot overlook the fact that since the late 1700's an English speaking empire has been in one way or another, dominating the world. And the power of empire is always also about cultural superiority and desirability.
Prior to the Islamic conquests, the majority of the Middle East was Christian or their earlier pagan belief system. Within a very short period of time, they all became Muslim and spoke Arabic. And millennia after those conquests which is STILL the prevailing and dominant culture in that region? Which is still the language of power? Which country still has the most wealth and influence? Saudi Arabia. Where did the empire begin? Saudi Arabia. The cultural kudos of empire live very very long indeed.
You need more examples?
Rome fell? Well, not really, it just moved house, converted to a new religion and became the Byzantine Empire. So the original region, Italy, lost power and influence, but culturally the empire survived and evolved. And importantly its language survived as the language of wealth and privilege. Desirability.
Then what happened? The Byzantine Empire moved back to Rome, as the Holy Roman Empire, holding sway over Kings and Queen's across Europe, what was the language of power and privilege? In fact, until very recently, a hallmark of power and privilege was STILL bloody latin!!! Thousands and thousands of years after Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon or his nephew became "First Citizen" rich people were still learning latin, a dead language, because it had cultural capital. It was the Holy Roman Empire who sanctioned the explorers who colonised the "New World".
Similarly, from a cultural perspective, the British empire didn't fall, as such. Rather the reigns were transferred to its more virile and more natural resource rich eldest child, America. And the fact is that an English speaking culture has been dominating the world militarily and economically since the late 1700's.
Power has always been desirable, people want it, they want to emulate it and it takes many many generations before the cultural kudos of one particular culture wanes. Soft power is REAL power. Psychological power is REAL power. Show me as single example of this being untrue. Show me any example that the English language is fading in cultural capital? It's even the most dominant language of science!!! (which prior to WW2 was German until America opened its doors to all the academics and intellectuals of Europe who fled the war).
It's tedious to have to make such a obvious point, but the history of humanity, is the history of empire. I don't like it, but it's fact. The English language is the language of the current global empire. Even the official language of the EU is English and they have confirmed that it will remain English even after their only English speaking member leaves!!!!
Empires rise and fall, they evolve, sure. That may happen soon, who knows? However, currently, English is the language of power and privilege. The world uses USD as its reserve currency, the worlds debts are in USD. New Zealand, Australia, Canada, UK and America they are English speaking countries and they will remain desirable locations to migrate to based on that fact alone. If you look at the growth of world population via migration over the last 20 years, you will see that the English speaking countries have been most desirable for immigration. I can find links for this if anyone wants or you can just google it.
I'm not saying any of this is a good thing. I don't own a house in NZ and I would like to. I know sustained immigration and continued housing inflation is bad for me, my kids and everyone else under 40. However, i'm not going to argue against the facts when they are very clearly observable. I don't like a lot of what Zachary says but i'm not going to disagree with him on this point because he is correct.
I agree gingerninja that there is no single factor at work and nicely written comment too. I think originally I stated that there were many factors as to why Auckland could be rationally high priced and English language was just one of them. Nymad likes to be very exact and scientific about things, a bit like BadRobot. I sort of see comments as just opinions or crazy ideas that may make people think or encourage them to do their own research. I know a lot more about African countries now after reading about all the official languages there.
When you say "I agree gingerninja that there is no single factor at work" - somehow I don't believe you. You continually trot out the same argument week after week. A certain propaganda minister once said
“a lie told once remains a lie, but a lie told a thousand times becomes the truth."
or another quote attributed to the same propaganda minister
“the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly -- it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”
While sometimes it can be harmless such as the catch phase "I am the greatest" from Ali, other times it has cost millions of people their lives ( think of all the ideological and religious wars and oppressions of the past several thousand years).
The only problem is that the lie remains a lie EVEN if told a thousand times. Problem is eventually people begin to believe their own bullshit and can't or don't want to see the truth ( if such a thing exists). As Stuart Chase said
"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible."
As to the contention about the English language and history a couple of points....
- if the Spanish Armada had succeeded in 1588 we might be all speaking Spanish now. Similarly if the French and Indian wars had had ended differently North America may be speaking French not English. If the French had gotten to Akaroa before the English asserted sovereignty over New Zealand , the South Island at least could have become a French colony. There are probably many , many more examples through history where luck has played a major role in shaping the modern world.
Many contributors to this site continually cite the Chinese investment in Auckland as a reason for house price increases (as if that is the ONLY cause) seemingly ignoring our own internal "investors " or the Basel Capital Accord.
To finish,
"We need to remember that just because a dictator issues a decree or legislators pass a law, they have not changed reality. Ignoring science in favor of a preferred outlook on the world can have devastating consequences. "
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-the-soviet-union-chos…
If we needed a reason-and given his uncritical support of Trump I don't think we do-not to take Zachary seriously,the last sentence above would be the clincher.
'"I know a lot more about African countries now after reading about all the official languages there". Really? It reminds me of Sarah Palin(remember her?) saying that she knew all about Russia because she could see it from here bedroom.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.