Today's Top 10 is a guest post from Shamubeel Eaqub, the principal economist at the New Zealand Institute of Economic Research and a blogger at www.tvhe.co.nz. This is his second Top 10 in our Friday guest series. You can see his first Top 10 here.
As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to david.chaston@interest.co.nz. And if you're interested in contributing the occasional Top 10 yourself, contact gareth.vaughan@interest.co.nz.
See all previous Top 10s here.
1. The great stagnation.
Lawrence Summers’ speech on stagnation and the need for bubbles has cause quite a stir.
The FT sums it up nicely here. He reaches the conclusion that maybe we need a bubble to reach full employment.
Perhaps low growth now is the penance for growth borrowed from the future, rather than needing yet another bubble to fuel a recovery to ‘full employment’.
So how can you reconcile repeated bubbles with an economy showing no sign of inflationary pressures? Summers’s answer is that we may be an economy that needs bubbles just to achieve something near full employment – that in the absence of bubbles the economy has a negative natural rate of interest. And this hasn’t just been true since the 2008 financial crisis; it has arguably been true, although perhaps with increasing severity, since the 1980s.
2. US banks get Volckered
US banks will no longer be allowed to gamble their own funds, sometimes against their own clients (like Goldman Sachs in Matt Taibi’s memorable The Great American Bubble Machine in the Rolling Stones magazine).
The Telegraph reports that the bank chiefs are unhappy that it was tougher than they had expected. But then they would say that, wouldn’t they? Banks enjoy an implicit guarantee of the state, as seen by many bailouts during the GFC. There has to be a cost to that – not just profits for banks.
The sweeping reforms were met with dismay by US banks, who have led a lobbying campaign to have the wording watered down. Critics of the Volcker Rule claim that its targeting of proprietary trading is unfair, since this was not one of the factors that led to the financial crisis.
3. Nobel cat fight
The Guardian reports on the somewhat peevish Robert Shiller interview, on winning the Nobel economics prize and sharing it with Eugene Fama and Lars Hansen.
The two disagree on economics. Shiller blames bubbles on psychological/behavioural factors. Fama reckons markets are efficient and prices incorporate all available information at that time.
From well below the pulpit, this humble economist can see both points.
The market clears, as per Fama, because buyers and sellers agree on the price. This doesn’t mean that that price is ‘right’ over a longer timeframe when the number of buyers, sellers or prices – including for psychological reasons – may change. Economists really don’t like to agree with each other:
Highlighting what he sees as a mismatch between Fama's findings and his theories, he [Shiller] suggested his fellow laureate must feel like a Catholic priest who has discovered God does not exist.
4. Being small means higher prices
UK supermarkets warned that an independent Scotland may face higher prices. Currently, higher distribution costs for the northern parts of the UK are subsidised by southern parts, according to The Guardian. Perhaps being small and far away can explain New Zealand’s relatively high prices for many things?
Asda and Morrisons said they would be unwilling to absorb the extra costs of doing business in a separate Scotland or to pass on any additional costs to customers elsewhere in the UK.
5. America's reputation for sound economic policymaking takes a beating
Mohammed El-Erian, the CEO of PIMCO, wrote about US policy making – rather the lack of it – in The Guardian. The US Congress has delivered the lowest legislative activity since at least 1947, when record keeping began. His to-do list for the US in 2014 would not be too far off for what New Zealand needs to do.
Government has a long pro-growth to-do list heading into 2014. The top priorities include modernising the country's transport and energy infrastructure, reforming an underperforming education system, improving the labour market, bringing order to an overly fragmented fiscal structure, enhancing the provision of public goods, and safeguarding America's interests abroad.
6. Home buying out of reach for a whole generation
The Telegraph reports research by the National Housing Federation and Oxford Economics that housing will be out of reach for an entire generation. Population is growing strongly but supply is not. Can we also have a mature conversation about letting people build more homes in New Zealand, where and how they want, within reason?
Where a market is fundamentally characterised by a lack of supply, a demand side subsidy is just going to put prices up.
We get trapped into the conversations about how we can make it easier for some people to access the scarce supply, the answer is we need to build more homes.
7. Affordable homes in China
Contributors to The Conversation wrote about China’s plans for affordable housing for low and moderate income earners. Many of the policies are essentially welfare policies. Their lesson for Australia was that, alongside supply/planning reforms, it is important to also look at welfare policies. We already do that to some extent in New Zealand, but the queues for social housing are very long.
…the experience of China shows that significant overall housing construction is not sufficient to deliver affordable homes for low and moderate income earners. Rather, specific intervention has been needed to secure affordable outcomes within the wider housing development process.
8. ECB considers taboo tools
Lending is contracting in Europe and the economy, particularly in the southern parts, is weak. The ECB is weighing up previously taboo tools to get things moving, according to Der Spiegel. It sounds a little like the RBNZ’s dilemma, they want to control house prices and borrowing in Auckland but stoke demand elsewhere. In Europe, the ECB doesn’t want an overheating Germany (where house prices are rising sharply and exports are soaring), but it wants resumption of growth in the debt plagued economies.
…he [Draghi] sees two worlds. In one of those worlds, the one in which Germany primarily resides, companies and consumers are able to get credit more cheaply and easily than ever before. In the other, mainly Southern European world, it is extremely difficult for small and medium-sized businesses to get affordable loans. Fears are too high among banks that the debtors will default.
For Draghi and many of his colleagues on the ECB Governing Council, this dichotomy is a nightmare. They want to do everything in their power to make sure that companies in the debt-plagued countries also have access to affordable loans -- and thus can bring new growth to the ailing economies.
9. RBNZ reverses course on taboo tool
The RBNZ reduced the high LVR share of new mortgages from 30% to 10% from 1 October, to be phased in over six months. On 10 December, they reversed the rules for new builds but not existing homes. When they announced the policy on 20 August, they noted that the reason for putting the policy in place is financial stability. That is to reduce the accumulation of high-risk debt in the banking system. By this test, and this should be the reasonable test, this is bad policy.
20 August: “The LVR restrictions are designed to help slow the rate of housing-related credit growth and house price inflation, thereby reducing the risk of a substantial downward correction in house prices that would damage the financial sector and the broader economy.”
10 December: “This exemption will help to support the supply of new housing and, in doing so, reduce some of the pressure arising from excess demand in the New Zealand housing market.”
10. RBNZ talks accountability and transparency, but…
The RBNZ’s deputy governor delivered a speech outlining the importance of accountability and transparency at a 6 December speech.
As a financial regulator, accountability is a key reason for transparency around our regulatory conduct, with public engagement a cornerstone of our approach to prudential policy development. Transparency also gives economic benefits from enhancing the operation of financial markets and improving the public’s understanding of financial risk.
But the latest change of policy on LVR speed limits (number 9), suggests that perhaps their communication strategy is still in its infancy. They put forward a framework for why they are implementing the LVR speed limits, but did not explain the change in policy using the same frameworks. The way thay I read it, the RBNZ is essentially saying that high LVR mortgages on new homes are less risky than on existing homes. It’s like a Tui “yeah right.” billboard. Seems like the RBNZ’s communication is about leaving a lot unsaid, rather than accountability and transparency.
80 Comments
#11. The Crown abandons Pike River Mine prosecution - inter alia, to avoid Court scrutiny of Goverment culpability. Watch for more, similar Crown capitulations ahead of SCF trials next year. As bad as they were, the managment here were under the full-time supervision of the Minister of Finance's appointed agent from June 2009 onwards.
Ergophobia
#12. Pollution has become the top cause of social unrest in China, Chen Jiping, a former leading member of the Communist Party's Committee of Political and Legislative Affairs, said that same month.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/travel-troubles/9514863/Pilots-ordered-to…
#6 - agree entirely.
The interlocked factors (I ranted aboot this yesterday here) are just too hard to tackle, even individually.
One alternative (which may happen anyway) is letting the whole schemozzle run into the inevitable immovable object. Tempting as that is to those with apocalyptic/Malthusian tendencies, it would cause a lotta grief to a lotta bystanders. Collaterla damage.
I see (feeling more optimistic today, y'see) four aspects which can, together, make a bit of a breakthrough.
1 - wipe the zoning nonsense. MUL's etc cause price differentials, which firstly crystallize as CG to the lucky owners, then propagate to all and sundry (who, after all, would sell their hoose for an agricultural land price when your despised but now cashed-up neighbour has just made a cool $300K cf his original purchase price?). Luvverly free CG all around - after all - we didn't buy the house to Sell it! - but of course paid for by you-know-who. Guibmint by fiat could accomplish this by lunchtime tomorrow if it put its mind to it. What Constitution?
2 - Factory builds. Proper QC, can be erected in hours not months on site, will standardise foundations etc (one of the beefs in Chch is the continuing dither over TC3 founds, which need individual geotech to establish), and being built to tight tolerances and under cover, are a generally superior product to yer average chippie-hammered together set of frames (one of which, just down my street, has been sitting out in the weather for six weeks now with no roof and no wrap - nice.)
3 - GST exemption to factory builds from accredited suppliers. This avoids the obvious problem with a blanket 'GST exemption for new builds' which will be an easy route to no-GST decks, pergolas, baches, new rooms and re-roofs - because as GST has to be taken on raw materials, who can police what they are used for? No such issue with factory builds, which will have a BOM, a nationally valid type certificate of compliance, and a serial number.
4 - The cultural attitudes and legal provisions which make such builds acceptable to buyers (who, let's face it, have wildly inflated expectations of first homes, fed by TV house pron, and egged on by the usual bevy of marketeers), and to developers who are rather fond of placing CCR's (covenants, constraints and restrictions) on their conditions of sale. If we are serious aboot FHB's, then fer crying in the sink, let them set up next to You.
Yeah, That oughter do it. Not bad for a Friday 13th, eh?
The U turn of the LVR rule show the RBNZ failure big time...
either:
1. They do not know the effect it will have on housing supply
or
2. They miscalculated badly on the political acceptance of the policy.
I pick no: 2. .But this just shows the extreme politicization of all the Civil service of NZ...including the Police, Armed forces, Civil Service Administration.....etc etc
Indeed.. and as we've seen recently, even Parliamentary Services seemd to fail in their understanding of independence from the Executive (PM's office). It is a worrying trend - a non-partisan civil service is so essential given the weak checks and balances afforded in our current system of governance.
Things are moving in quite the opposite direction - take the Environmental Protection Authority - should have been established as an Independent Crown Entity (ICE) under the Crown Entitites Act 2004 (as was originally mooted by National and as was the case with ERMA whose functions it absorbed) - but when it came to the National party introducing the EPA legislation to Parliament, they instead chose to make the EPA a Crown Agent. This shift was opposed by all the major opposition parties.
There is a difference in terms of definition. An Independent Crown Entity is "generally independent of government policy" whereas a Crown Agent "must give effect to government policy when directed by the responsible Minister" - as detailed in the Crown Entitites Act 2004.
Would be a very positive and strong signal, in my mind, if a Labour coalition government actually changed the status of the EPA to an ICE on getting elected to govern.
@ Hugh , for goodness sake mate , when are you going to realise there is nothing "normal " about the Auckland housing market?
The 3 times income rule cannot be applied to Auckland , although it likely applies across most of the rest of NZ .
You suggest a bubble , but I have seen no evidence of a bubble in the Auckland market , the current level of prices are the clearing price in a very efficient market .
These are the correct prices today ( may change tomorrow if we make more land avaible or stop migration or double the mortgage rate .....all very unlikely scenarios )
Heres why things are not as out of kilter as you suggest
- Auckland has huge inward migration ( mostly from Asia ) due ODIP . the Open Door Immigration Policy, putting demand for shelter on steroids
- We have cheap money injected into the economy , more steroids
- Migrants can borrow offshore for even less that us at 3% , you have to borrow at around 6% , so migrants can get half-price steroids, cheaper than you or I
- Even at 6% , Interest rates make buying cheaper than renting
- The City Fathers in their wisdom have decided to strangle the city by not allowing any growth outside current boundry limits, restricting steroid suppliers
"......The City Fathers in their wisdom have decided to strangle the city by not allowing any growth outside current boundry limits, restricting steroid suppliers......."
Good you included that. Nothing else really matters, BTW.
If it was not for that, any amount of overseas investment money and immigrants could pour in and it would boost housing construction, not prices.
Of course if the prices were stable the specuvestors probably would not bother.
Bear in mind that the urban area of Houston grew from 3.9 million people in 2000, to 5 million in 2010, without housing increasing in real cost. Several other US cities grew at comparable rates.
Californian cities grew even faster in the 1950's and 60's, and affordability was a drawcard at the time. Neil Diamond sang in 1973 ("I Am, I Said")
LA's fine, the sun shines most of the time
And the feeling is laid back
Palm trees grow, and rents are low.......
Auckland is a normal globalised market.
The first 3x income, is what people pay for the service of accomodation, everything on top of that is investment/financial value. For all the reasons Boatman lists it's a good strong investment market, so the "goodwill" factor on the balance sheet is going to be significant.
"Goodwill" is an accounting term used to cover the value of non-tangible assets. For example when setting up a business, there are costs, fit-out, advertising, stock. But if the business is doing well, then when it is sold it will be sold for more than the value of its assets. This difference is labelled "goodwill" and represents the brand strength, the location, history, regular shoppers, existing trade relationships.
The actual value of the business: physical assets & forecast profits will be lower than market price if investing in the business is good. Conversely a poor operation will see negative "goodwill" representing the discount the owner is willing to take to get out.
goodwill is entire different beast to utility (the value of its use as a dwelling/location)
I agree that property prices need to be based on a reasonable multiple of income. From what I have read from your posts I get the impression that you think simply building more houses will fix the problem. Assuming this is what you think it strikes me as a short sighted view.
Firstly obviously we can only grow housing stocks by so much. The land surrounding cities tends to be some of the best farm land. It is a waste of productive land to build sub divisions on. This creates two problems, firstly people have to travel further and as energy costs increase this will cause more problems long term. On top of that the further farms are from cities the higher the added transport costs in term of energy. I realise, based on a link you submitted a while ago, you think that we will never run out of resources because of substitutions and efficiencies. I assume that you don't understand that the more energy it takes to get energy out of the ground the less available you have for the economy. This will lead to an increase in cost and make transport costs a much bigger issue than they are now.
Is it perhaps more sensible to simply stop the growth of population which means we won't need to build more houses in the first place? That would solve a lot of problems.
Peakeverything , Generic rules of thumb like multiples of income dont always work , see my response to Hugh above
And ,consider this 40% of all adult Aucklanders were born overseas, ( Add their offspring and they make up 60% of all Aucklanders) many are self employed and even more bring money here when they migrate , so the multiple of income rule of thumb, applies to Kiwis only
Keep adding "edge cities" with a balance of housing, workforces and other amenities. If the cost of housing is lower everywhere, and employment is dispersed (it already is in Auckland and almost everywhere else) almost anyone can locate near any job they might get.
Hugh wants cheap housing on or past the urban fringe to stop house price inflation of existing houses. This allows existing houses all the way back to the centre to be cheaper and more affordable. People will be able to afford to live near their work -the centre only employs 25% or less, so not everyone wants to be near the centre. You will not get the leap frog sprawling to satelite commuter towns, like you get in Canterbury where the growth of Rolleston and Rangiora etc is directly related to the limited urban zoning of Christchurch. So in Hughs scenerio commuting distances may even fall.
Currently due to our zoning laws around all our cities you have tens of thousands of lifestyle blocks being ultra low density housing of -one home per 4 hectares, because people are opting out of our expensive cities. But you are not allowed to put a village of say 50 houses in 50 hectares which could be done in a very self sufficient eco -village way. How sustainable is this?
And where we have located our satelite towns is often just historic chance not strategically managed to meet current day needs like say this option is.
We need to make housing supply more responsive to demand - that could be allowing more suburban sprawl, it could be allowing a group of lifestyle blocks become eco-villages, it could be allowing the creation of more satelite towns. Personally I think all of these have better environmental merits than our current practices.
Well I cannot be sure but I have it on good authority that NZ can replace our total fossil fuel use with renewable electricity. There will be difficulties with replacing energy density. But as you said we have tallow. Swedan can use wood pulp waste bio-diesal to power half their truck fleet, so that is another possibility for us. I remain optomistic...
Hi,
I dont know where you get a 'good authority' from but, uh no. Lets see this good authority because there is nothing Ive seen to say that is possible and practical and affordable. Now sure we can trolley bus a lot of roads, and indeed we should, but just who's doing it right now? No one in NZ Im aware of, wgtn buses would like to dump them, to expensive to maintain, boy wait til deisel gets expensive and rationed.
Tallow output is limited, yes but we'd need a few plants, 3 maybe i think was the practical limit, not a huge output as there isnt that much of a secondary input.
Wood pulp to make synth fuel, yes certainly, but then there is on both the payback and our ability to afford the output. Then generally there is the EROEI its not where near to 1 or better. There sure are estimates that Sweden has enough waste wood to produce that much fuel. What again needs to be considered is the capital cost to do it and the resulting price per litre.
I'd be optimistic if I saw us actually building such plant, I no such plans let alone actual breaking of ground.
regards
I suggest you take a visit to WestWind a new development out your direction.
Although it will not be easy we only produce 1/3 of our energy renewably currently.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_New_Zealand
But there is geothermal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_power_in_New_Zealand
And here is a list of other new developments that includes hydro - so that is another resource that isn't tapped out yet.
Combine that with advances in solar power and energy efficiency I think it is quite conceivable that in the near future many/most domestic users will be energy neutral for their home non transport use.
Overall I think it is conceivable that in my lifetime NZ replaces fossil fuels with renewable energy.
I can see wind turbines from the top of my hill, no problems.
Its not that we dont have wind, or geo, the problem is converting that into transport energy at a density, scale and a price ppl like you and I can afford to use for personal transport.
Cook strait, Neptune power doesnt seem to be happening, their web site seems DOA. Hopefully though it will, but thats electrical power.
All you point at are electrical stations, we have a transport fuel problem.
I mean its good if we can get from 65% renewables to 120% sure I am all for it. but thats not going to do cars en mass.
regards
What do you think is going to be done about economic land rent for the much smaller supplies of land that the urban economy is going to run on?
What jobs is everyone in this public-transport based urban economy going to do, in the era of post-peak "resources", given that all wealth creation is based on resource use, and you cannot have an entire economy based on transfers and consumption, which is what most "city" jobs are in.
I think the lifestyle-block survivalists are much more intellectually credible "peak everything" believers than the people who think we will all live in apartment blocks, catch fixed route public transport, write each other reports, cut each others hair, sell each other securities, "analyse policy", take each other to court, make each others coffees, etc etc.
PeakEverything,
There is no evidence that allowing cities to sprawl increases commuting times.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3085647.stm
“British commuters have the longest journeys to work in Europe with the average trip taking 45 minutes, according to a study. That is almost twice as long as the commute faced by Italians and seven minutes more than the European Union average…..”
The US average is 26 minutes……
The UK has the highest urban density, with Europe next and the USA below that.
Here is another study, by the OECD; reported on in the New York Times; the graph of commute time rates the USA well ahead of the nations like the UK that have the densest cities:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/14/world-of-commuters/
The appendix “Table 8” beginning on page 36 of this paper is quite comprehensive and enlightening re cities rather than countries:
http://www.fcpp.org/files/1/PS135_Transit_MY15F3.pdf
The reason for this is that congestion more than negates the alleged gains in shortening the distance from one side of an urban area to the other, AND on top of this, the more expensive housing gets, the more there is a "pricing out" effect on people, so they cannot buy somewhere near where the jobs and amenities are that they need to travel to.
Employment decentralises anyway (if planners don't let it, they destroy the local economy, period), and the maximum sorting of workforces and jobs into efficient co-location, and the greatest dispersion of congestion, always occurs in the lowest density, cheapest-land cities.
The problem with "preserving farmland", is that the urban economy actually contributes a lot more to GDP per acre than farmland does. NZ is 0.8% or so urbanised. If we grew this to 0.9% you would not even notice the change in rural production (44% of the land), but you would notice the gain in urban production.....!
Bear in mind that Silicon Valley evolved on low-cost exurban land. No freedom for commercial and housing development on low-cost exurban land, no Silicon Valley. Smart? UK urban economists like Alan W. Evans started pointing this out in the 1990's, and urban planners, to try and prove them wrong, started designating "hi tech manufacturing" zones. Years later, they largely remain unoccupied by high-tech manufacturers, with potential site occupants protesting that they cannot afford the asking prices/rents, and the land vendors holding out for a few million pounds per acre, surprise, surprise.
This, incidentally, is the story of all fringe urban development under strict rationing conditions.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/anne-gibson/news/article.cfm?a_id=39&objectid=10887742
"The problem with "preserving farmland", is that the urban economy actually contributes a lot more to GDP per acre than farmland does. NZ is 0.8% or so urbanised. If we grew this to 0.9% you would not even notice the change in rural production (44% of the land), but you would notice the gain in urban production.....! "
I have no doubt urban economies have higher GDP per acre. The only thing better for GDP than a city is rebuilding a city after an earthquake. While I'm sure you mean well anyone who values GDP as a measure of anything useful is not worth wasting my time on. You can't eat GDP, I find it helpful to replace the term GDP with waste, as this gives you a better idea what you are talking about. So yes I agree there is more waste per acre in a city than in farmland.
How does nobody see how warped our society is?
Labour/Green and National neck and neck.
http://roymorgan.com/findings/5339-new-zealand-voting-intention-decembe…
Interesting times....
regards
Are you sure all those newly signed on Voters are all under 25 and not the wealthy new migrants who have been encouraged to settle here , and are required by law to register as voters ?
Are they not the new Capitalist class a la diference who are more likely to support National ?
Oh I'm positive they are not Boatman.....still you want more of the same from National who bulls*%t off the cuff, make revisions to laws with poor thought, openly state they will knobble the commerce commission, rebuke reports they pay for when it does not suit the agenda, in fact show the most contempt for the citizenry of any sitting Administration I've seen in forty years including Muldoon.
More of the same is just a vote for I'm alright Jack, to hell with those who are not.
Capitalist Class...? the very statement sets you up as a wannabe, desperate to disengage from the rabble for fear they might start bridging the gap to the top of that shit heap you might call success.
Money is one thing, class is quite another as you clearly demonstrate.
Is it the law to register? wasnt aware of that one...
You are doing a lot of guessing IMHO. How many wealthy migrants do you think there are? I know a few migrnts and none of them are wealthy, they are not happy about house and rent costs, not one bit. Statistically I'd think the so called wealthy ones are going to be a minor %, if they are even in NZ much of the time and therefore bother to vote.
regards
Can you imagine the chaos if we have a Green Red Geriatric coaltion formng the next Government ?
Will they ever agree on anything ?
The Kiwi$ will tumble and everything will go up .
The Greens will want to have us walking to work , using candles and working in awful tourism jobs , on the minimum wage as waiters or changing the dirty linen of package tourist in hotel rooms.
The reds will simply want to TAX & SPEND until they run out of other peoples money to spend
The geriatrics and retiring baby boomers in NZ First will expect the super to double and to get everything for free .
And I will be taking my capital and emigrating to Australia before the Kiwi$ collapses
Not everyone thinks the Kiwi taking a tumble is a bad thing Boatman, just the selfish basta*%s enjoying cheap imports n Chinese junk.
Of course there is the little problem of Fuel but hey , ya can't rollerskate in a buffalo herd, but you kin be happy if youv'e a mind to.
Kiwi is way overvalued according tom those who should know, the suggestion is the top 20cents is still purely speculative. Bring on the Taper death to the NZD.
Any hoo it's Friday.....yay ! scorchingly beautiful day and the scent of Friday Arvo BBQ's filtering through the house as I tap away.
Which brings me to remind you all of BBQ ediquite, and the demands that will be placed upon us over the coming season.
After 6 long months of cold and winter, we are finally coming up to summer and BBQ season. Therefore it is important to refresh your memory on the etiquette of this sublime outdoor cooking as it's the only type of cooking a real man will do, probably because there is an element of danger involved. When a man volunteers to do the BBQ the following chain of events are put into motion: Routine: 1) The woman buys the food. 2) The woman makes the salad, prepares the vegetables, and makes dessert. 3) The woman prepares the meat for cooking, places it on a tray along with the necessary cooking utensils and sauces, and takes it to the man who is lounging beside the grill - beer in hand. Here comes the important part: 4) THE MAN PLACES THE MEAT ON THE GRILL. More routine.... 5) The woman goes inside to organize the plates and cutlery. 6) The woman comes out to tell the man that the meat is burning. He thanks her and asks if she will bring another beer while he deals with the situation. Important again... 7) THE MAN TAKES THE MEAT OFF THE GRILL AND HANDS IT TO THE WOMAN. More routine . 8) The woman prepares the plates, salad, bread, utensils, napkins, sauces and brings them to the table. 9) After eating, the woman clears the table and does the dishes. And most important of all: 10) Everyone PRAISES the MAN and THANKS HIM for his cooking efforts. 11) The man asks the woman how she enjoyed "her night off." And, upon seeing her annoyed reaction, concludes that there's just no pleasing some women ... Of course I'll get Phenergened and pillowed if she see this, so best not mention it eh..?well, I'm sure you have seen the PM being asked about the Mayors conduct by the media.
Is he applying the same expectation of behaviour that he would of his Ministers or MPs?
Clearly not. He is avoiding making any judgment. We can only wonder why.
Maybe t's simply because his own PR team are not sure of how the LB situation will play out.
Len Brown now will be forced to resign after EY report after being protected by the Right Jk needs him , the left (Labour refuses to attack) and protected by the Media scared of Len Browns spin doctors and lawyers
. The most bizarre situation - every other politicians and employees would be sacked by now
If you are referring to my dislike of the Labour Party and the Greens , let us not forget that Labour has done more damage to the NZ economy in the past hundred years that two world wars and the Christchurch earthquake have done.
The Greens are a lying fear-mongering bunch of Stalinists masquerading as environmentalists
Todays TUI. The Awlander's Lament. An inflated economy, yeah right.
I hope the Awkland ratepayers can foregive all these spectacular freebies, on top of an inflated salary and a vested interest.
They must be all so glad of a raise, imported, extorted and triple jumped.
Overpaying for crap houses and a Mayor, and inflated rates must be galling, when the entire concept of amalgamating Councils was to save money, not waste it entirely.
This is not Epsom England, it is just a caricature, but with tea-cups and manners to boot.
Just think Epsom, just where you and all the others would be if you did not bank on an acceptable return, from your rates as well as keeping the poor Banks afloat as well.
This Mayoral chain around your necks is not funny, but it is a joke, but not in the national interest.
And the punchline is," I would not take it lying down Awkland".
Be like the Kaipara and get with the action.
Screw the entire corrupted lot of em, I say, but lucky you Awklanders can all take a joke as it is Friday the 13th, so I will just say, it was an accident waiting to happen, to date.
You are all asleep on the job. "Eyes wide shut" as they say. Cannot you understand English, or are ye deaf dumb and blind and waiting for a South African interpreter.
Jaffas should be sweet with this approach, because the poor dear lad could not get his poor Chauffer a room at the inn, too, which might have added to the indignity and over capitalised your rates, even more.
Chauffer was probably asleep on the job, probably slept in the limo, front seat, as the back was reserved for other things, all VIP's and dignitaries please note.
Should have flown by hell-he-copter, like the big boys do.
And forgot he had not been there at all.
Deniability is one thing, culpability is another.
Invasion of privacy, priceless.
Go TUI.
Hint, Better watch them Gweilo chappies, They do like a Chinese Takeaway our dear leaders.....just like back home....and a TXT or two.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gweilo
Yeah.....I care not for his political leanings ....Brown's gotta go just on the strength of claiming to reduce the bureaucracy , having increased twice in the second term what he reduced in the first. That's misguided mandate for you...... not to mention an alarming increase to ratepayers in outsourced reports.
Yes Brown's gotta go , but his leanings have Frig all to do with it, his meglomania is without influence politically speaking.
He is an I have a dream man....without respect for consequence to the citizenry.
It is interesting that Toronto, when it amalgamated into a Super City, soon learned to elect mayors who represented the suburban family and motorists.
Rob Ford may well get re-elected because he has actually cut spending and cut the bureaucracies, got some road building happening again, doesn't piddle in the pockets of the "big CBD property sector", and doesn't give a toss for politically correct and cultural arty farty stuff. This is what the people elected him for, and he has delivered. There was a mayor of Washington once called Marion Barry, and he was massively popular and served decades, with the only break being 2 years in jail for cocaine offences, after which he was promptly re-elected.
I think Rob Ford deserves to stay on and Len Brown deserves to go. The Auckland voters are suffering from severe Stockholm syndrome, electing a mayor like him who is leading their city into disaster. I hope someone like Quax or Brewer ends up as Auckland's Rob Ford (without the drunkenness and drugs of course). There is a massive latent potential for it, given all the people who don't bother to vote.
PhilBest 10.34. Good question. I think in early colonial times NZ had about 50% urbanisation so some of us will still be living in towns and cities. I for instance will still have a job looking after mad people -Sunnyside/Hillmorton hospital just celebrated its 150 year anniversary.
My idea of the future is not exactly public transport dependent. An electric bike has a range of 100km and a speed of up to 40kmh that needs buggerall electric juice. A colleague at work just got one -3K but seriously cool. It's energy could easily be supplied by your own solar panels. So you could be quite independent.
But maybe we will need to ruralise a bit. A while a go I tried to get PDK and Steven to think how we could encourage eco-villages. What sort of changes would we need to do to planning rules etc. So far they haven't come up with so much....
P.S I answered down here to get a wider reply
And further to answer your question what will people be doing in these towns and cities the basic answer is providing support for their rural hinterlands. Educational, healthcare, legal, financial and market supply services etc.
Then their is the possibility that some of oour cities become manufacturing/recycling centres utilising our renewable energy supply.
Our economy could be quite different from the narrow range of commodity exports we have now.
eco-villages where they are simply doing "surburbia" slightly differently are probably not going to work.
Problem is how do you design something when the end game isnt known and most ppl dont want to know about anything else but BAU? Why do generalists have to give answers to specilaist questions?
So really the first "job" is to tell ppl about the changes coming and get them to work on their own solutions.
PS PDK for instance already walks the walk.
Maybe you should ask some architects and planners how this will work in the context of a lot less energy and being spread out.
"Planning rules" and yet again you come around to planning rules as being the problem. Somewhat of a fixation you, philb and hugeP.
Electric bike, got a URL? last time I looked >$7NZ. Im seriously considering a small bike to commute....but an electric one is or was x2 a 125cc one and Im not keen on petrol.
The problem I have with PVs is its a technologically intensive product ie we need a complex global society to produce them. So for the next 30 years, yes sure, until they wear out,for generations? no I dont think our society will be capable of making replacements 1 or 2 generations from now.
Ruralise a bit, yes and yes life will be slower and simpler....will ppl be any less happy? no I dont think so.
regards
Re the electric bike I will have to ask my friend the details. It looks something like the Neo Cross city commuter $2699 US$? and I remember he said it was made in Spain.
Re the eco-villages the basic concept needs to be given the ok from the powers that be. Then people can experiment with the details when they put them into practice.
Personally I think a lot of people coming from poor quality rentals would be happier working hard in a part communal part self ownership environment managing their various self sufficient systems.
One reason to ask someone like yourself or PDK what eco-villages should be, is so they are the genuine article, not another version of suburbia.
I have no problem with telling people that resources are running low and they need to make responsible decisions on how to manage that. But you have to give people the tools to do that....
Well it is a bit of a biased opinion piece....against Obamacare yet it looks like a winner. Calls Obama an activist yet his policies and governance are best described as mild republican.
Kind of shows how extreme america has become. Trend, no, not outside the USA. However Govn takes energy and we'll have less energy, ergo we will have to have less govn. I think ppl will just give up on it when they recognise its in-capable of meeting their [basic] needs. That is going to be interesting, to say the least.
Less "Big Govn", From what I can read its the cost that the voter is starting to bear. So as the housing market collapsed so did States incomes and the only way the State Govns had left to regain income was increase state taxes, hugely un-popular. Im afraid its payback time for americans and like spolit kids they dont want to, so a tantrum.
regards
Interesting read Andrewj - however I ended up grumpy and didn't finish.
Persecution and oppression are tools of destruction.! Many people think of these two only in terms of being physically applied, when in fact they can be mentally and emotionally applied as well.
Any individual or group of persons who cannot abide by the simple rules of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is being destructive against another individual or group of persons.
Democracy is mob rule without any regard of the effects on other individuals or group......
True Democracy can only work when recognition of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is recognised as the only consideration in all undertakings.
The world has too many selfish P^%C#s who are dishonest in their undertakings......mind you we have had centuries of this BS. As people we are incredibly slow learners.
Yes, there is something in it, but I think he fails to take into account the dismay about the devastation that nationalism had caused in WW2. There has been a long term trend against nationalism for this reason. Obviously those who like to manipulate others will take advantage of this trend wherever they can.
One interesting development seems to be a nascent re-evaluation of the ideas of National (as opposed to International) Socialism. Did it have some good aspects, or does it always lead to rule by a bunch of malevolent and evil thugs? Consider that Germany had a national motorway network in the 1930s.The US built their national motorway network in the 1950s, largely as a result of the realisation that if Japan had invaded the west coast directly after Pearl Harbour the US would not have been able to mount an effective defence much west of Chicago. The UK built their national motorway network in the 1970s, courtesy of North Sea oil money.
Personally, I dislike any group that seeks to impose it's will on others.
Are you sure?
According to another Bloomberg report citing Jones Lang LaSalle, Chinese investment in London between 2010 and Q3 of this year has risen by a "ludicrous speed" comparable 1,500%, or from a frugal GBP54 million to over GBP 1 billion! And boy do the Chinese love London - according to the same report, over 50% of European property investment by Chinese buyers is now in London. As a result, China is now the third-largest overseas purchaser in U.K. behind Germany and U.S., which invested GBP 1.2 billion and GBP 1.1 billion respectively. "We expect the pool of investors from China targeting London to grow significantly in the coming years. They will consider everything from urban regeneration sites through to trophy assets," Damian Corbett, JLL’s head of Central London office investment, said in statement.
In other words, as London real estate becomes ever more unaffordable to orinary UK citizens, who instead are forced to rent out shipping containers, Chinese buyers will buy pretty much anything in the UK, with no regard for cost, since ever more of that ~$200 billion in monthly credit created by the government, which as we showed before... Read more
A Bloomberg report quoting Jones Lang LaSalle - Chinese investment in London between 2010 and Q3 of 2013 has risen by 1,500%, or from a frugal GBP54 million to over GBP 1 billion! And boy do the Chinese love London - according to the same report, over 50% of European property investment by Chinese buyers is now in London.
Interesting how all this information is available about other places .. but never you know where
Gotta keep the mushrooms in the dark
#8 bugs me. It shows that the people running that show don't have the slightest clue about what they're supposed to be running.
They won't see any growth in economics until they find some value to sell to customers...and customers who can afford to buy it. Anything else is zero sum or worse (paying the interest or Keynesian tax collector (inefficiency)). That's what happens when you almost go bankrupt and stall your economic budget - asset sale perhaps....
It bugs me that some ppl such as yourself by the very statements,
a ) "growth in economics" dont see the increasing cost of inputs make "value to sell to customers" increasingly difficult if not impossible as you say which is the crux. Therefore no more growth and the ability to underwrite debt.
b) It appears you claim keynesian is inefficient, not really its an economic model that has uses. It describes how an economy works in certian situations, eg zero bound trap, nothing more, where its abused is by the pollies we vote in.
c) Bankrupt is indeed whats going to happen, a nation however is a sovereign power within its own shores, ergo unless someone sends a gunboat and occupies us there is no asset sales as such, simply default and reclaim by citizens. Coming to a Govn here and in other nations within a decade or 3.
d) Dont get that a paradigm shift is or has occured, we spent 10000 years growing our energy use and population, now we have to shrink popualtion as energy use will decline "customers cant afford it".
regards
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.