sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Jason Krupp on Chinese housing investment, housing affordability, crowdfunding, political correctness, Dilbert & more

Jason Krupp on Chinese housing investment, housing affordability, crowdfunding, political correctness, Dilbert & more

Today's Top 10 is a guest post from Jason Krupp, a research fellow at the New Zealand Initiative.

As always, we welcome your additions in the comment stream below or via email to

And if you're interested in contributing the occasional Top 10 yourself, contact

See all previous Top 10s here.

At The New Zealand Initiative researchers are exposed to a wide array of interesting information from various sources. Some of this relates research, others just fit into areas of interest. Here is my Top 10 pick from the past week. Additions, opposing views and points of debate are welcomed either in the comments section or via email (

1. Chinese housing investment in Australasia
The impact that Chinese foreign buyers play on house prices in Auckland is a hotly debated topic in New Zealand. The Initiative believes that where foreign buyers do push up prices, it is a symptom of the constrained housing supply. Others believe they are a primary cause of house price inflation. Unfortunately there is little more than anecdote to go on. However, in Australia, where more data is available, recent research has shown that Chinese investors only own about 2% of the property market.

“But based on the data we do have, Chinese investment in Australian residential real estate accounts for just 2% of the total real estate sales volume. Chinese applicants for residential real estate investment approval account for one sixth or 16% of potential foreign real estate investors. This suggests the housing and housing affordability crisis will not be solved by a clamp-down on one group of buyers.”

2. Housing’s structural challenges
The New Zealand Initiative has long argued that cities need the regulatory freedom to build up and out to make housing more affordable. But even if there was a magic button that could deliver this regulatory freedom instantaneously, Auckland Chief Economist Chris Parker notes that this would not be enough to jump start supply because of challenges in the building industry.

“There are a number of challenges facing the building industry in Auckland, around scale, quality, efficiency and price. Scaling up the building sector raises questions: What are the crowd-out risks for other sectors in Auckland, as the building sector tries to outbid them for labour and materials? How can public policy better support industry to meet various sectors’ needs?... [t]here has been little, if any, measured productivity growth in New Zealand’s construction industry for over 30 years.”

3. Housing crisis a generational struggle
John Daley, the head of the Grattan Institute, recently completed a whirlwind tour of New Zealand, where he shared some of the think tanks’ work on housing in Australia. The collective research showed that the status quo of high house prices, Nimby-ism and resistance to densification is producing a generation in Australia that has less wealth that their parents – a trend we can see playing in places like Auckland. The video is a must watch for those concerned about housing affordability, and the slides are available here.

“To a large extent planning policy is what leads to developers not building the kind of thing that we might want from an economic perspective, what we might want from a fair-go perspective, and can see that people want. However it is about making some much more difficult decisions in the middle ring (10km from CBD)). I wouldn't want to suggest for a moment that this stuff is politically easy. In fact the politics of it are diabolical because the people who benefit from there being no change are the people who live there already and by-in-large vote for the town council or whatever it might be.”

4. Hockey gets schooled
Keeping with the theme of Australia, it was Joe Hockey’s turn to get a reality check on what the housing crisis means for ordinary Australians. The Treasurer suggested the formula for home ownership was to get a good job that pays good money. Wodonga resident Mell Wilson was having none of that, and spelled out why that advice was virtually useless in an open letter.

“Ms. Wilson incredulously took Treasurer Hockey through the economics of buying a first house in Sydney. She reminded him that it would take all of the average wage earner's take home pay for four years to save the down-payment on the median house, now priced at A$915,000.”

5. Crowd funding challenges government and charities
Earlier this year I wrote a research report on how the regulations governing the charities in New Zealand are biased against small groups and overly lenient on large players in the sector. Now it seems that challenges are set to increase further, as people donating skip the middleman using crowd funding.

“Crowdfunding, civic or otherwise, and alternative forms of collaborative financing arguably reflect a drive to democratise financial markets – from venture capital and startup investment markets to community bonds… We are witnessing the unbundling of age-old financial institutions and systems. For civic crowdfunding, the core question though is: what are the unintended consequences of this shift for philanthropy and existing models of giving?”

6. We have a duty to offend
Free speech is one of the fundamental building blocks of an open and prosperous society. Yet some people, this correspondent included, think this building block is under threat from those who support political correctness, and would muzzle those who seek to cause offence. Brendan O’Neill argues that offence is at the very core of societal progress. In his view we do not have a right to offend, but a duty to offend.

“Pretty much every leap forward in history, pretty much every freedom we enjoy, is a product of individuals having given offence. Having offended against the orthodoxies of their age. Offensiveness is not just something we have to begrudgingly accept, offensiveness is the motor of human progress. Copernicus offended Christians when we said the sun was at the centre of the universe. He really hurt them, and in the process made the world a better more understandable place.”

7. The rise of victimhood
Brendan O’Neill argues that the force behind political correctness is victimhood, the belief that individuals are so fragile that they need to be protected from offence even if it curtails freedom of speech. Reason Foundation has an interesting article tracking the rise of victimhood in the US, creating a society with feet of clay:

“Sociologists Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning are arguing that the U.S. is now transitioning to a victimhood culture that combines both the honor culture's quickness to take offense with the dignity culture's use of third parties to police and punish transgressions. The result is people are encouraged to think of themselves as weak, marginalized, and oppressed. This is nothing less than demoralizing and polarizing as everybody seeks to become a ‘victim’.”

8. Drinkers a net benefit to the health system
It has long been argued that smokers are a burden to the health system due to the costs of treating associated illness from the act. This is not true in New Zealand, as the excise taxes on tobacco more than compensate for health related costs. Work by Chris Snowden now shows that drinkers in the UK also over contribute to the health system. Cheers to that.

“It is time to stop pretending that drinkers are a burden on taxpayers. Drinkers are taxpayers and they pay billions of pounds more than they cost the NHS, police service and welfare system combined. The economic evidence is very clear on this. Forty per cent of the EU's entire alcohol tax bill is paid by drinkers in Britain and, as this new research shows, teetotallers in England are being subsidised by drinkers to the tune of at least six and a half billion pounds a year."

9. Not just food but plates too
The public debate around the sugar, salt and fat content in food is rife with experts telling people what they should and shouldn’t eat. For anti-paternalists, such as this correspondent, it is galling because these experts assume to know my preferences better than I do. But if telling me what to do wasn’t enough, now they’re telling me how big my plate must be as well.

“The data showed that people consistently consume more food and drink when offered larger-sized portions, packages or tableware than when offered smaller-sized versions, suggesting that, if sustained reductions in exposure to large sizes could be achieved across the whole diet, this could reduce average daily energy consumed from food by 12% to 16% among adults in the UK (equivalent of up to 279 kcals per day) or by 22% to 29% among US adults (equivalent of up to 527 kcals per day).

10. Not so elementary after all
Sherlock Holmes, the literary creation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, is attributed with saying “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth”. This is held by many as a fine example of deductive reason. The only problem is that the fictional detective used inductive reasoning, as Danielle Kincaid explains:

“Deductive reasoning is also known as ‘top-down’ logic, where the reasoner begins with an accepted premise and seeks to prove another statement based on previously ‘known’ information… Inductive reasoning, however, allows Sherlock to extrapolate from the information observed in order to arrive at conclusions about events that have not been observed.”

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.


@#1, smells like BS, looks like BS, tastes like BS, sounds like BS..........

@#6&7, it was thus prophesied, the meek have almost inherited the earth. (From that famous collection of fictional short stories).


On number 1, a Chinese investor in Australia seems to be defined as someone from China who has no right to live in Australia, nevertheless buying a house there. In NZ terms that would discount the student entry options with tag along rights for the extended family, or wealthy investor resident options, or perhaps one person with residency rights buying on behalf of someone who doesn't.
As it happens I don't mind the cultural diversity now in Auckland, other than the impact on house prices and transport and other infrastructure. But the official head in the sand denials are annoying. When the top 20 real estate agents in Auckland are all Chinese, it isn't because they are catering to 2% of the market; or because of their special real estate skills.


#1 try renting a place in Sydney or Melbourne. Most of the landlords you will contact will be Chinese.
2% is way off. Try 42%

If there is a smaller increase in housing supply, but a larger and increasing number of foreign buyers ( of all description: immigrants, relatives of immigrants buying through immigrants, parents of international students, investor category but not long term etc) then price pressure will remain. How many new houses are needed per year to reach an equilibrium on pricing?).


Does the anti-paternalist in you also feel we should remove tobacco tax, and lift the advertising ban? Adults are adult enough to know there own preferences after all?


Free speech = being able to say anything to anybody= Churlish?, In my view.
If the point of this #6 is: its good to be progressive and think critically, then well yes, of course.

Ironically this sites policy is: "We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments"

At times the anti PC brigade have been rather brutal, at times abusive as annoyance gives way to rage.
PC sloganeering need not be mean spirited if it can contain its its annoyance at having social limits placed on it. It can instead be directed and controlled to produce good debate.


Just to be analytical, communication is a shared responsibility. It is equally dependent on the sender and receiver to be correct and honest in their roles for it to be successful. Senders output which is flawed or lacking actual relevant content should be treated as "noise" and simply discarded. Receivers whose perception is skewed by prejudices so as to turn correct and relevant content into "noise" also fail in their responsibility.
For my part I am happy to have the opportunity to decide for myself what is "noise" over having an intermediate try to protect my sensitivities and and mask useful info in the process by applying a filter that I do not share.
Listening to the opinions of others, however distasteful, gives us insight into their motivations and intent. Segregating yourself to the room where you only hear babbling brooks and chirpy birds will leave you a little surprised when they kick the door down and beat you to death.


Yes - offense is usually taken, not given.
The mature thing to do, is to be able to articulate what about another's opinion or utterance has offended, and point out where and how they are wrong.
Choosing to take offense at another's opinion is giving them power over you, and why would you want to do that?


The problem here that he is talking about is that people take offence at those who disagree with them, not why or how. This site's policy is not out of place. It supports that we can debate a topic without belittling the proposer of an opinion because he holds that opinion. Equally we should be prepared to learn if we want to express an opinion in public as there will always be someone who disagrees with you. The question is why, not who. And qualifications do not necessarily make them right.


Then off the the Congo for you. You'll enjoy the freedom there from normal social constrains.


#8 Not wishing it on anyone, but lung cancer is a relatively rapid death spiral compared to chronic diseases of the elderly thereby with relatively less impact on patient suffering and health system costs. Since smokers' tax contributions exceed their cost impact on the health system, perhaps we can stop demonising them. And smokers aren't killing others on the roads. P.S. it is the combination of smoking and alcohol consumption that multiplies the incidence of cancer. (Ex-smoker here).


Overall a good lighthearted few things for the weekend, so well done Mr Krupp. On taxes overall, I do wonder if the whole tax system was designed from scratch in a post gold standard world, whether it would look materially different to that which has evolved over centuries of paradigms and meddling. The system seems a massively complex means to fund essential government, transfer wealth, and discourage a few behaviours like drinking, smoking and driving. The industry to calculate and collect these taxes is huge, and not all that efficient.
In simple terms I often wonder whether it is ideal that someone is paid in theory $100k, of which $30k is immediately deducted, while another $10k is siphoned off as he/she buys things. Would it not be simpler for him to be paid $60k and have no tax issues? The government could then print and spend $40k; or say a maximum 40% of GDP on its services. Companies in theory would make more profit, but competition, supply and demand, would have all these elements including pricing and margins, find an equilibrium, similar to now. Similarly asset prices. And wages.
Monetary policy would need managing, with a view to maintaining price stability as now, but shouldn't be all that difficult.
The catch is getting there from where we are, and I accept that at best that could only be a slow evolution rather than a revolution.
It does seem to me that Japan has evolved to close to this system now, albeit where they pretend otherwise.


Christians didn't argue the sun was at the center of the universe, they argued (as their bible claims) that the earth is. It was Copernicus who argued for heliocentrism and Kepler and Galileo who developed and proved the theory. Oops?