Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland
506 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 13 14 15 16 17 … 21 Newer→ Last
-
Rich of Observationz, in reply to
What does "value of NZ houses" mean? Is that the total volume of sales, or a proxy for it.
Why don't Stats collect proper data in this area, anyway? They could get the transaction data from Linz, you would think, and provide figures for total volume, average price/GV, etc. It's impossible to even track down numbers for total GV in a region or nationally - you have to guess by dividing council income by the rates percentage (which is also a hidden number).
Anyone would think this data is deliberately obfuscated?
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Imagine if they’d said:
Anything really. The National Party's mouthpieces would find a way for it to look bad, as they have this time.
The fact of the matter is that even your carefully written piece would still be regarded a racist because you dared to mention China, had we been talking about Americans or Germans or whoever as long as they were "westerners", this would never have been a "problem". -
Trotter's piece is a classic example of projecting instead of observing. His message, in short: "I want this issue to be discussed differently. So I've simply decided that it has been. That makes life easier for me, which is the main thing."
Yes, Andrew Little could have made a visionary speech about the history and future of NZ's relationship with China, addressing some of those matters arising. But he didn't.
Presumably because it wouldn't have got half the coverage or probably, votes.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
Anyone would think this data is deliberately obfuscated?
No.... really... Barfoot and Thompson surely wouldn't do that, I mean, they are so supportive of Labour and heaven forbid, would they really talk up property values?.
/s -
I wouldn't expect a real estate agent to collect statistics. I would expect the public bodies paid to do this to collect decent data on the largest part of the economy.
-
simon g, in reply to
The National Party’s mouthpieces would find a way for it to look bad, as they have this time.
And the rest of us would have ignored them, as we do every day.
Labour’s achievement was to alienate a great many more, non-mouthpieces all.
-
Mikaere Curtis, in reply to
Anything really. The National Party’s mouthpieces would find a way for it to look bad, as they have this time.
It’s a lot harder to make the argument that Labour is engaged in wedge politics if their essential message is “Love these guys, but we’re going to close the back door and they can come in through the front door if they want to invest in our real estate”.
This attitude of National R Teh L337 is self-defeating. Labour have to do better, and may as well try rather than shrug their shoulders and say “We can’t win”.
-
Sacha, in reply to
Great work. Is that big drop in 2008 likely to be overseas capital being pulled out?
-
Sacha, in reply to
blaming the govt is Labour’s main job ffs!!
yep. and the whole public even subsidise them to do it.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
Once again, we have Labour with something useful to say (we have a problem with foreign investment in our housing market), but terrible framing.
Or how about we just take a deep breath and admit this is wonderful framing for the element of the Labour Party who are desperate for a polling bump, and don’t give a damn how they get it. Welcome to your Orewa moment, Labour supporters.
The fact of the matter is that even your carefully written piece would still be regarded a racist because you dared to mention China, had we been talking about Americans or Germans or whoever as long as they were “westerners”, this would never have been a “problem”.
So remind me, Steve, where was Labour's furious denunciation when The New Zealand Herald's proprietor flicked off its magazine holdings to a German corporation? (FULL DISCLOSURE: I'm an occasion contributor to The Listener, currently owned by Bauer Media Group)? And are you seriously trying to argue that there's the same level of political and media hysterics when land and houses are sold to Australians, Poms or Americans? Really?
If you're citing the existence of racism as justification for pandering to it, then you've unwittingly put your finger on the real problem here. It's just not the one you think it is.
-
It appears we're not the only place having this discussion at the moment.
-
David Hood, in reply to
Value is a proxy. REINZ (private) having actual sales data, and through an arcane process generate something called the house price index, which they publically publish a graph of, but don't give the accompanying time series data. QV (kinda private) use REINZ and other data to do the house valuations rates are based on via an arcane and unknown formula, and publish the Total value of New Zealand houses via the RBNZ . While this is technically different to the REINZ data it makes an almost identical graph just at a different scale, so it makes a good proxy for what is happening with property sales providing you are not trying to work out actual dollar values from it (it is good for the long term pattern). So for example we can confidentially say that a lot of new money compared to what was there has come into the housing market, and there is evidence that it could not have come from inside New Zealand.
To the best of my knowledge LINZ only gets title information, nothing about price.
Certainly as sectors of the economy go it is rather opaque.
If I can generalise, when I was passing this to people in 2013 the general response from people on the left was "I believe you but I don't understand you" while the general response from people on the right was "we all agree the price rises are due to constrained supply due to local government regulation, so this is irrelevant". No one seemed to have their heads around it being a completely open economic sector exposed to the world (freakishly so by world standards) and that world pressures may be very different to that of a market internal to the country.
-
David Hood, in reply to
Could be, we just don't know. What the 2008 drop literally means is that for a few key quarters a bunch of people were buying houses much cheaper than the previous quarter. We don't know who was selling or buying.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
And are you seriously trying to argue that there's the same level of political and media hysterics when land and houses are sold to Australians, Poms or Americans? Really?
No, that is not what I said at all. So Craig, while you are wringing your hands could you refrain from mangling my words.
If you're citing the existence of racism as justification for pandering to it, then you've unwittingly put your finger on the real problem here. It's just not the one you think it is.
I did that on the other thread Here
Play with percentages all you like these numbers tell a much bigger story but the fact remains, New Zealand is a racist country and Twyford is a New Zealander.
Shock Horror.The false equivalence... it stings.
-
Sacha, in reply to
We don't know who was selling or buying.
Nuts. Which other nations ignore the largest part of their economy, statistically?
-
Mikaere Curtis, in reply to
It appears we’re not the only place having this discussion at the moment.
I know I'm late to this discussion, but how come it's OK for Hong Kong and Singapore to target mainland Chinese, but we can't even acknowledge that it's a potential/likely issue here ?
And are you seriously trying to argue that there’s the same level of political and media hysterics when land and houses are sold to Australians, Poms or Americans? Really?
There is from the Greens, although it isn't hysterical, more measured and consistent. The Greens have been saying for years that foreigners should come and live here as permanent residents or go and buy land in their own country.
Whilst the non-resident/citizen Chinese have salient attributes that make them more noticeable (names, language, physical characteristics), and hence the obvious group to use as the exemplar for the issue of foreign property ownership, I think it is fair to say that everyone is doing it, at least to some degree.
This laissez faire wet dream of everyone in the entire world being able to buy our land out from underneath us is a total crock, and both Labour and National are to blame for the situation, and for the paucity of hard data resulting in the Chinese being unfairly targeted, for the reasons I gave above. If we had proper data, we would be able to create a solid breakdown, and we'd know exactly who is buying what.
But neither National nor Labour would listen, and this is what you get.
I'll give Labour points actually trying to deal with the issue, even if they can't frame their way out of a paper bag. One day they might hire some actual talent that can compete with the consultants National use.
-
Steve Barnes, in reply to
One day they might hire some actual talent that can compete with the consultants National use.
At least with Labour aiming at the target and missing, causing collateral damage amongst the "Hand Wringing Set" we know that they are not just having "Brain Farts" and using expensive PR sluts to make their ideas seem, almost, sane.
It almost feels like the Left have been convinced by highly paid scribblers to believe that Labour is 100% Pure Evil and we need to experience Labour being perfect, beyond reproach and Godlike before we would entertain the merest inkling of the idea that we could trust them in Government.
Meanwhile, the "Filthy Few" filch the Countries finances to feather their fetid nests. -
BenWilson, in reply to
If I can generalise, when I was passing this to people in 2013 the general response from people on the left was “I believe you but I don’t understand you” while the general response from people on the right was “we all agree the price rises are due to constrained supply due to local government regulation, so this is irrelevant”. No one seemed to have their heads around it being a completely open economic sector exposed to the world (freakishly so by world standards) and that world pressures may be very different to that of a market internal to the country.
If you'd tried it here I'd at least have been sympathetic, since it seems so damned obvious to me. I don't think you did, though, from a casual scroll back through your comment history. Nice pictures tho!
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Personally I think the best thing to do is not meta-analyse everyone else's motivations. I'm not meaning you more than anyone else - it just seems to me that the interesting part of this debate is what the study says. The uninteresting part is all the framing and left-fights-left-while-right-watches-and-laughs. That stuff was all inevitable.
Mentally I just put those who are left wing and comfortable with a racial dogwhistle into a different box, probably one I don't vote along with. Those who are left wing and uncomfortable with it are probably in my box. But who is in which box is hardly of interest to me - I already know all that anyway. I could have written on a piece of paper beforehand all the people that would contribute on each side of that inevitable debate, and the betting would only be about how long they would last before they either got bored, flounced, or got timed out. Not the interesting data here. What's interesting is what can actually be gleaned from the data. The whole business about microanalysing after the fact just how the press release could have been written? That's all just opinion, and will never be settled, nor will it probably shed any light on anything, just sound and fury. I wish it could be cauterized off to a different chamber. People who love that kind of shitfight can have at it.
-
Sacha, in reply to
This laissez faire wet dream of everyone in the entire world being able to buy our land out from underneath us is a total crock, and both Labour and National are to blame
reckon.
#recklessbullshitters -
Sacha, in reply to
the "Hand Wringing Set
ooh, you should see mine.
#twisted -
Mikaere Curtis, in reply to
It almost feels like the Left have been convinced by highly paid scribblers to believe that Labour is 100% Pure Evil and we need to experience Labour being perfect, beyond reproach before we would entertain the merest inkling of the idea that we could trust them in Government.
No, it's the Greens who have to be perfect and beyond reproach ;)
I'm not saying Labour need to bullshit and dissemble like the Key Government do, but they do need to frame their policy points in a way that a) associates National with concepts that show that National are a bad government (e.g. only interested in transferring wealth to the wealthy, making life hard for our most vulnerable etc) and b) coherently and consistently supports Labour's vision of a just and fair society where more people get a chance to do the best for themselves.
None of the above require Labour to relinquish their values or policies, nor misrepresent them, just communicate them in the right way.
Try listening to Politics on Mondays' Nine to Noon. Hooten consistently frames his arguments, and he's good at it, so good that the hapless Williams typically agrees with him, and hardly ever challenges him on anything other than the history of the Clark government.
Step 1 would be for Labour to replace Williams with someone who can frame arguments in a Labour-positive way.
Step 2 would be identify terms National uses and to de-fang them. For example, when National was in Opposition they always talked about government department "bureaucrats" but know they call them "officials", how about calling them out on that ?
Or when Anne Tolley calls benefit entitlements "tax-payers dollars", how about re-framing it as "the safety net for the most vulnerable" ?
Until Labour can engage in the ideological jiu-jitsu that National are so good at, they will forever be playing catch-up, simple as that.
-
Mikaere Curtis, in reply to
The whole business about microanalysing after the fact just how the press release could have been written? That’s all just opinion, and will never be settled, nor will it probably shed any light on anything, just sound and fury.
Here's the thing: there will never be a Labour/Green government until Labour can get their shit together*. As a Green, I'm sick of having "WTF Is Wrong With Labour ?" conversations, I actually want them to, y'know, be competent and unified for a change.
And analysing the latest debacle in terms of how it could have been better handled is one way of providing them with positive feedback of the kind of choices that they could easily be making that would provide the kind of political traction they so desperately need.
Are you actually happy with Labour being a basket case ? If so, why ? I'd love to know.
* or National spectacularly implode, but that is vanishingly unlikely to happen
-
Swan, in reply to
Yeah but the route that asset price bubbles take when they affect the economy is via financial instability and is always preceded by strong credit growth.
-
BenWilson, in reply to
Yeah but the route that asset price bubbles take when they affect the economy is via financial instability and is always preceded by strong credit growth.
Swan, I told you that the scenario you propose would literally wipe off my entire net worth. That's affecting my economy right there. And I'm one of the lucky ones, with quite a high equity proportion. Most of the property owners in my age bracket that I know are far more leveraged. These people would be not just affected, they would be bankrupted. We're talking about middle class people with good jobs who would have negative equity. If the bank didn't foreclose them on the way down to zero equity, they would be literally stuck in place, unable to sell until property rose 50% again, because if they did, what they'd have left to spend would be hundreds of thousands of dollars in the negative. There are tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people in this situation. It's quite ludicrous to suggest that an outright collapse of that magnitude would not be highly destructive to our economic wellbeing. It certainly won't "come out in the wash".
Post your response…
This topic is closed.