Daily Review 04/07/2018

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 26 comments
Categories: Daily review

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

The usual rules of good behaviour apply (see the Policy).

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

26 comments on “Daily Review 04/07/2018”

Comment numbers have changed to permanent references. Older quoted numbers may no longer identify the same comment.

    1. 1.1

      Amy Adams was left floundering, doing the nasty Tory routine of wailing someone somewhere might be taking advantage of it. I find Tory reactions at times like this revealing. They are grasping, cynical, and criminal in the way they see the world.

      It is already clear this policy is going to be wildly popular with Joe and Jane Sixpack.

      1. 1.1.1

        Amy Adams is a landlord with multi homes in her portfolio – shame on her. That could be inaccurate – have just checked with Wikipedia . It is three farms she owns (with her husband) but I still think my first statement stands.

    3. 1.3

      Developers considering involvement can see it is happening. Well done Phil. The Nats have been so negative! At last we are getting the true story.

    4. 1.4

      One that will not build a single additional home than would have been built anyway. A ghost ballot by a ghost government.

      1. 1.4.1

        Now you need to show you have run the counterfactual for that: what would have occurred if a National-led government had been on power.

        Not even Treasury can do that, so your claim is hollow.

          1. 1.4.1.1.1

            You don’t know the concept of counter-factual.

            You have to run exactly the same stats and run them as if National were in power now, implementing their policies, then prove the difference between the National hypothetical and the Labour-led one.

            So go right ahead.

            1. 1.4.1.1.1.1

              I did. National had house prices stabilised, and consents rising. By one simple move (requiring IRD numbers) National dealt with concerns over foreign buyers (no need for racist dog whistling). The counter factual is the work was done. Labour promised the earth and are delivering ash.

              1. 1.4.1.1.1.1.1

                National’s moves late into their 3rd term certainly did make a start at leveling prices. For the previous 8 years things had got so bad a conservative estimate in 2016 from Corelogic was that the average house price in Auckland was heading to $3 million.

                https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11740760

                Labour’s policy moves have been far more powerful and far more effective. You can see that in the continued and far stronger trend in Auckland’s prices, average time to sell, etc.

                https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=12033936

                And yet, despite the protestations about things going so badly from National and from the business community, building consents are at their highest in 44 years:

                http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1806/S00329/highest-building-consent-levels-in-44-years.htm

                The difference is clear as the facts. National were a fucking lazy government that supported nothing except feckless chumps in the property speculator market, and raised one policy finger to cool the madness late into their third term.

                Whereas Labour have done more effective work in their first year on housing than National did in 9.

                1. 1.4.1.1.1.1.1.1

                  “Labour’s policy moves have been far more powerful and far more effective. ”

                  What moves? Name a single thing they have actually done that has had an impact on house prices.

                  The increase in building consents is not a policy, it is the result of the policies and confidence built up under the previous government. National increased building consents significantly from the levels under the previous labour government.

                  This Labour government have done nothing to solve the problem, nothing. In fact as confidence plummets, and Twyford looks to the private sector to bail him out, they are looking like a car with loose wheels, in housing as with most other things.

  2. 2

    We haver been told that the govt will have in place $2b to cover the Kiwi Build
    Now if we build 12,000 p.a. and a house takes 3 – 6 months to build, then at any stage we have 3,000-6,000 houses in various states of completion at any time. So on average, the cost spent on each house is $333k – $667k. Something doesn’t add up, unless there are large upfront costs in acquiring land, and that would be at market prices 🙁
    https://www.labour.org.nz/kiwibuild

    1. 2.1

      I suspect there will also be a reasonably sized number of employees to plan and oversee the building of 10k homes a year.

      1. 3.1.1

        Really? I did not know that… although a superficial look at the cases she has taken it’s obvious that she’s born to challenge government policies.
        Family Carers, CPAG, IHC, WINZ.

        Respect.

  7. 7

    Listened to that idiot Amy Adams trying to convince listeners that kiwi build recipients will be the minority richest people of NZ and the rest will miss out. Her blah defied sanity. Amy Adams, a lying clown.

  8. 8

    When wealth is taxed the wealthy seek to lower the cost to government, Rockefeller, as we see today those representing wealthy people seek to raise the cost of govt and argue that govt does not work to lower taxes on wealth further. New top tax rate at 50% of income, crazy Amy will turn pivot…

Comments are closed.