Open Mike 04/09/2026

Written By: notices and features - Date published: - 16 comments
Categories: open mike


Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

16 comments on “Open Mike 04/09/2026”

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

  1. 1

    Perception and reality

    In 2024, Chris Bishop outlined precisely how he’d flood the housing market to crash prices. He’s delivered exactly that.

    https://www.thepost.co.nz/politics/361073514/matthew-hooton-peters-doctrine-triumphant-pacific-deals

    More likely this was a result of rising migration to Oz and decline in migrant worker inflow (and the low mortgage rate artificial 2021 peak).

    The tradie problem can be seen in the history of annual consents – here

    Consents in 2025 were no higher than in 2023.

    The big gain was in 2017-2022 (with the Auckland 2016 plan) and the boost by Labour to the state house build.

    https://www.stats.govt.nz/news/auckland-leads-rise-in-new-homes-consented/

    1. 2.1

      Way too early to predict how bad it is going to get with Trump.

      Even in 2023 no one would have predicted that the US would:

      – Form a long term unprovoked war with Iran, and through that cause a worldwide fuel crisis and long term inflation crisis

      – Walk away from its entire military presence in the Persian Gulf, downgrade its commitments to Ukraine, Korea and Taiwan

      – Piss off everyone in Europe in particular the Danes

      – Invade Venezuela, stage a coup, and seize all its oil

      – Break its entire 2- century relationship with Canada

      – Impose global tariffs on the entire world and then reverse most of them

      – Kill off 90% of its aid to developing countries

      – Corrode the solidity of the $US dollar

      – Rapidly and deliberately decrease the global market share of US industries that used to lead the world in automobiles, machinery, power generation, consumer electronics, and clothing.

      And honestly all of those are permanent. The're not coming back.

      1. 2.1.1

        That's a strong case to think it couldn't possibly be worse, but I've thought that with every US president since Nixon and have been consistently wrong. They are not in the business of making the world a better or safer place.

        1. 2.1.1.1

          The problem is these President's ego's, are that big that the average citizen in the USA ,does not even register in their thought process's. They are playing the Big Game on the World Stage with Putin and Netanyahu, all trying to out do each other. They do not care about the damage they are doing to their people, the people they are fighting and the collateral damage they are creating for the rest of us.

          1. 2.1.1.1.1

            I hear you Ngu. I am just taking a look at the availability of ER Schumacher's (1911-1977) 'Small is Beautiful'. I think this German who fled to UK as Nazi persecution happened and was under the aegis of Maynard Keynes I think, wrote a number of essays that could be incisive with the world debased frightening him at that stage.

        2. 2.1.1.2

          Do you cast the same aspersions against all of the other world leaders of the same period.

          No one is elected to 'make the world a better or safer place' They are elected (or self-appointed) to make their own citizens better off and/or safer. The two are not at all the same thing.

          For generations the liberal west has decried American involvement and leadership (but been happy to benefit from the international stability that came with having a world policeman). But, now that the US is no longer interested in the role (one which came with very few bouquets, but lots of brickbats) – the liberal west is even less happy with the consequences.

          Do I think that many of Trump's policies and decisions are stupid. Yes, absolutely. Do I think that I get a vote on this. No, I don't.

    2. 2.2

      Not buying into the democratic collapse of the US.

      These commentators are all ignoring the systemic division of power between the executive, judiciary and legislature. It's designed to stop kings/dictators. And, despite Trump's worst attempts, it's done just that. How many policies has he announced, but not been able to deliver on?

      The US has been there before. Does anyone really think that ICE is worse than the McCarthy era? Where no one anywhere close to the establishment was even protesting the treatment of people suspected of communism.

      The US has also gone through periods of isolationism, as well. Have a look at the splendidly named Smoot-Hawley Tarriff Act.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot%E2%80%93Hawley_Tariff_Act

      Please note, I'm not arguing for this as an effective economic measure (it wasn't) – but as evidence that the US has been here before.

      Also – what's with the evident nostalgia for the Soviet Union?

      1. 2.2.1

        Sound a lot of gabfest Bd. What can't be rationalised away, may one day require exculpation of some sort, try and retire soon to a remote area from the Big Rodeo.

  5. 5

    The Greens have changed their position and now want the CoC government's legislation that replaces the RMA dumped.

    "…environmental groups, which previously voiced a willingness to work with the Government to avoid another expensive round of policy scrapping and re-drafting, have published a joint letter officially calling for the bills to be “dumped”…..Among [Green MP] Pham’s chief concerns is a restriction on considering the effects of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, for example when consenting a new coal-burning dairy plant. Decision makers will not be able to weigh the negative consequences, but will be able to consider the positives. In practice, Pham says this means such a plant couldn’t have its emissions counted against it, but a marginal emissions-reduction feature attached to it would count in its favour. Pham says the change “is basically climate denialism locked into the heart of our planning framework”…

    I agree. This legislation has been made even worse with recent amendments and now is beyond the pale. We should return to the legislation prepared by David Parker for Labour that is pretty much ready to go. Meanwhile the RMA, which actually works well, can stay in place.

    1. 5.1

      A Radio NZ podcast (https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018981222/reforming-the-reforms-the-rma-is-up-for-debate-again) discusses the RMA reforms.

      Chris Bishop's comments are revealing; he reckons the RMA had been a disaster for 30 years, and blamed it for destroying the economy and making housing unaffordable, as well as preventing infrastructure from being built and causing energy shortages.

      Yet the original RMA was passed by a National government. Bishop says his two new Bills are based on putting private property rights at the forefront. No mention of public property rights, of course, because public property such as water will be quietly privatised.

      1. 5.1.1

        Bishop also continues to support the now widely-hated fast-track legislation. This is the disaster; not he RMA which has permitted a huge amount of development.

        Supporting fast-track will cost the CoC at the election, providing Hipkins makes it plain he will dump it.

  6. 6

    So Gloria was a cold war warrior, too.

    .

    So what, exactly, was the N.S.A. useful for? This is where things get murky. According to Paget’s account, the N.S.A. was apparently not used for what the C.I.A. called “political warfare.” The agency did create a front organization called the Independent Research Service (inventing titles that are as meaningless as possible is part of the spy game) for the purpose of recruiting American students to disrupt Soviet-controlled World Youth Festivals in Vienna, in 1959, and Helsinki, in 1962. The person in charge was the future feminist Gloria Steinem, who knew perfectly well where the money was coming from and never regretted taking it. “If I had a choice I would do it again,” she later said.

    https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/03/23/a-friend-of-the-devil

    https://archive.li/wqTaf

Comments are closed.