Daily Review – 26/01/2017

41 comments on “Daily Review – 26/01/2017 ”

• Comments are now closed

1. weka 1

   26 January 2017 at 7:27 pm

   Why the lies matter and why they’re different from before.

   Elliott Lusztig on twitter (@ezlusztig):

   Hannah Arendt in her book The Origin of Totalitarianism provides a helpful guide for interpreting the language of fascists.

   She noted how decent liberals of 1930s Germany would “fact check” the Nazis’ bizarre claims about Jews like they were meant to be factual

   What they failed to understand, Arendt suggests, is that the Nazi Jew hating was not a statement of fact but a declaration of intent.

   So when someone would blame the Jews for Germany’s defeat in WW1 naive people would counter by saying there’s no evidence of that.

   What the Nazis were doing was not describing what was true, but what would have to be true to justify what they planned to do next.

   Did 3 million “illegals” cast votes in this election? Clearly not. But fact checking is just a way of playing along with their game.

   What Trump is saying is not that 3m illegals voted. What he’s saying is: I’m going to steal the voting rights of millions of Americans.

   https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10100880345342985&set=a.10100170163398295.1073741828.31404136&type=3&theater
   • Sabine 1.1

     26 January 2017 at 8:45 pm

     yep. pretty much take him by the word.
   • UncookedSelachimorpha 1.2

     27 January 2017 at 4:47 pm

     I agree. What can you do about this – what could liberals have done better in 1930’s Germany?? I guess sometimes you have to just oppose something, even if you fail to apparently make things any better for a time.
     • weka 1.2.1

       27 January 2017 at 5:31 pm

       What I’m hearing from many people in the US is we have to counter the story that Tr*mp should be given time, or that it won’t be that bad. He’s already doing the bad shit. I took the above bit to mean fact check sure, but it’s not enough, do the other stuff too.

       It’s different this time because of the internet.

       Linda Tirado is one of the ones I am following for strategy,

       https://thestandard.org.nz/punching-nazis-and-practicing-resistance/
       • UncookedSelachimorpha 1.2.1.1

         27 January 2017 at 7:40 pm

         Absolutely – in my opinion he is every bit as bad as it seemed he would be – and I confess I was hoping like crazy the optimists would be right. Yes, no point in the “wait and see, it might not be so bad” b.s. We should call it like it is – the rise of a vile right-wing tyrant baby.

         I continue to hold out hope that he will be hopelessly ineffective – still a chance of that. But unfortunately I expect that many, many real people are going to suffer here.
         • weka 1.2.1.1.1

           28 January 2017 at 12:05 am

           We might get really lucky and have some significant social change in a good direction as a result.
2. Paul 2

   26 January 2017 at 7:43 pm

   Well worth a read.

   Shamubeel Eaqub says that every government policy to make housing affordable since the early 1990s has been a failure, and it’s time the political classes actually delivered on their responsibilities.

   ‘Denials of a housing crisis are now simply lies’
   

   The real solution, as we have known all along, is to increase housing supply. This needs significant intervention by local and central government, with planning processes needed to accommodate more growth. Councils currently are not appropriately funded to deliver the infrastructure, and building companies do not take up enough labour and capital, because they are always fearful of big cycles.

   A big programme of social housing investment by the government would provide a base of guaranteed work that would smooth out the cycles, and lead to a more resilient construction sector and economy.

   We also need to reform banking regulation, to stop the pro-cyclical lending that they do, and the inefficient allocation of lending in favour of housing over entrepreneurship.

   We need to think hard about how we tax property income and wealth gains, and we need to fix rental policies so that those who must, or choose to, rent do not have to live an insecure and second class life.

   With each passing month and year, housing has become less and less affordable. Politics is the roadblock. The politics is difficult, but the denials of a housing crisis are now simply lies.

   Yes, homeowners vote more than renters, but that should not be the guide for good government and good policy. On housing, every government since the early 1990s has been a failure.

   It is time the political classes took off their blinkers and actually delivered on their responsibilities.

   [for next time, it’s good to put the link in too, so people can read the whole thing, know the context, and because it’s less likely to break copyright. Added now. – weka]

   http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/on-the-inside/323140/'denials-of-a-housing-crisis-are-now-simply-lies‘
   • Carolyn_nth 2.1

     26 January 2017 at 7:51 pm

     The politics is difficult, but the denials of a housing crisis are now simply lies.

     Yes, homeowners vote more than renters, but that should not be the guide for good government and good policy.

     “Lies” – That’s telling ’em!

     And some of us renters DO vote, and I will take note of how parties’ housing policies impact on renters.
     • weka 2.1.1

       26 January 2017 at 9:54 pm

       Hasn’t Pat been putting up numbers of renters and home owners as voters?
   • weka 2.2

     26 January 2017 at 9:56 pm

     Good straight talk from Eaqub. Anyone know how he makes a living? I’m curious that he feels free to speak out so boldly.
     • Carolyn_nth 2.2.1

       26 January 2017 at 10:10 pm

       At the bottom of the link you added, weka:

       Shamubeel Eaqub is an economist and partner at Sense Partners, a boutique economic consultancy.
       • weka 2.2.1.1

         26 January 2017 at 10:22 pm

         I saw that but I don’t know what it means 😀
         • Carolyn_nth 2.2.1.1.1

           26 January 2017 at 10:51 pm

           I think it means he’s a co-owner of a small economics consultancy business – economist for hire.

           What sense partners does:

           Our experience spans areas as diverse as evaluating environmental policies, investing in tertiary education facilities, and changing building standards. These studies almost always involve comparing reasonably easy-to-identify costs with hard-to-value societal benefits. We have the techniques to help you with that.
           …
           Examples of our work include:

           housing – home ownership and the rental accommodation market

           economic modelling of long term aged residential care market requirements

           long term fiscal sustainability

           alternative approaches to ensuring sufficient land supply in urban settings

           the efficiency of local environmental regulatory frameworks

           More on the website
           • weka 2.2.1.1.1.1

             26 January 2017 at 11:48 pm

             Who do you think hires them?
     • Rosemary McDonald 2.2.2

       26 January 2017 at 11:11 pm

       Eaqub is the ‘zombie town’ guy…

       https://www.nbr.co.nz/article/nz-has-zombie-towns-need-close-%E2%80%94-economist-ns-159124

       proposes euthanasia for dying communities…
       • weka 2.2.2.1

         26 January 2017 at 11:43 pm

         Wow, that’s bad. Good example of why economists should never be put in charge of running things though.
         • weka 2.2.2.1.1

           26 January 2017 at 11:46 pm

           And what’s wrong with Timor anyway. I mean obviously there are issues to address, but when we start saying that somewhere is bad because it looks like a poor place as if the social capital (to use a piece of contemporary blather) has no value, or the existing infrastructure, then aren’t we back to talking about stock units? He’s doing that much more nicely than the RWers for sure, but it sounds depressingly familiar.
           • Draco T Bastard 2.2.2.1.1.1

             27 January 2017 at 2:02 am

             He’s got a traditional economic education which means that he believes in the capitalist free-market and utils.

             What this means in practice is that he believes that if rich people don’t want to invest in a place then that place isn’t worth anything.
             • Rosemary McDonald …

               27 January 2017 at 7:12 am

               “…in practice is that he believes that if rich people don’t want to invest in a place then that place isn’t worth anything.”

               Peculiar because some extraordinarily rich pricks have ‘invested’ in the North…. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2931325/Super-rich-buying-property-New-Zealand-bolthole-case-west-goes-meltdown.html

               At the suggestion that a cap be put on Auckland’s expansion, Eaqub expressed almost horror. ‘But, but, they’ll go elsewhere, Sydney, Singapore….!’

               Like, if a place doesn’t look , sound and smell like Auckland then it’s dying?

               There was a fightback…with Kim Hill chairing panel discussions with mayors and business people from ‘the regions’…http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/a-life-worth-having
               • Draco T Bastard …

                 27 January 2017 at 4:25 pm

                 Peculiar because some extraordinarily rich pricks have ‘invested’ in the North…

                 But are they really ‘investing’? Are they really building new industries and factories there? Or are they just buying up lifestyle blocks?

                 At the suggestion that a cap be put on Auckland’s expansion, Eaqub expressed almost horror. ‘But, but, they’ll go elsewhere, Sydney, Singapore….!’

                 Yep, that’s exactly what you get from traditionally neo-lib trained economists.
     • Molly 2.2.3

       27 January 2017 at 8:18 am

       His LinkIn profile is here.

       However, I heard him speak at an Auckland Council meeting back in 2012-2013.

       He was introduced as advisor to the government, and a spokesperson on the housing crisis. He was living in Wellington at the time.

       I remember his speech very vividly, because he dismissed any concerns about the rising costs of housing in Auckland. And his speech, and response to any questions regarding the impact of this, was “Rent.” No mention at all of the lack of tenancy security, the impact of higher housing costs on household budgets, the social costs of transient local communities, the failure of government to address the lack of housing etc.

       At the time, due to his consultancy role with the government , I assumed his rhetoric was in line with government policy of “pretend and continue”.

       Apparently, he now lives Auckland and his perspective has demonstrably changed. There is also a lot of public interest in the impact of the rising cost housing, so the cynic in me thinks that he has identified this and he now uses that interest and his printed opinions to self-promote. But most of the things he says were relevant when he was busy denying them. He is just giving them “legitimacy” now as an economic advisor.

       I consider him a fair-weather economist – but isn’t that true of many?
       • Carolyn_nth 2.2.3.1

         27 January 2017 at 8:30 am

         It is possible that, after he moved to Auckland, and severed formal govt ties, he came face-to-face with some realities….. hard to know. But time will tell. And agree he still fundamentally assumes capitalism is a great system.
         • Molly 2.2.3.1.1

           27 January 2017 at 11:16 am

           Yes, that is something that I considered to be influential as well. But that reinforces the idea that consultants and advisors are too often giving advice on community and social issues with regard to their experience on a personal level.

           His lack of a broader perspective is his own failing, and one that is likely to be repeated on other aspects of the economy.

           I would have more time for him now, if he acknowledged his previous stance and said what facts made him aware of its failings.
           • Carolyn_nth 2.2.3.1.1.1

             27 January 2017 at 11:21 am

             Agree. that’s the problem with those social scientists that are wedded to an “objective”, largely statistical, approach. They rarely acknowledge, or factor in, their own biases.

             And a big bias by Shamubeel Eaqub is that he assumes capitalism is the best system.
           • weka 2.2.3.1.1.2

             27 January 2017 at 12:47 pm

             That sums it up for me too Molly. There is such power in positions such as his, if he gets it wrong he needs to make it right when he can.

             He seems to have this reputation as a kind of celeb economist, I see him turning up on leftish mainstream media. Will pay more attention now to what he is saying and doing.

             Thanks to Rosemary for bring this up.
   • Draco T Bastard 2.3

     26 January 2017 at 11:24 pm

     He’s almost there – still thinks that capitalism works though.
   • millsy 2.4

     27 January 2017 at 1:09 am

     The funds exist to build thousands of state housing — The ACC and NZ Superfund.
     • Draco T Bastard 2.4.1

       27 January 2017 at 2:03 am

       The government can create money and have them built. The rental on the places then removes that money from the economy thus eliminating inflation.
       • dv 2.4.1.1

         27 January 2017 at 8:46 am

         Ja mean like social credit Draco?
         • Draco T Bastard 2.4.1.1.1

           27 January 2017 at 4:22 pm

           I mean like the way that the Labour Party brought us out of the Great Depression and built the first state housing.
     • James 2.4.2

       27 January 2017 at 8:49 am

       Actually those funds exist for other reasons.
   • Pat 2.5

     27 January 2017 at 9:10 am

     Having read the article (but not the book) what stands out most for me is the following paragraph…

     ” I don’t think we can. We’ve tried that with Think Big, you know we’ve got white elephants all around the country. The difficult part of writing this book was we couldn’t come to a solution.”

     Certainly not a timely solution….even if we ignore questions of financing, economic and societal impacts, and of equity there remains the simple fact that the capacity to complete the required physical work is not available and cannot be for many years….and whats happening in the meantime??

     Time……its importance cannot be overstated.
3. Anne 3

   26 January 2017 at 9:16 pm

   Scott Yorke alias Imperator Fish has got this “facts” thing sorted.

   https://imperatorfish.com/2017/01/26/the-fascism-of-facts/
4. joe90 4

   26 January 2017 at 10:19 pm

   2017 and the US government’s still fucking over Native Americans.

   Meanwhile, a North Dakota legislator wants to make it easier for ordinary citizens to injure or even kill protesters. Keith Kempenich and six co-sponsors, all Republicans, have submitted a bill that Kempenich told the Bismarck Tribune is a response to frustrated constituents who oppose the anti-DAPL movement, which has at times spilled into public roadways. If the measure passes, motorists who “negligently” hurt or kill anyone obstructing traffic “would not be held liable for any damages.”

   Well-known North Dakota civil rights attorney and former U.S. attorney Tim Purdon, of the firm Robins Kaplan, calls the bill a “new low” that “legalizes negligent homicide with a vehicle of a certain class of people.” Whether the bill passes or not, he says, “It was introduced to send a message that we are going to dehumanize those with whom we disagree.” Purdon says the measure has unintended broader consequences, since it in fact allows anyone driving negligently—while drunk or texting, for example—to kill or maim.

   http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/the-never-ending-indian-wars-20170124

   From this series.

   http://reports.yesmagazine.org/spirit-of-standing-rock/
   • KJT 4.1

     26 January 2017 at 10:23 pm

     Sounds familiar.

     Of course, running over protesters is already legal in New Zealand common law..
   • millsy 4.2

     27 January 2017 at 1:08 am

     Can you expect anything different from a country that allowed mobs to lynch thousands of innocent people over the past 150-200 years?
     • joe90 4.2.1

       27 January 2017 at 7:34 am

       Sinister.

       http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/316115-trump-hangs-portrait-of-andrew-jackson-in-oval-office

       https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Jackson#Indian_removal_policy
5. adam 5

   26 January 2017 at 11:32 pm

   Chris Hedges slams it out in just under 6 minutes. Please don’t watch if you can’t handle looking at reality, and want to keep embracing the illusion.
   • weka 5.1

     27 January 2017 at 12:00 am

     I was thinking it wasn’t anything we don’t already know, but this he certainly gets into as he goes along

     “reality is never an impediment to what we want”

     And how people who believe in the illusion react as children when things go wrong.
6. Greg 6

   27 January 2017 at 12:31 pm

   Interest rates increasing faster than predicted is the tears going to flow ?????
7. UncookedSelachimorpha 7

   27 January 2017 at 4:53 pm

   UK’s super rich appear to get special deal from HMRC, says watchdog

   Scathing report on the UK government’s failure to ensure the super-rich pay anything like their share of tax. Just like their government wants to happen, unfortunately.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS