Farrar shills for NZ’s most racist academic

Written By: - Date published: 7:23 am, August 26th, 2011 - 103 comments
Categories: Economy, racism - Tags:

Remember Greg Clydesdale? He caused quite a fuss in 2008 when the Dom uncritically ran a frontpage story based on his “research” that concluded Pacific Islanders are a drain on a society who are, amongst other sins, crowding ‘our’ beaches (dismantled from an academic perspective here and a class/ethnic perspective here, ripped apart in an interview on RNZ here, and embraced by Lockwood ‘small hands’ Smith here). Well, he’s back, spouting more anti-immigrant trash, and Farrar’s shilling for him.

Clydesdale on growing the economy

by David Farrar

Dr Greg Clydesdale says:

We cannot rely on Auckland to drive the New Zealand economy according to Dr Clydesdale who today releases a discussion paper ‘A middle path for the New Zealand economy’. 

 A key feature of recent economic debate has been the idea that Auckland will be the country’s economic driver.  The argument states that there are economic advantages to having many firms located close together.  However, Auckland’s industries have low rates of innovation and exports: key drivers of economic growth.  The city lacks the capabilities to deliver desired growth rates.

 Auckland’s location does present many economic advantages, but to expect it to drive growth is going too far.  Recent policy was inspired by recent literature from economic geography, diversity and immigration.  Dr Clydesdale states it is time to end the myths and alchemy that has influenced the New Zealand economy for so long.  It is time to get back to basics. …

Definite food for thought. The full paper is embedded below.

Conference Fashionable Policy With Super Font

So what is in the report? 28 pages of remarkably thin argument that says, in summary: Auckland under-performs economically for a city of its size. There are lots of immigrants in Auckland. Therefore, it’s the immigrants’ fault that Auckland’s economy isn’t as large as it ‘should’ be.

In one particularly nasty passage, Clydesdale tries to attribute the immigration system that he thinks is dysfunctional (because it lets in immigrants) to economist Ganesh Nana (who is New Zealand-born, btw):

There is one economist who believes we should focus on quantity not quality [of immigrants]. Ganesh Nana has had a strong influence on our immigration policy and is frequently sponsored by the Department of Labour to research the economic effects of immigration

See, it’s all a conspiracy by the ‘darkies’ to get more of ‘them’ in.

Last time when he was called out for a being a racist and a crappy academic, Clydesdale whined that everyone Left of Brash was being PC and only he had the ‘courage’ to speak out. Without a doubt, he’ll pull out that same pathetic line this time.

Why Farrar has got himself mixed up with this racist I don’t know. Come on, David, you’re a dog whistler from way back, but dog-whistling on anti-immigrant racism? That’s a new low.

103 comments on “Farrar shills for NZ’s most racist academic ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. lprent 1
    26 August 2011 at 7:35 am

    Perhaps he is worried that ACT’s racism isn’t getting much political traction? National is looking to come up short on the coalition front.

    • Pete George 1.1
      26 August 2011 at 8:02 am

      That’s why it’s important to have a stabilising presence in the centre. The only reliable option for that this election is UnitedFuture, they were trusted by Labour under Clark, and they can be trusted to keep National moderate.

      Obviously I have a vested interest in this, but think about it. Until Labour looks like being able to come back in force UnitedFuture is the best option of preventing a pull to the right.

      • mickysavage 1.1.1
        26 August 2011 at 8:13 am

        Pete don’t you see that UF and Clydesdale have a lot in common?

        He is espousing a “middle” course away from the “extremes”.

        And his comments are totally content free apart from the racist dog whistle stuff. 

        • Pete George 1.1.1.1
          26 August 2011 at 8:17 am

          Take your Labour blinkers off for a minute if you can.

          If Labour don’t get enough support, as looks likely, of the parties on offer who would you rather see influencing National the most?

          • The Voice of Reason 1.1.1.1.1
            26 August 2011 at 8:21 am

            UF doesn’t have influence, it has a single, easily bought vote.

            • Pete George 1.1.1.1.1.1
              26 August 2011 at 8:41 am

              In politics you have most influence when in government. How many policies have Labour got through this term? UnitedFuture has been a part of government for 12 of the last 15 years.

              If National get a substantial block of seats as expected this election the best result will be for UnitedFuture and the Maori Party with a few seats each to hold a moderating position.

              Or would you rather National had a majority on it’s own?

              • The Voice of Reason …
                26 August 2011 at 9:57 am

                Actually, I would prefer National to rule on it’s own, if it means ACT, the MP and the hairdo are kept on the outer. Even better would be a Labour led administration, with or without UF. Either, way, you’re not going to be involved, Pete.

              • felix …
                26 August 2011 at 10:08 am

                I’d rather they had a majority too.

                There’s no good reason for fringe-dwelling margin-of-error parties like ACT and UF to be at the cabinet table.

                • Pete George …
                  26 August 2011 at 10:30 am

                  So you support single party rule. That’s a bit last century, odd, I picked you as being a lot younger than that.

                  • felix …
                    26 August 2011 at 10:51 am

                    Try reading the comment again – I said I’d prefer to be governed by National alone that National ACT and UF together.

                    Of course neither of those options would be my first choice, as I’m not a moron.

                    “I picked you as being a lot younger than that”

                    Just add it to the long list of things you’re woefully wrong about, one-party Pete.

                    • Pete George …
                      26 August 2011 at 11:04 am

                      I stated my preference for a National/Maori/UnitedFuture government and a bit of Act wouldn’t matter.

                      You said you prefer National ruling on their own.

                      It doesn’t take a moron to see who supports one party rule.
                      And it doesn’t take a moron to see your lies by implication.
                      But that’s just what you do.

                    • felix …
                      26 August 2011 at 12:22 pm

                      Sure Pete.

                      So which do you prefer:

                      a) A Labour party majority govt

                      or

                      b) A coalition of Labour, the Communist Party, the Socialist Workers Party, the ALCP, and Bill&Ben.

                      ps you do realise that even if I did support a National Party majority govt (which I don’t, and you’d have to be a moron to take that from anything I’ve written) that’s still not the same thing as the opposition-less one-party state that you’ve previously advocated for.

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      26 August 2011 at 12:54 pm

                      But Felix does not support one party rule, Pete. Nothing he (or I) said suggests that. What we are saying is that National on its own is marginally more palatable than National having to adopt ACT, MP or UF policies in order to govern. This is because those parties will do more damage as they seem to be coming from further to the right than John Key’s politics.
                       
                      Of course, I may be wrong about UF. If you are right about UF being more centrist, then perhaps we should be calling your leader ‘no harm’ Dunne. But if they are centrist, why are you a candidate? Or is the partiy’s centrism the reason you won’t vote for them?

                    • Pete George …
                      26 August 2011 at 1:18 pm

                      You couldn’t help slipping in your lie again, could you. Have you advised the ODT yet? Or was that just a bluff?

                      UnitedFuture claims to be centrist and is generally regarded as centrist:

                      Our Mission

                      United Future is a modern centre party, focused on New Zealand’s best interests.

                      Wikipedia backs this up: Ideology Centrist

                      I’m enthusiastic about or comfortable with probably 90% of UF policies.

                      On Political Compass I’m a bit left and a bit liberal, but I’m sure I’ve got some righter leanings on some things.

                      Most people are more centre-ish than anything, so most people would find most UF policies quite reasonable.

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      26 August 2011 at 1:30 pm

                      If it’s a lie, then all you have to do to prove me wrong is say that you will be voting for United Future. But you can’t bring yourself to do that, can you? And fair enough, too. I have enough respect for you to believe you are not a liar, and therefore you won’t say that you intend to vote UF to shut me up, because it would be untrue.
                       
                      Frankly, you’re in a bind, Pete. Admit the truth, and get laughed at in your local community or refuse to admit the truth and just get laughed at here. Choices, choices.

                    • felix …
                      26 August 2011 at 1:37 pm

                      “Most people are more centre-ish than anything, so most people would find most UF policies quite reasonable.”

                      Obviously. Hence their stunning election results throughout NZ, and the calibre of their candidates.

                      Bunch of fringe-dwelling weirdos.

                    • Pete George …
                      26 August 2011 at 1:42 pm

                      You may think you’re clever and have me in a bind? That’s funny.

                      If you don’t have facts is that what you usually do? Just make things up?

                    • felix …
                      26 August 2011 at 2:14 pm

                      I wonder if the hairpiece knows that the no.3 on his “party” list won’t even pledge his vote.

                      Actually I wonder if the hairpiece knows about all the other utterly mental things his no.3 has written here…

                    • The Voice of Reason …
                      26 August 2011 at 2:16 pm

                      Which bit did I make up? The bit where I said I didn’t think you’re a liar, perhaps?
                       
                      If I’m making it up, prove me wrong. Say that you will be voting for UF. Just say it once and I’ll quit teasing you. You were honest enough to say you would electorate vote tactically, that is, for a candidate other than yourself, so why can’t you be honest about the party vote?

                    • Pete George …
                      26 August 2011 at 2:32 pm

                      If you haven’t had any joy with ODT try Channel 9, they might ask me a tricky question for you in the interview tonight on the news.

                    • felix …
                      26 August 2011 at 2:57 pm

                      Pete, if there’s a gap in TVOR’s logic you should probably point it out.

                      Otherwise it looks a bit like you know he’s right.

                    • Pete George …
                      26 August 2011 at 3:15 pm

                      It’s not a gap in your logic, it’s a gape.

                      I won’t tell him an answer which is both obvious and none of anyone’s business but mine and he thinks he’s onto some amazing gotcha.

                      Why not try something potentially useful instead? Like:
                      http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=193350660725611

                    • felix …
                      26 August 2011 at 3:21 pm

                      So walk me through it. Because it’s not obvious from anything you’ve actually said.

                      ps you haven’t answered this either.

                    • Pete George …
                      26 August 2011 at 3:40 pm

                      Do you realise your stalk trolling drives people away from the blog? I see people saying that elsewhere anyway. I guess that’s your intention. Still, it can be useful for some things.

                    • lprent []
                      26 August 2011 at 4:06 pm

                      It doesn’t make any significant difference from what I can see with the steadily rising numbers of page views, visitors, and comments. Ummm comments are at 312,159. Looking at the all-time top commentators

                      1. Colonial Viper (9,080) Hot damn – talk about talk….
                      2. Felix (7,743)
                      3. lprent (7,741)
                      4. Draco T Bastard (7,416)
                      5. Pascal’s bookie (6,271)
                      6. r0b (5,249)
                      7. burt (4,377)
                      8. Lanthanide (4,168)
                      9. mickysavage (3,751)
                      10. Ianmac (3,555)
                      11. Lew (3,424)
                      12. Bill (3,369)
                      13. higherstandard (3,340)
                      14. RedLogix (3,316)
                      15. BLiP (3,292)
                      16. vto (3,019)
                      17. prism (2,913)
                      18. RANDAL (2,810)
                      19. Steve Pierson (2,644)
                      20. the sprout (2,635)
                      21. Robinsod (2,448) I always has a soft spot for robinsod, and he made felix look positively benign – which is why I banned him so many times…

                      Anyhow, Felix accounts for 2.48% of the comments since April 2008 so I suspect that his ascebic ways haven’t driven too many people away. My notes say that we had barely 30k page views that month, now we have (even in the winter depths) 10x that.

                      I haven’t noticed a diminution in quality since then – in fact the opposite has been the case since we got rid of some of the more boring trolls.

                    • Bored …
                      26 August 2011 at 3:46 pm

                      Never heard that term Pete “stalk trolling”.Cool term, implies you are being stalked by a stalk troller….which implies…

                      I have more pressing questions like, “Is Dr Greg diminishing the average horsepower output of Clydesdales?”

                    • felix …
                      26 August 2011 at 3:59 pm

                      Stalk trolling. lol. Don’t like having your ideas questioned, do you Pete? I guess that’s why you think government would be so much better without opposition.

                      Why won’t you answer the question, Pete? You found my answers to the inverse but equivalent question relevant, and TVoR’s too.

                      So why not yours? Are you special? Are you better than us?

            • McFlock 1.1.1.1.1.2
              26 August 2011 at 11:54 am

              “UF doesn’t have influence, it has a single, easily bought vote.”
               
              Funnily enough, even its own candidates can’t be sure of their own vote, they’re so middle-of-the-road.

            • Liberal Realist 1.1.1.1.1.3
              27 August 2011 at 6:16 pm

              Dunne will prostitute himself to either of the major parties.

      • lprent 1.1.2
        26 August 2011 at 8:21 am

        United Futures track record of special interest group achievement does not fill me with any wish to see them back in parliament. Think that there is a good probability that dunne will lose his seat, and even if that doesn’t happen, the party percentage is likely to leave him as a onefer. But I think that losing Act out of parliament should be sufficient to dampen down any rightward trend in national.

        Also, as is becoming quite consistently clear in the polls (as well as in conversations) left style policies are definitely the flavor of the times. We really can’t afford the extravagances of the right’s habit of chasing fiscal revenue drops (without banking the savings from cost reductions first) causing structural deficits in the governments accounts. Or having too many people get under employed for too long with the burdens that places on following generations of tax payers – we are still carrying the costs of the 90s now – ask at any womans refuge. Or ripping critical regulation and infrastructure out of state control and into private asset strippers (I am still pissed about National ‘deregulating’ the housing market in the 90’s and the hell of getting my apartment fixed).

        The right in National are quite likely to find that their favorite policies get stripped to allow electoral success. It looks like National is going to require the highest party percentage ever achieved under MMP to take the treasury benches. I am picking that John Key and his allies will water down the policies.

        The best bet for the right neolibs to keep momentum is to get Act back in. So we get support for the nasty racist vote catching lines that Act is the main progenitors of these days.

      • mik e 1.1.3
        26 August 2011 at 4:56 pm

        The right wing nag’s should find there way to the knackers yard.No growth in the Auckland economy Farrar promotes This archaic piece of s*** who is saying Nationals focus on growing Auckland is a mistake.Sounds like they’ve shot themselves in the hoof the pair of plodders! They have lied about the lack of investment in innovation .Labour increased the amount of money put into R&D 4 fold under the Clark /Cullen Government. Only to be cut completely back to 1999 levels by National then restored to a third of the levels that Labour had implemented 2 years later! ACT Party political broadcast I smell

  2. Robert Winter 2
    26 August 2011 at 7:59 am

    Don’t you find Mr Farrar increasingly unreadable and irrelevant? (To make the point, as many of us are in this odd, ephemeral world).

    • davidc 2.1
      26 August 2011 at 8:06 am

      Well in this case DPF didnt write anything so there wasnt anything to read other than…

      “Dr Greg Clydesdale says:”

      • Blighty 2.1.1
        26 August 2011 at 10:28 am

        and “Definite food for thought. The full paper is embedded below.”

      • mik e 2.1.2
        26 August 2011 at 4:23 pm

        I read Clydesdales report I found it very poorly researched most of the facts were untrue.It was merely a piece of propaganda supporting Dinosaur Don.Like Clydesdales 1800s economics just Utter BS.Horse doo doos in other words. Dickensonian

      • felix 2.1.3
        26 August 2011 at 4:35 pm

        “Well in this case DPF didnt write anything… “

        That’s kinda the point. He just republished the work, in full, without criticism or comment. On his very popular website.

    • aerobubble 2.2
      26 August 2011 at 11:44 am

      Don’t you find that voters gave government a whole lot of slack when the
      economy was growing (even if they themselves were loading up on debt).
      Its easier to kick the little guy when your prospects are good.
      Its a whole site different to kick up a fuss about immigration when
      as a distraction from inept government.
      Farrer is desperate, so is the psuedo right. Because the right wing I grew up
      with, before Thatcher, Roger, had some actual conscience.
      National are wasting our future to hold on to their control of the economy.
      Democracy is supposed to remove bottlenecks like them.

    • Richard 2.3
      26 August 2011 at 12:54 pm

      Yes.

      DPF was actually sort of interesting when he was criticising Labour when Clarke was in power. I would hardly say he was always particularly balanced or sane in his criticism — but there was often some valid, or at least debatable, point.

      Now he is largely just either posting pictures of his holidays, or recycling rubbish lines about how great the government is, or baiting the sewer.

  3. Sanctuary 3
    26 August 2011 at 8:06 am

    Well I don’t know. Farrar’s definition of racism is anyone who criticises Israel, otherwise he seems pretty comfortable with darkie bashing. And Mr. Farrar been moving (or has always been) to the far right for ages now, he seems really to be naturally an ACT extremist only he loves being a courtier at the centre of power – and who can blame him, power without accountability, isn’t that what every right winger strives for?

    • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1
      26 August 2011 at 8:18 am

      Add into that mix, political stool pigeon for the US Embassy, boss of an unaccredited polling company……. and much more

    • RedLogix 3.2
      26 August 2011 at 8:31 am

      Succient and well formed as usual Sanctuary. Having interacted with Farrar reasonably extensively over a period of time, I came to the conclusion that the he’s one of those ‘cancerous and corrosive’ individuals whose made an art form of making himself look good on the surface, in order to mask something ugly underneath.

  4. marsman 4
    26 August 2011 at 8:35 am

    Are we meant to feel sorry for the ‘white’ employers who are forced to take on these immigrants for low wages and long hours to do shitty work that no one else wants to do?
    Morons like Clydesdale (and Key for that matter) never look at the people running the businesses,maybe they are the impediments to growth and/or maybe they put too much of the returns into their back pocket.
    Besides ‘growing the economy’ is starting to sound too much like yet another nonsensical neoliberal mantra. Maybe we should be looking at quality/equality of life for everyone.

    • Bill 4.1
      26 August 2011 at 10:00 am

      How about quality of economic activity over quantity?

      A spin-off would be that workers can then have a life and develop their human potential…their qualities if you prefer…by utilising the free time that would accompany such an economy.

      Surely that’s more desirable than our potential as people being stymied by the imposition of full time employment (time constraints and a very narrowly defined environment within which to act) or by the poverty that comes knocking when full time employment isn’t achieved?

      Which would, incidentally, help to address Clydesdale’s ‘quality versus quantity’ argument, no?

  5. queenstfarmer 5
    26 August 2011 at 9:17 am

    So Farrar’s transgression was posting an excerpt from this chap’s writings, and adding the highly controversial comment “Definite food for thought. The full paper is embedded below.”

    And you’ve just done the same thing. Wonder if we will see a new post entitled Eddie shills for shill for NZ’s most racist academic.

    • felix 5.1
      26 August 2011 at 10:03 am

      “So Farrar’s transgression was posting an excerpt from this chap’s writings, and adding the highly controversial comment … “

      If he posts these views without criticism it’s fair to assume he supports them. No?

      If not, I guess it doesn’t matter what he posts then, eh q? For example, if he were to post an excerpt from “Mein Kampf” without criticism would you still be tonguing him so?

      p.s. I can’t be bothered explaining “Godwin’s Law” today so get over yourself.

      • queenstfarmer 5.1.1
        26 August 2011 at 11:06 am

        If he posts these views without criticism it’s fair to assume he supports them. No?

        No. I can point to John Minto’s writings on how there should be a maximum wage, and say “food for thought” if I wish. Only someone quite illiterate, or blinded by their own ideology, would take that as an expression of support.

        Your suggestion demonstrates the same quality of thinking as Sue Bradford’s suggestion that everyone in the country who does not vote “yes” in a referendum should be counted as a voting against it.

        • felix 5.1.1.1
          26 August 2011 at 12:07 pm

          Sure you could point to Minto’s writings, but you don’t.

          And if you did point to them, without criticism, I’d assume you supported them.

          Farrar often posts excerpts of things he doesn’t agree with. And he always lets you know what he thinks of them.

          • queenstfarmer 5.1.1.1.1
            26 August 2011 at 12:33 pm

            Put a cap on eye-popping incomes

            Food for thought

            • felix 5.1.1.1.1.1
              26 August 2011 at 12:45 pm

              I don’t believe you.

            • vto 5.1.1.1.1.2
              26 August 2011 at 1:00 pm

              I agree with the general thrust of Minto.

              In recent years people at the top of these types of private and public organisations have come to accept that remuneration at these levels is in fact justifiable. They have self-justified (as we all do at times for our various vices ha ha).

              It started some years ago in the corporate world.

              In NZ’s public sector it seemed to take hold during Clark’s rebuilding of the publuic sector. I recall when public sector pay rates exceeded private for the first time ever near the end of Clark’s reign.

              It was exemplified recently when Brownlee paid his overlords for CERA twice the recommended rate, and without even checking with them first no less.

              There is a gigantic difference today in what people think they are worth. The highest paid really are living in la-la-land.

              Bring on Minto’s Maximum Wage! If it is good enough for the goose it is good enough for the gander. In fact, business would probably love it because it means a lower employee cost. So rather than lower employment costs by lowering the lowest, lower the employment costs by lowering the highest. Yes. That’s it. Right, now back to mine own less than minimum wage (sometimes better not to add these things up).

            • mik e 5.1.1.1.1.3
              26 August 2011 at 8:41 pm

              Horse food I presume QSF. Recycled by a Clydesdale = horse s**t.

    • mik e 5.2
      26 August 2011 at 4:09 pm

      You Should be spin Doctor QSF.I find some of Mintos comments archaic others relevant, None of them racist Clydsedales comments are both archaic and racist.If he looked into the damage the National party does to the economy every time it gets elected . He would be standing on firmer ground.

  6. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 6
    26 August 2011 at 9:19 am

    I am interested in this dog whistle thing.

    Say you were concerned about the level of immigration (I am not BTW). Would it be possible to voice that concern without being open to the charge of do whistling?

    • felix 6.1
      26 August 2011 at 9:54 am

      “Dog whistling” means that you say something in such a way that that it goes over the heads of everyone but your intended audience.

      It means if you want to say something (for example) racist, you phrase it in such a way that only the racists really get what you’re saying, and everyone else hears an innocent speech.

      If you do it carefully, the actual words will be innocent and you’ll be able to stand by them and say that there’s literally nothing racist in them. But you’ll know there is and so will the racists who heard it.

      If you want to voice a concern about the level of immigration you should simply do so. If you do it honestly you can’t possibly be accused of “dog whistling”.

      Does that help, Ole?

      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 6.1.1
        26 August 2011 at 10:31 am

        I know what dog whistling is supposed to be, thanks, Felix.

        It just seems to me that any time anyone says anything at all adverse about the level of immigration, he or she is met with a claim of racism. And that just seems a bit dishonest to me.

        • felix 6.1.1.1
          26 August 2011 at 10:45 am

          So now it’s racism you’re worried about being accused of?

          Make up your mind Ole.

        • William Joyce 6.1.1.2
          26 August 2011 at 11:06 am

          I’m with you Gormless – a dog whistle can’t not be detected by the human ear. So, for your own reasons, you have to assume it is there – even though you can’t really tell.
          It’s like thinking there’s a secret conspiracy against you, but you don’t have any evidence – “that’s because the conspirators are so clever that you can’t see them!”
           
          I know nothing of Greg Clydesdale or even if he is a racist. I would be interested in the debate to know if what he says has any merit. Sometimes even our enemies can bring us some truth. I had a relative who grew up in pre-war Europe and had all the attitudes of race that were common at that time. But even in his racism he started me thinking about things – e.g. the sociology of tribalism – as seen in things like ethnic cleansing or football hooliganism.
           
          Labels (like “he’s a racist”) are often used as means to avoid analysis and cut straight to knee-jerk reactions.
           

    • Blighty 6.2
      26 August 2011 at 10:32 am

      If he didn’t want to dog-whistle, he could just come straight out and say ‘I don’t like having all these dark skinned foreigners in ‘my’ country’

      That’s not dogwhistling.

      And you can see why the Clydesdale’s of the world don’t do that.

      In fact, if you listen to that interview on RNZ, at the end, he pretty much admits it’s all about not liking having foreigners crowding ‘his’ beaches, and that’s the end of any semblance of respectability of his argument.

  7. grumpy 7
    26 August 2011 at 9:32 am

    I think the wood is obscured by the trees.

    1. There are a lot of unskilled immigrants in Auckland – more than probably the rest of the country combined
    2. Most who do work, work for minimum wage.
    3. The minimum wage is ridiculously low.
    4. Their combined income has a nagative relative effect on the Auckland economy.
    5. Therefore the Auckland economy underperforms.

    So, is it a problem with immigration or low minimum wage rates?

  8. randal 8
    26 August 2011 at 9:35 am

    Hey good reading folks. I like to hear the pros and cons of how to support racism without being a racist. However the guts of the matter is this. Without low paid workers doing the menial tasks like carrying away the crap let over from the supremacist beanos then auckland would really be in a mess and the funny thing is that oafs like farrar and clydesdale dont look like they have ever done a tap of hard work in their lives.
    and Eddie I like your choice of words. Shill says it all. Fat fairground barkers bellowing at the prejudices of the unwashed.

    • William Joyce 8.1
      26 August 2011 at 11:21 am

      Fat fairground barkers bellowing at the prejudices of the unwashed.

      Beautifully phrased!

  9. vto 9
    26 August 2011 at 10:49 am

    Race seems to be a ridiculously difficult subject to raise and discuss in our fair lands. Ingrained assumptions and stereotypes and prejudices instantly spring to the fore the moment it is raised. It is bloody hopeless.

  10. Afewknowthetruth 10
    26 August 2011 at 10:53 am

    1. The populace of NZ in 1769 was approximately 100% Polynesian, and they were doing quite nicely for themselves, having done quite nicely for themselves for several centuries.

    2. Everything started to get ‘fucked-up’ the moment European colonists arrived, and became increasingly ‘fucked-up’ once NZ became an industrialised society, as sustainable systems were replaced by unsustainable systems and population overshott commenced.

    3. The ‘fucking-up’ went into ‘hyperdrive’ when cheap oil became freely available.

    4. Everything became truly ‘fucked-up’ once a consumer society, based on the conversion of [finite] oil into waste had been established.

    5. Auckland is NZ’s largest centre for converting finite resources into waste and is the largest centre of population overshoot.

    6. Now that global oil extraction has peaked and the economic system is imploding we still have ‘idiots’ talking about economic growth.

    Richard Heinberg, amongst many others, points out that ECONOMIC GROWTH IS OVER.

    http://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/the-end-of-growth-book

    The inability of manistream commentators to discuss reality suggests they are either suffering from deep psychosis (detachment from reality) or are compulsive liars.

    7. Industrial civilisation is in the early stages of complete collapse, since the energy and resources necessary to maintain the complex systems that support present arrangements have peaked and are in decline.

    8. Humanity will either eventually return to the stone age or become extinct. Futile attempts to prop up failing systems by utilising energy sources which have ever-decreasing EROEI increase the likelihood of humanity becoming extnict before the end of this century (along with most other mammalian species) via abrupt climate change and environmental collapse. None of the strategies necessary to prevent ‘meltdown’ -permaculture and powerdown etc. -are even discussed in official circles, presumably because the bankers have our leaders ‘by the balls’. Derrick Jensen put it this way: those who benefit from present arrangements will not voluntarily give up their positions of privilege and power (even if continuing on our present path destroys their own children’s futures).

    9. If any remnant of humanity survives the bottleneck event we have entered in the Auckland region it is likely to be predominantly Polynesian.

    • vto 10.1
      26 August 2011 at 11:05 am

      Are you sure about your point 1. there mr afewknowsomething? What were their child mortality rates like? Health status? Housing quality? Relations with neighbours? Much warmongering going on? You sure you aint wearing them rose-tinted specs again?

      And if the above issues have improved since other immigrants have arrived then how can you say it has all been fucked up since?

    • William Joyce 10.2
      26 August 2011 at 11:18 am

      and they were doing quite nicely for themselves, having done quite nicely for themselves for several centuries.

       
      Afewknowthetruth, I think you are suffering from the Victorian notion of the “noble savage” living in some south sea paradise.
      You forget that as soon as the musket was introduced to this “paradise” it gave an arms advantage to some tribes who, (with little further help from Europeans), were able to wage their own wars of conquest and settle pre-existing rivalries.

      • Adele 10.2.1
        26 August 2011 at 9:37 pm

        Teenaa koe, Willliam Joyce

        Rose tinted glasses are only worn by the blue rinse brigade, which I am sure suits you well, Pre-colonisation society was largely stable, ordered and prosperous. Things did become ‘fucked up’ from the time the rose tinted disembarked onto these shores.

        The version of history that I and the majority of Maaori hold varies vastly from your baised views.

        • vto 10.2.1.1
          27 August 2011 at 9:59 am

          Adele: New Zealand’s only native ostrich.

          • Adele 10.2.1.1.1
            27 August 2011 at 12:47 pm

            I would rather be an Ostrich than a plover egg.

            Circumcise your brain from its imperialist foreskin and experience the real world of Te Ao Maaori.

          • Adele 10.2.1.1.2
            27 August 2011 at 9:08 pm

            I would rather be a native Ostrich than a goose egg.

            Circumcise your brain from its imperialist thoughts and perhaps than you might see past the foreskin of your distorted perspectives.

    • aerobubble 10.3
      26 August 2011 at 12:19 pm

      What utter tosh you speak.

      1. The populace of NZ in 1769 was approximately 100% Polynesian, and they were doing quite nicely for themselves, having done quite nicely for themselves for several centuries.

      Rubbish. After desperately clinging onto the few outcropping rocks of the Pacific
      they got lucky and sited a volcaneo eruption and a wide bueatiful land. Too late!
      They had lost connection with the wider world, its diseases, its advances, its
      warlike nature. While the poor where dying of new disease caused by ‘new’
      forms of social integration (bad government) the Maori were failing to keep
      up with their innoculations.

      2. Everything started to get ‘fucked-up’ the moment European colonists arrived, and became increasingly ‘fucked-up’ once NZ became an industrialised society, as sustainable systems were replaced by unsustainable systems and population overshott commenced.

      Europeans coming to NZ was as fatal to NZ and Pacific Islanders, and just
      as inevitable given our species unbalanced need to invade and discover.
      You can’t blame Maori for doing something Europeans did too.
      Destroy this land, only after a couple of centuries did they have
      to reinvent their culture to live more sustainable with the land.

      3. The ‘fucking-up’ went into ‘hyperdrive’ when cheap oil became freely available.

      No. Peak oil is inevitable drive of our species, we would likely never be
      born, or even speak to each other, let along communicate with the other
      side of the planet if it weren’t for cheap oil. The fucked up thing about
      it is your ego, peak oil made us who we are, its how we’ve used peak
      oil that has fucked us up. Its your and mine frigging egos.

      4. Everything became truly ‘fucked-up’ once a consumer society, based on the conversion of [finite] oil into waste had been established.

      Rubbish. If we had a integrity in our university systems we’d have a cheap source
      of energy by now to see us through. But Thatcherism essentially believes
      intellect to be a threat and so forces the universities to make money.
      Universities need to waste about 10% of the GDP of the nation on useless
      stuff to be of any value to our species.

      5. Auckland is NZ’s largest centre for converting finite resources into waste and is the largest centre of population overshoot.

      Nonsense, Auckland is a project that ignores the people and only listen to the
      sepculators and property developers. Its was always going to fail further than
      most global cities, it just doesn’t care about its people.

      6. Now that global oil extraction has peaked and the economic system is imploding we still have ‘idiots’ talking about economic growth.

      Richard Heinberg, amongst many others, points out that ECONOMIC GROWTH IS OVER.

      http://richardheinberg.com/bookshelf/the-end-of-growth-book

      The inability of manistream commentators to discuss reality suggests they are either suffering from deep psychosis (detachment from reality) or are compulsive liars.

      Rubbish. Economic growth will review what it measures as valuable and then
      start measuring them properly again. Wealth will be restored. Money is currently
      not valued correctly, well never is really, but it usually only modestly
      out of whack with reality.

      7. Industrial civilisation is in the early stages of complete collapse, since the energy and resources necessary to maintain the complex systems that support present arrangements have peaked and are in decline.

      No. Most people do live in buildings that while being crap will be easy to fix up with some
      drying mud come the collapse. In NZ we have gardens and will eat the flowers until
      the vegies patches get going.

      8. Humanity will either eventually return to the stone age or become extinct. Futile attempts to prop up failing systems by utilising energy sources which have ever-decreasing EROEI increase the likelihood of humanity becoming extnict before the end of this century (along with most other mammalian species) via abrupt climate change and environmental collapse. None of the strategies necessary to prevent ‘meltdown’ -permaculture and powerdown etc. -are even discussed in official circles, presumably because the bankers have our leaders ‘by the balls’. Derrick Jensen put it this way: those who benefit from present arrangements will not voluntarily give up their positions of privilege and power (even if continuing on our present path destroys their own children’s futures).

      Reality will not ask them to volunteer.

      9. If any remnant of humanity survives the bottleneck event we have entered in the Auckland region it is likely to be predominantly Polynesian.

      Yes. Zombies plague has started, now the zombies are waking up and cannibalizing.
      Just remember that to survive stay as far away from the Zombies as you can,
      make sure you have enough basic food and water, and don’t make any loud noises
      so they rush you. Zombies == anyone with any power and conditioned in the present
      madness.

      • prism 10.3.1
        26 August 2011 at 12:29 pm

        @aerobubble Who is ‘you’ that you are addressing in the above long post. Can you direct your answers to the individual concerned which will add to the enlightenment the rest of us gain from your considered input.

        • Bored 10.3.1.1
          26 August 2011 at 1:39 pm

          Thanks Prism, a reasonable request to Aero.

          He says some interesting things however and there’s a lot to agree with, and a lot to be critical of so Aero, some criticism, your statements in italics:

          Peak oil made us who we are, its how we’ve used peak oil that has fucked us up. . Quite so, we have been profligate and fallen into a dependency trap from which AFKTT is quite right when he suggests it’s a problem. You contend that If we had a integrity in our university systems we’d have a cheap source of energy by now to see us through. …you are right about the integrity of the Uni systems but even they cant beat the laws of thermodynamics and the actual physical limits to energy availability, there is no magic bullet, warp drive and speed will not be available. So we face getting used to doing whatever we do slowly.

          On that note you are right that Economic growth will review what it measures as valuable and then start measuring them properly again. So true, but wealth will diminish to levels supported by output and purchasing power available to buy that output. If we are doing things manually, or with a team of Clydesdales as opposed to “cheap hydrocarbon energy slaves” that’s going to be much less. In short cheap energy equals wealth creation ability…..expensive rare energy makes wealth much harder to create.

          Never mind, we will produce human energy (wheat, oats etc) with the aforementioned Clydesdales hauling the plough, in far less quantities, grown with far less petro-chemically derived fertilizers. In between whiles we can eat from gardens and will eat the flowers until the vegies patches get going. The thought makes me very hungry.

        • mik e 10.3.1.2
          26 August 2011 at 3:59 pm

          Less is more aerobubble the end of economic growth is a fallacy we are transferring to a more sustainable growth model which will keep economic growth going for several more decades yet!

      • Colonial Viper 10.3.2
        27 August 2011 at 10:16 am

        8. Humanity will either eventually return to the stone age or become extinct.

        We should be able to sustain a ~1950 lifestyle long term with some elements of high tech thrown in to boot. (Depends of course how badly we want to keep overshooting now).

        But yeah, going for a weekend in Sydney is going to mean a week or two in a steamer.

  11. prism 11
    26 August 2011 at 12:18 pm

    I like Clydesdales – always seem large, calm, reliable, hard working horses. Pity to have their name brought into disrepute. I think he’s probably got a thorn under his saddle and once that was fixed he could seem to have much more horse-sense.

    Why do so many economists turn out to be sour and dry. Is there something in the water they drink while they are at university? Perhaps its an acceptance ritual that they have to drink their own water. That would make me dry. It is unfortunate for us with the unattractive and poisoned people they turn out to be, but when discussing them it certainly makes it easy to take the p.ss.

    • Bored 11.1
      26 August 2011 at 1:43 pm

      Its no mistake energy in first generation industrial revolution countries was measured in horse power. We still use it, its going to make it easy to reverse engineer energy requirements, the issue is can we grow and train the delightful Clydesdales quickly enough? Or the ploughmen?

    • mik e 11.2
      26 August 2011 at 8:46 pm

      prism they are captive to their masters independents like Gareth Morgan have practical and life experience and don’t ruminate and belch Chicago horse Dung .

  12. Galeandra 12
    26 August 2011 at 1:54 pm

    ‘So what is in the report? 28 pages of remarkably thin argument that says, in summary: Auckland under-performs economically for a city of its size. There are lots of immigrants in Auckland. Therefore, it’s the immigrants’ fault that Auckland’s economy isn’t as large as it ‘should’ be.’

    This is a most disappointing post, Eddie. I skim-read the paper and have to say I don’t believe you read it at all. It’s a critique of economic growth policies including immigration policies and practices over the last decades, and the economic growth assumptions underpinning them- where does ‘thin’ come from? Given that it’s almost a literature review anyway. To see the analysis as an exercise in racism is a huge stretch, to the extent that I accuse you of doing the dog whistling.
    There have been too many of this type of low calibre post on The Standard; lift your game.

    • Joe Bloggs 12.1
      26 August 2011 at 2:38 pm

      +1
      Like

      Well put Galeandra.

      It’s ironic that felix should raise Godwin’s Law when Eddie’s post is such a great example of the Delingpole Corollary – there are few things quite so emetic as the liberal-left on its high horse

      • Bored 12.1.1
        26 August 2011 at 3:32 pm

        Is the high horse a Clydesdale? Their emetics are great for my garden, dont know if it works on orchids though..

      • Jan 12.1.2
        26 August 2011 at 8:45 pm

        It is thin. From my quick read it’s also poorly written (Verbs and subjects sometimes doesn’t agree ;-).

        He takes aim at people who say that correlation is the same as causation” i.e. more immigration = greater prosperity – without evidence – just because in many countries the figures trend in the same direction.

        He makes that case that while true in many countries that is for other reasons. He doesn’t look at

        a) how New Zealand would be doing without high levels of immigration – umm I can take a non-evidenced based guess about skills shortages.

        b) the effects of institutional and individual racism that sees so many well-qualified new migrants employed well below their capacity (driving taxis, book-keeping in the food industry and so on) with consequent impacts on national productivity.

        So – if there is no causal correlation between greater diversity and greater productivity in New Zealand (in contrast to other places) is that because of the very attitudes espoused by people like Mr Clydesdale.

  13. Psycho Milt 13
    26 August 2011 at 3:45 pm

    So, summing up: Clydesdale’s drawn the conclusion that it may not make economic sense for the country to be importing fast-breeding unskilled immigrants when it already doesn’t have enough jobs for its existing unskilled workers; and your view is that this conclusion is not only stupid, dishonest and vindictive, but racist too? I’d be interested to see an argument for that view that wasn’t ridiculous, but haven’t yet.

  14. Galeandra 14
    26 August 2011 at 3:49 pm

    Bored, it should work on orchids, as a tea at very great dilution. You don’t want too much green and floppy growth. Perhaps a Shetlands’ would be better from that pov?

    • Bored 14.1
      26 August 2011 at 3:59 pm

      I am not that keen on floppy green growth, might stick to chicken **** for my gardens purposes. Dont have a lot of joy with orchids, bit heavy handed on this…prefer the virtuous circle of Clydesdale emetics onto rhubarb, growth, more emetics …

  15. randal 15
    26 August 2011 at 7:21 pm

    Roll up your windows and hold your nose.
    It aint no tulip and it aint no rose.
    Well I am really going to stick my head out here and call the clydesdale and farrar utterings two great steaming piles of horseshit. OK?

  16. Steve 16
    26 August 2011 at 7:42 pm

    I was looking for a comment from DPF here – must have been banned.
    You have my email lprent

    [lprent: He can comment if he wants to, either here or on his own site. I don’t think we have ever had a reason to ban DPF. ]

  17. Afewknowthetruth 17
    26 August 2011 at 11:00 pm

    ‘sustainable growth model which will keep economic growth going for several more decades yet’

    Thsi blog is infested with scientifically illiterate and mathematically illiterate fools.

    ‘Sustainable growth’ is an oxymoron:

    The most important video you will ever see: (but only if you want to cease being a fool and actually watch it,)

    • mik e 17.1
      27 August 2011 at 9:45 am

      A few you are not going to change the world Schroeder BBC world has the research . His research says countries with high debt and poor innovation are going to stagnate for the next 10 to 20 years. That food producing countries that are handy to Asia will do well.The eurozone and the US will struggle because of high debt That makes NZ with its high debt and food production slightly better off.

      • ropata 17.1.1
        27 August 2011 at 10:57 am

        Thanks mik e for some sanity amidst the paranoid prophecies of doom.
        Some weirdoes on this site love their apocalyptic fantasies of the world burning and mass suffering.
        I think AFKTT is so alienated from normal society that he wants it all to end, proving himself right.
        Not so different from the end of world scenarios cherished by neocon warmongers hoping to provoke Armageddon.
        The Antichrist is coming to get us!!!

  18. Monique Watson 18
    26 August 2011 at 11:12 pm

    Hey Pete. Do you reckon we’ll be voting for the same party then ? Oh why won’t you say? Stamps foot. Oops I’m getting into that daft entrapment territory patented by ole whats his troll stalker face. Did ya hear about the ipredict on the correlation of age with electoral voting systems at the referendum?
    Yup. I would have been on earlier PG but I was booking a venue for the 26th November. The future is purple.

    PS. You don’t strike me as a fringe dwelling weirdo PG.
    No fringe.
    Are you another kind of weirdo?

  19. MirrorMirror 19
    27 August 2011 at 12:18 am

    How many times have you said sorry?

    Words are just words to you.

    I don’t believe you are sorry, I believe you are an empty person who doesn’t know how to grow depth.

    To be a good writer you have to have depth.

    Have heart and you will grow heart.

    Maybe this is your cue.

  20. the pink postman 20
    28 August 2011 at 2:48 pm

    Well P.G I always remember the late Nye Bevan’s quote ,He who walks down the middle gets knocked down. I also completely believe what William Gilbert wrote .”You are either a little Liberal or a little Conservative

  21. Jum 21
    28 August 2011 at 6:33 pm

    Re:
    Vicky32 …
    28 August 2011 at 4:49 pm

    I’m so pleased Vicky32 because you are now saying that in New Zealand women will never have to undergo the same sort of treatment suffered by that rape survivor in that American/Catholic or Catholic/American hospital.

    (For your info – From your two previous attacks on me, do read carefully, I said ‘this PARTICULAR rape survivor’ did not go to the phone book, find where the next Catholic hospital was and go there…’ in reply to your comment about rape survivors. Either you did not read the link I sent you or you are getting a bit hyper yourself. It was about a rape survivor in America. They don’t have DHBs there.)

    My intention was to warn that if everything else from personality politics and neo-conservatism as well as religious ideology was emanating from America then no doubt the controls over women’s freedoms/choice (call it what you will) will be under attack too in New Zealand.

    But you’re saying that Catholics, the Catholic Hospitals and the Catholic Church in New Zealand are such wonderful people and institutions and totally unlike their American offshoot that the attacks on women’s choice could not possibly happen here.

    You must also be saying that the Catholic hospitals in New Zealand would be accepting of performing abortions here. Is that correct?

    Will that (still) be the case when Key’s government opens up the public health system to private purchase?

    If that remains so, and New Zealand’s women’s choices are sacrosanct, then I’m very pleased Vicky32. You obviously have the inside knowledge on everything the Catholic Church and its administrators do in New Zealand, and no way would they turn away a rape survivor. Wonderful. Just put that down in writing and sign it will you, and in 50 years time we’ll have a look at it and we’ll find out if you were right or whether you were just peddling mischief to women.

    Belittling my New Zealand citizenship will lose you any chance of me listening respectfully to rants from you in future. I will just attack.