Poor people NIMBY

Written By: - Date published: 5:27 pm, May 17th, 2012 - 41 comments
Categories: housing, john key - Tags:

John Key is doing his best to keep poor people from coming to his electorate. Whilst it’s not like he visits there often himself, he’s still aiming to keep poor people committing the “economic vandalism” of living in a nice suburb – where apparently only the rich should reside.

As such, having stopped any State Housing in his electorate shortly after coming to office – Labour had planned 500 state houses in the 3000 house Hobsonville Point development – he’s now coming after the middle-income earners.

He’s scrapping the Gateway project that was originally planned to offer 500 low-cost houses at Hobsonville Point.

The project offered home loans for the currently Government-owned land, so that those who couldn’t afford a bank loan could still buy. Buyers would initially only pay off the house part of the mortgage, deferring paying for the land for up to 15 years. $230,000 mortgages could become somewhat more affordable for those not on big bucks.

But with only 17 Gateway project houses sold National have scrapped the project, meaning hundreds of lower income Aucklanders have had just about their only opportunity at home-ownership dashed.  Auckland’s home-ownership rate – now in the mid-60%s – is at its lowest ever level.  Social mobility?  Egalitarianism?  That’s for other countries.

Auckland Council plans to protest to the government: if they can’t provide affordable housing Auckland Council doesn’t know who will.  And with fewer than half the 20,000 houses needed each year to cope with Auckland’s booming population being built, it seems only the wealthy can look forward to the New Zealand dream in our biggest city.

As usual no ministers were available to go on Morning Report this morning, as the news wasn’t positive.

41 comments on “Poor people NIMBY ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. ad 1
    17 May 2012 at 6:08 pm

    Auckland Council could look to themselves and actually make an effort to buy back the many thousands of flats that the previous Mayor John Banks sold off. Alternatively they could accelerate affordable housing themselves and stand in the market and buy Avondale Racecourse, or the New Lynn claypit site, or exercise some muscle as a major shareholder in the Auckland Airport Company and get some affordable housing there, or in general stop being utter hypocrites and go and exercise the housing provisions of the Public Works Act. It’s actually Council budget vote time on the 23rd – wonder if Cr Hulse has some housing proposals to bring to the table with actual price tags, or is it just more moaning.

    Anyone remember when Auckland Council was proud of its positive social effect on the rental market?

    Pretty spectacular to hear Deputy Mayor mouth off against the Minister – when she was Deputy Mayor at Waitakere City for oh a decade or so the Council managed to build the sum total of zero new housing for people who needed it. In fact she had ample opportunity while the deal was being formed over Hobsonville to get the Council to partner in a commercial way for affordable housing on the site, rather than simply wait for government policy to change. No brains there.

    Note this is a Government company, at the edge of the Urban Limit that was specifically moved to make this development happen, when it’s the same government that bitches and moans about local government not giving enough fresh land at the edges of Auckland for it to grow. John, you want more housing in Auckland, build it yourself.

    The real kicker is though, if Housing New Zealand no longer has a social imperative for its developments, then there is no difference between it and an private developer. So you could see it being sold off pretty quickly simply as a developer.

  2. insider 2
    17 May 2012 at 6:14 pm

    Isn’t the council redeveloping wynyard wharf? Why not use that? It’s close to the city and major transport so fits nicely into the urban design their planners champion. Neighbouring St Mary’s bay used to be an affordable community so it will maintain the tradition.

    • ad 2.1
      17 May 2012 at 6:19 pm

      They will extract the best price they can for the offices and business space they sell on the waterfront, principally because they need all the cash they can get to pay for the expensive rehabilitation and parks and infrastructure. So affordability is not likely to be a criteria.

      So far as I am aware there are only a very few affordable housing owners in St Mary’s Bay now – the Community Of Refuge Trust, which is run by Ponsonby Baptist Church. They got much of their stock off the Council. St mary’s Bay also has a fair bit of leasehold, but definitely nothing you could conceive of as affordable.

      • insider 2.1.1
        18 May 2012 at 12:18 am

        So it’s ok for council to maximise revenue…

        • Ad 2.1.1.1
          18 May 2012 at 6:33 am

          No, it’s not. But there’s no free money anywhere, and honestly Wellington kicks Auckland all over the park for a decent waterfront.

    • s y d 2.2
      18 May 2012 at 10:29 am

      LOL nice one…I can see the computer simulations, as we swoop down over the glistening waitemata, gliding across the viaduct just clearing the masts of the superyachts then suddenly rising up to offer a grand vista of…..what, maybe developments like 
      this shit
       

  3. Paul 3
    17 May 2012 at 6:41 pm

    Our ‘democratic’ government that always talks to the Press about difficult issues.
    Yeah right.

  4. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 4
    17 May 2012 at 7:12 pm

    I am completely with you. While we are about it, why is it that only rich people have Aston Martins? Surely driving luxury motor vehicles is the very last thing that should be reserved for the elite.

    • felix 4.1
      17 May 2012 at 8:43 pm

      Yeah right Ole, that’s the correct analogy – low cost housing and Aston Martins. 🙄

  5. Ad 5
    17 May 2012 at 9:42 pm

    The spectacularly annoying thing is that this Hobsonville story comes out in the same week as a long statistical study showing how little income mobility there is in New Zealand. To get onto the ladder of owning your own house, about 80% of people here really and truly need help. Sometimes it’s your parents, sometimes it’s an endowment, and sometimes there’s this thing called State Advances, or a subsidized rental that enables you to save.

    The study showed the yawning policy gap if there’s to be any hope to getting up beyond really low income, to a better life.

    Oh but wait, John Key himself was brought up in a state house.

    People need help. God we have to change this government.

    • Vicky32 5.1
      18 May 2012 at 5:15 pm

      Oh but wait, John Key himself was brought up in a state house.

      Back when State Houses were no big deal! When I was 12 we moved to Owhata (Rotorua) and many of our neighbours were in State houses, the street was genuinely pepper-potted! We owned our own house thanks to my rich, dead grandfather who’d left one of his two houses to my mother (the ‘holiday’ house in Rotorua), but many of my school friends were in state houses and it was not a big deal then… no sign of welfare or poverty then!

  6. Draco T Bastard 6
    17 May 2012 at 10:19 pm

    And jonkey proves just how out of touch with reality he is:

    Prime Minister John Key says a scheme to provide up to 100 affordable homes at Auckland to people on low incomes is not needed because low interest rates mean there is greater capacity for people to buy their own homes.

    Yeah, in the middle of a depression with jobs dropping like flies and it’s suddenly easy for poor and moderate income people to buy homes.

    • Cin77 6.1
      18 May 2012 at 12:02 am

      Hmmm I wonder what planet Key lives on? After reading that quote I’m even more sure its not planet earth.

      • tc 6.1.1
        18 May 2012 at 7:29 am

        Planet hollowmen where the poor are shunted out of sight, welfare users are left in a permanent poverty cycle and the wealthy elite get richer on the back of public asset sales, low wages and developer business friendly rules such as that provided by EPA.

  8. realist 8
    18 May 2012 at 1:45 pm

    oh all you whiners. if you want affordable housing, buy in affordable areas. if you cannot afford to buy in hobsonville point, don’t expect the tax payers to help you out. you can’t have a low-middle income and wanna be living in an area where you know for a fact it’s going to be expensive and then going round beating up the government about it. get real people. putting in 500 state housing is bordering along stupidity. stop being so bitter and start being smart about it. thank you.

    • Bunji 8.1
      18 May 2012 at 2:47 pm

      Hobsonville Point is a government development – if they’re not going to cater for affordable housing, who will? Or do those who can’t afford a $400,000 mortgage not deserve housing?

      I miss seeing why providing State Housing is “bordering along stupidity”? How so?

      That’s before we get to the point that creating gated silos of wealthy people who never see or develop empathy for the rest of us isn’t exactly healthy for society.

      • realist 8.1.1
        18 May 2012 at 3:01 pm

        hi bunji. first of all, hobsonville is not entirely a government development by itself. it is a partnership between public+private sectors as i am sure you are aware of. now comes this whole perception that it is OK for us who are already paying mortgages of our own having to “foot the bill” for those who wants to get into the housing market via this gateway scheme (or even worse into state housing) into an area where people are paying up to 700-800k for a house. so tell me what’s so smart about that? do u see economic benefit for those buying and for those developing?

        ok now you are telling me about this whole mumbo jumbo about gated silos of wealthy people. first of all, there is no such thing as a gated silo. you work hard, you earn the money, you buy a good house in a good area. what i am trying to get at is, don’t wear a hat that’s too big for your head.

        empathy. i pay so much of my taxes. i think i empathise enough. it’s time people get a grip on reality and face the fact that there are just that much we as tax payers can help.

        • Bunji 8.1.1.1
          18 May 2012 at 4:18 pm

          Don’t get me started on the economic foolishness that is PPPs. But the Hobsonville land is government owned, and the project is government run. That they wish to share some of the profits with their private sector mates rather than doing sensible sub-contracting is by-the-by.

          I don’t really see us as “footing the bill” – these people are still paying the mortgages, they are just having them structured in a more affordable way.

          But beyond that I guess there’s a difference in outlook here too. I don’t see it as the government’s job to simply maximise profit. They must look at wider community measures. We elect a government to give us a better society. Yes they must balance the books over a reasonable cycle, but that isn’t their whole job.

          They should be looking to make happier, healthier citizens in a happier, healthier country – so there’s care for all who live here and care for the environment in there too.

          So State Housing makes sense – people with roofs over their heads, people who aren’t living in over-crowded, damp, disease-causing conditions witll be happier and healthier.

          Creating ghettos won’t make people happier and healthier. There is plenty of research out there showing how much better communities are when there is diversity in them – firstly of wealth, but also of ages, etc.

          So we need affordable housing, and ideally we want mixed communities. The Government is meant to be our agent to work on providing what’s best for the country. If they refuse, who will step up?

        • Descendant Of Smith 8.1.1.2
          18 May 2012 at 10:55 pm

          “I pay so much of my taxes. i think i empathise enough. it’s time people get a grip on reality and face the fact that there are just that much we as tax payers can help.”

          Really!

          You pay much less tax than your forbears did both in terms of general taxation and other aspects such as tax on motor vehicles, on selling properties, death duties, gifting and so on.

          Those higher past taxes paid for things such as state housing, education, jobs for people with disabilities and young people in the public sector – the people that the private sector can never find enough jobs to employ, public transport and so on.

          Of course much of the other income the state had has been sold off to the private sector who have stripped it bare, especially the land the state used to own.

          As a result we now have more poverty because you preferred to only have your own interests at heart. You know for instance that if people are struggling on a reasonable income that it is even harder for those on minimum wage and even harder for those on a benefit. You can’t no know that.

          You know that 60% of GDP used to be paid in wages and we had a much better society. You know 60% of GDP is now in profit and we have a worse society for many.

          What you choose to do is blame the victims of this change and say it’s their fault.

          I don’t know a single person who lost their job because they wanted to go on a benefit- I know plenty who lost their job because their was no work.

          How you can even use empathise in your sentence above speaks volumes of your cognitive disassociation.

          And if you’re finding it tough in your current job well follow the usual rightwing idotic advice – it’s your own fault you don’t have a better paying job – get off your lazy arse and get a job that pays more. The jobs are just there waiting for you to take them. Fucking loser.

          You don’t empathise at all.

          And somehow you seem to forget that most of the people you are talking about have paid tax for much of their lives as well. there’s few people who have never worked – if the tax they pay isn’t to ensure they have some help when they don’t have a job then WTF is it for.

          Bet you also argue that the old are entitled to super because they have paid tax all their lives.

          How come that doesn’t work for other benefits.

          • fatty 8.1.1.2.1
            18 May 2012 at 10:59 pm

            “You don’t empathise at all”

            Well put, anyone that claims they pay too much tax in NZ is either greedy or stupid, and probably a combination of the two. The country would be better off if these people packed their bags and left NZ for good…they are poverty producers and little more than parasites.

  9. seeker 9
    19 May 2012 at 1:50 am

    “anyone that claims they pay too much tax in NZ is either greedy or stupid, ………
    they are poverty producers and little more than parasites.”

    Brilliant articulation of a major source of troublemaking in this country! And to name them for what they are – “poverty producers”- is just inspired Fatty. Please allow me to round their title out- immature and irresponsible poverty producers. And now I think I can sleep.

  10. realist 10
    19 May 2012 at 9:57 am

    So, I seem to be the only one on the other side of the fence. As this is my first time looking through this blog I decided to click on the “About” tab above and suddenly everything made sense.

    fatty and seeker, oh yeah I am that greedy, stupid, immature poverty producing parasite and I am probably the few remaining greedy, stupid, immature poverty producing parasite tax payers who want to continue to stay here in NZ paying up to 60K of taxes a year so that people like you can continue to have the dough to continue eating KFC, sipping away your Coke with chips in the other hand, typing on your crappy computer which is probably sitting on your 120cm of waist circumference. I am not sorry stereotyping you as you are probably more than happy to do just that in the first instance.

    I can see we have extremes in our views so I will make this short.

    Bunji, I was referring to state housing SPECIFICALLY in Hobsonville Point. State housing is a brilliant scheme but not on premium land.

    Descendent of Smith. Good on you for continuing to talk about forebears. Maybe go back to the medieval ages? And yes, I do believe that if you have worked hard your whole life, you deserve a super. The end. Are you telling me it is the society you want to live in where people work hard, pay huge taxes, save at the same time while supporting a family and getting old and having to live on what little you have saved? Would you call that person greedy? Can you call him greedy?

    Empathy? Are you talking about the type of John Minto empathy here? Going around blaming everyone, staging protests at every single opportunity he can get, while still being on the benefit? How non sensical is that?

    So now I am working, contributing to society, providing for my family, paying my fair share of taxes FOR the government to come up with ways of helping those who need it and you guys actually are calling me a cognitively disassociated, greedy, stupid, immature poverty producing parasite.

    No wonder Labour is not in Governement when the going gets tough. Looking thru this blog has opened my eyes as to how tunnel visioned you guys are. I wish you all the best in your endeavours but please, don’t start being personal with your remarks about those that actually are contributing to the society.

    • fatty 10.1
      19 May 2012 at 12:26 pm

      realist the poverty producer;

      “I am probably the few remaining greedy, stupid, immature poverty producing parasite tax payers who want to continue to stay here in NZ paying up to 60K of taxes a year”

      I wouldn’t be bothered if you are ‘paying’ over 100K per year in taxes, because that money is not something you have earned by yourself.
      ‘Your’ money was created from the ground up by everyday workers and you only ‘earn’ so much because our economic system is based on greed – It seems as though you are suited to this system?..you think you contribute too much?
      Every poverty statistic in NZ (about 300,000) is due to people getting paid too much and/or not paying enough taxes. Why would NZ care if you packed your bags and went to another country to produce poverty? Which country are you going to go to?

      “so that people like you can continue to have the dough to continue eating KFC, sipping away your Coke with chips in the other hand, typing on your crappy computer which is probably sitting on your 120cm of waist circumference”

      Sorry, wrong blog, Paula Bennett and Gerry Brownlee hang out on Kiwi Blog. If you’re in Chch I’m going for a run in a few hours…wanna join me? I do 10km with a heavy backpack, my guess is you’d slow me down…but I’ll make my backpack extra heavy so we are on the same level…let me know.

      “I am not sorry stereotyping you”

      You can assume away, I don’t care what you guess about my life (I quite enjoyed your KFC & Coke & chips in two hands statement). I based my assessment of your greed and selfishness on this statement;

      “empathy. i pay so much of my taxes. i think i empathise enough. it’s time people get a grip on reality and face the fact that there are just that much we as tax payers can help.”

      If anyone in NZ claims they already pay enough taxes and are therefore empathic, then I will label them either stupid or greedy…sorry, but you made the claim. I look at taxes from historical, social and economic perspectives and I come to the conclusion that our low taxes are the reason for our current high rates of poverty. Too much money to too few and a large number of people end up in poverty. Taxes are the only way to end poverty under a capitalist framework. So if you already “empathise enough”, then do you see child poverty as ethically acceptable? Is your offensive claim that you “empathise enough”, really just a cover to make yourself feel better for possessing too much, while others go without? Your statement focuses on individual responsibility, which is a shame. I consider empathy about helping each other and considering the problems faced by others. Love thy neighbour is an oldy but a goody.
      To claim you have empathised enough is an interesting concept…it probably suggests that you have either never empathised, or your ’empathy’ was never empathy at all (possibly just a mask to cover your embarrassment of owning too much?…misdirected self-serving charity?)

      I enjoy the second part of your post where you bring up the issue of your ‘family’ a couple of times…yawn. Nobody is impressed with your ability to reproduce.
      If you do want to bring the importance of ‘family’ into the issue of paying taxes, then logically you will be arguing to pay more taxes so we can ensure all families are free of poverty in NZ. Or were you just talking about YOUR family, and we shouldn’t care about the other families?…I hope you weren’t just referring to only your family? That would be selfish and greedy.

      “No wonder Labour is not in Governement when the going gets tough. Looking thru this blog has opened my eyes as to how tunnel visioned you guys are.”

      You probably need to open your eyes a bit wider, and then start reading the words. I’d say the people on here are about 50/50 labour & non labour voters. If you want a ‘hate on Labour’ competition, I’m sure I’d give you a run for your money. They have never got a party vote from me, they only get an MP vote due to it being an anti-National vote. Although this site can seem to be a National-hate site, the posts are often just as critical of Labour. To be honest, Key’s policies in 2008 are about the same as Shearer’s now (i’m guessing that cause nobody seems to know Shearer’s policies). There is no way this is a pro-Labour site.

      • Campbell Larsen 10.1.1
        19 May 2012 at 1:21 pm

        fatty: “Every poverty statistic in NZ (about 300,000) is due to people getting paid too much and/or not paying enough taxes.”

        The high level of poverty in NZ (about 300,000) is largely due to people not getting paid enough or not having jobs. – there fixed it for you.

        After all we don’t want to play into the ‘politics of envy’ or the ‘Labour just wants to tax you’ memes now do we?

        • fatty 10.1.1.1
          19 May 2012 at 2:23 pm

          “The high level of poverty in NZ (about 300,000) is largely due to people not getting paid enough or not having jobs.”

          That’s true, but that’s an obvious and simplistic truth, which I think everyone (even John Key) agrees with. To limit your analysis there is merely describing the problem…I described the root of the problem, which is that it is the people who are getting paid too much/taxed too little, which is root of the problem.

          “After all we don’t want to play into the ‘politics of envy’ or the ‘Labour just wants to tax you’ memes now do we?”

          Doesn’t bother me, because I consider both of those memes to be a fantasies.
          The ‘politics of envy’ is a Fox News meme that is used to silence those who question the ethics of (modern) capitalism. ‘Politics of envy’ is a neoliberal buzz-slogan rooted in the concept of individual responsibility. When I hear ‘politics of envy’, I translate that as a ‘defence of greed’.
          Again, ‘Labour just wants to tax you’ is just another slight of hand by the neolibs who paint Labour as some kind of leftist socialists. Labour wants to tax people by a few percentage points more, which in the end amounts to sweet F-all, Labour do little more than justify National’s economic theory. Not only is ‘Labour just wants to tax you’ a myth, but its a myth created and perpetuated by Nact to normalise their greed.
          I don’t care if anyone taints me with those phrases, they are a sham, they have no foundation and I can de-construct them easily. If I was you I would not use those phrases, they do nothing but cement neoliberalism.

          • Campbell Larsen 10.1.1.1.1
            20 May 2012 at 9:28 am

            Ah no, Shonkey obviously does not believe that poverty could be reduced by increasing incomes otherwise he would have increased the minimum wage to at least $15p/h and would be supporting unions and workers rights rather than attacking them.

            He obviously does not believe in people having jobs either going by the forced redundancies in the public sector and other austerity measures. International evidence tells us that these measures do not work, and yet blinded by ideology Shonkey and Blinglish press on.

            To limit your analysis there is merely describing the problem…I described the root of the problem, which is that it is the people who are getting paid too much/taxed too little, which is root of the problem.

            Lovely sentence structure there fatty – you have a gift.

            Some people certainly are getting paid too much e.g. Rebstock and Co being paid to do Paula-let-them-eat-guacamole-Bennetts job. ..

            However I don’t think you have described the cause of every poverty statistic (or as you put it later – the root of the problem) any more than I did when I reworked your sentence – in terms of causal connection my version is more likely to result in poorer people having more money – however neither works in isolation.

            There is more to poverty than just income.

          • Johnm 10.1.1.1.2
            20 May 2012 at 5:13 pm

            NeoLiberalism Free Market economics believes:

            Workers don’t work hard enough ’cause they’re overpaid,(Unemployment, immigration, competition, anti worker law helps there) Managers and bosses and execs don’t work hard enough ’cause they’re underpaid for those special skills.(Pay them more otherwise they’ll flee to a richer place aka Aussie,sort of reverse competition) Shareholders never get paid enough even though they don’t do any work at all! It’s all back to front in reality!

            But who actually does the work?! The Workers! So why are they treated with such contempt? Must be the Profit motive.

    • Descendant Of Smith 10.2
      20 May 2012 at 4:31 pm

      It’s simple:

      So now I am working

      As am I and have done all my life as do most people including most of those currently on benefit, most of whom do work when work is there. Most of those people have paid tax for precisely the reason they are getting a benefit now, and for those yound people most of their parents have paid taxes.

      Contributing to society

      As am I and have done all my life including voluntary work, giving things away I don’t need for free. I don’t contribute to society however by having a go at those who are the most disadvantaged in society and suggesting that their lives be made worse. Part of my contribution to society is paying tax so we can have a reasonable standard of living for all.

      providing for my family

      As do I including my children with disabilities and my wife who has been needed for most of her life to care for them – unlike large numbers of males who abandon their partners when their children have disabilities. Many of those women end up on DPB.

      paying my fair share of taxes.

      Despite not having a trust to hide income and assets and despite not manipulating my finances to pay less I don’t pay my fair share of tax. I didn’t need tax cuts and certainly didn’t need them over say increasing benefit rates for the poorest people in our society. I don’t need the discounts from power companies for paying my bills on time, and so on. As I tell the power companies when they survey me they’ll get my business when they stop offering me, the reasonably well off, a discount and make power cheaper for poor people.

      And yeah if you are fortunate to have saved ( and for many people luck plays a big part) then I see no reason why you should not live off your savings. I also see no reason why underage partners should be included in NZS – for fucks sake if we are going to make sole parents with children look for work why wouldn’t we make under 65’s with no kids do the same.

      In fact if you take the right-wing argument that everyone succeeds only by dint of your own hard work and effort then it’s logical then to have death duties at 100% so everyone starts with nothing – no inheritance at all.

      And by the way modern Labour is a right-wing party not a left wing party. Fuax-left at best.

      • Descendant Of Smith 10.2.1
        20 May 2012 at 4:50 pm

        And by the way your medieval comment completely ignored context as well – you obviously chose to ignore the following sentence.

        Interestingly enough the neo-lib polices are taking us further in that direction than away from it.

        Where there’s a ruling elite with all the wealth, with government and religion intertwined and the lower classes abused, castigated and if lucky living on charity.

        Still we are not there yet and still have a chance to behave more responsibly to our fellow citizens.

  11. fatty 11
    20 May 2012 at 4:00 pm

    “Ah no, Shonkey obviously does not believe that poverty could be reduced by increasing incomes otherwise he would have increased the minimum wage to at least $15p/h and would be supporting unions and workers rights rather than attacking them.”

    You are confusing desire with knowledge. To say that John Key does not know that higher wages will eliminate poverty is wrong. Do you really believe that one of the most intelligent (but immoral) economists in NZ doesn’t understand that an increased income for the poor will eliminate poverty? John Key is very very intelligent, on so many levels. Do not assume he misunderstands that poverty is a lack of money…a 10 year old knows that.
    John Key accepts poverty, he knows how to get rid of it, but he benefits when people are in poverty/unemployed.
    “…and yet blinded by ideology Shonkey and Blinglish press on.”
    True, but I’m undecided if blinded is the right word here…they know exactly what they are doing and they know the outcome of their ideology. They are not ‘blind’ to poverty and they are not ‘blinded’ by their ideology…they choose their ideology to suit their needs. They know poverty is there, but they want poverty to exist so they can drive down costs/wages and drive up the profits for the elite. They consciously choose NZ’s bottom line over the well being of vulnerable people. After all, I would argue that in terms of political/economic ideology, Labour and National are about the same, but just have different ethical concerns.
    So I would say that Labour are more blinded by their ideology.
    I think your assumption that Key and English are in a way stupid is wrong. They are super intelligent, greedy, and unethical. They twist figures and statistics to knowingly perpetuate poverty to fulfil their own desires. We should stop confusing desire with knowledge…when we do we are suggesting that Key cannot understand basic kiddy economics and the NZ public have been deceived by a bunch of idiots…NZ has been deceived by a bunch of intelligent arseholes.

    “Lovely sentence structure there fatty – you have a gift.”

    I got a lot of things going on in my life, stressing over sentence structure when conversing on a blog is not something that concerns me.
    Sorry, but the patterns on the toilet paper that I use to wipe my faecal-remnants worries me more than my grammar when replying to your posts.

    “However I don’t think you have described the cause of every poverty statistic”

    Good point…a 200 word internet post makes it difficult to describe the cause of every poverty statistic.

    “in terms of causal connection my version is more likely to result in poorer people having more money”

    Yes and no…I agree with your point wholeheartedly, but I just think you are explaining the ‘what’ and leaving it at that. I think to really understand a problem we need to assess the ‘who’, the ‘how’ and the ‘why’. Critiquing social policy with only a political-economic perspective (the basic causal connection you have given) is limited in both its insight and its suggested remedies. A post-structural perspective is much more insightful and productive.
    …you do it perfectly with your last sentence (it incidentally challenges your original argument which had simply reduced the issue to income);
    “There is more to poverty than just income.”

    • Campbell Larsen 11.1
      21 May 2012 at 9:45 am

      …one of the most intelligent economists in NZ

      lol – I get it now – you’re a comedian!

      Keep up the good work.

  12. fatty 12
    21 May 2012 at 10:30 am

    “…one of the most intelligent economists in NZ…lol – I get it now – you’re a comedian!…Keep up the good work.”

    Pathetic effort Campbell Larsen, even for you…are you paraphrasing quotes into your own fantasies now? Let me repost my statement;

    “Do you really believe that one of the most intelligent (but immoral) economists in NZ doesn’t understand that an increased income for the poor will eliminate poverty?”

    Why do you think he’s held some of the top commerce jobs around the world? They could have got economists from anywhere since they were paying him millions…How could you possibly claim he is not intelligent? Please elaborate…

    • Carol 12.1
      21 May 2012 at 10:35 am

      I’ve never thought of Key as an economist. Nor do I think that someone who can operate successfully in the corporate, banking, or speculative finance world as necessarily have the skills and/or aptitude to successfully manage a country’s economy.

      • fatty 12.1.1
        21 May 2012 at 11:07 am

        “I’ve never thought of Key as an economist.”

        I see Key as an economist who knows the economy inside out….very very intelligent. The smiling assassin knows too much, and when combined with his selfish/greedy desires, he is very dangerous. Labour underestimated him when he arrived, I can’t believe some people still underestimate him.

        “Nor do I think that someone who can operate successfully in the corporate, banking, or speculative finance world as necessarily have the skills and/or aptitude to successfully manage a country’s economy.”

        I think he has the skills and/or aptitude, he just doesn’t have the desire to build an inclusive economy for a country.
        I do agree that its his the corporate, banking, speculative finance background which have fanned his flames of destruction…he’s a breaker, not a builder.
        I consider most economists to be like fighter pilots in a war…we should not expect them to build anything, they are good at what they do…destroying vulnerable targets. What’s the difference between war and capitalism?…not much from what I can see.
        Thinking John Key can build NZ’s economy is similar to hoping the wrecking balls will rebuild Christchurch…its not what they do (the difference is that a wrecking ball is dumb, Key is intelligent and can reconfigure the debris to make himself a profit).

        • Carol 12.1.1.1
          21 May 2012 at 11:11 am

          I’m not disputing Key’s intelligent and a shrewd operative in the corporate world.

          • fatty 12.1.1.1.1
            21 May 2012 at 11:18 am

            “I’m not disputing Key’s intelligent and a shrewd operative in the corporate world.”

            True, I thought we’d agree on that…so then I would say isn’t NZ a corporation? Isn’t a nation state now just another company in a corporate world and he’s our CEO?…no wonder he wants low wages

    • Campbell Larsen 12.2
      21 May 2012 at 11:03 am

      You’ve got a bad case of Shonkey love there fatty – I’m not sure I can help you – my voodoo is powerful, but you are too far gone.

      • fatty 12.2.1
        21 May 2012 at 11:14 am

        “You’ve got a bad case of Shonkey love there fatty – I’m not sure I can help you – my voodoo is powerful, but you are too far gone.”

        Don’t worry, I hate Key just as much as you do…probably more…I’m just not stupid enough to think that Key is stupid.
        The most destructive people in this world are intelligent, that’s how they become successful and powerful. Duh.
        If Key is as stupid as you think he is, what does that say about NZ, and also the Labour Party?

        • Carol 12.2.1.1
          21 May 2012 at 11:19 am

          Someone can be very clever with some kinds of activities, and stupid with other things.

          I still don’t think Key really understands how to run a country’s economy, but I also don’t think he has much desire to learn that. His motivations lie elsewhere.
          And I don’t think he’s an economist – but then, most economists can be clever but provide useless arguments and predictions.