Chart of the day: The “building boom”

Written By: - Date published: 9:48 am, August 26th, 2016 - 119 comments
Categories: housing, national, useless - Tags: , , , ,

building-consents

119 comments on “Chart of the day: The “building boom””

  1. maninthemiddle 1

    Bernard is once again being a bit naughty with the data.

    1. NZ is enjoying a population boom. That means stats expressed by population will always lag reality.
    2. Consents are not houses, they are consents.

    Here is the data on actual building:

    “The value of residential and commercial building work for the year to April of $17.6 billion is an all-time high and 14% up on the previous year.

    The sector is on schedule for 85,000 new homes to be built across New Zealand in this term of Parliament, up from 60,000 last term and for an all-time record of 36,000 homes being built in Auckland, which would be the largest in any Parliamentary term.

    The figures show a dramatic growth in building activity in the regions. This building boom began in Christchurch in 2012, spread to Auckland in 2014 and is now flowing to centres such as Whangarei, up 53%, Palmerston North up 57%, Queenstown Lakes up 40%.

    Activity is also up by 26% in Tauranga and in Hamilton while Auckland has seen growth of 15% but Christchurch is down 9%.”

    http://www.propertywire.com/news/australasia/new-zealand-home-building-2016061612037.html

    3. Bernard’s graph shows that consents plummetted between 2004 and 2008, and have been steadily increasing since 2011. Even using his consent analysis, the numbers are ratcheting up nicely.

    • Draco T Bastard 1.1

      1. Stats by population are the only accurate stats
      2. True but National’s been implying that consents is houses since they got into power
      3. They dropped a bit between 2004 and 2007. In 2008 they plummeted – probably due to the GFC. Since then we’ve supposedly been coming out of recession.

      In other words, you’re lying by numbers – again.

      • maninthemiddle 1.1.1

        1. No, they aren’t. Particularly when you are comparing a time of booming population (now) with a time when NZ’ers were leaving the country in droves.
        2. No, they haven’t. They have been saying that consents lead to houses, which is true.
        3. And since then the numbers have risen steadily.

        The huge change in net migration, and a poor planning regime in Auckland, are at the root of the current housing deficit. Supply will eventually meet demand, and prices will stabilise. That’s how markets work.

        • Pat 1.1.1.1

          good grief….why do you bother?

        • ropata 1.1.1.2

          you forgot to mention corrupt / lax government oversight, no regulations on foreign investment, operating a tax haven, and ineffective capital gains “tax” that is just a PR exercise

          • maninthemiddle 1.1.1.2.1

            Rubbish. NZ ranks extremely highly for transparency. Capital Gains taxes are notoriously inefficient and ineffective, although they do seem to make the politically envious happy.

            • ropata 1.1.1.2.1.1

              NZ corruption rating “100% pure” except for the Panama Papers and Bill Liu and visas for $$$ and fake housing stats and FJK’s continual lies

              "Key peddles bizarre 'interest rate avenger' fantasy." My latest fish-in-a-barrel fisk at @publicaddress https://t.co/UJduYtPTC8— Rob Salmond (@rsalmond) August 25, 2016

              • maninthemiddle

                NZ anti-corruption rating is consistently in the top 4-5 in the world. Oh and can’t you do better than opinion pieces as support for your bizarre ideas?

                • ropata

                  Please feel free to point out where Rob Salmond is wrong in his “opinion piece”, but unfortunately for FJK and his imbecile followers Rob uses “facts” and “data” to support his argument

              • gsays

                Shepherd McCully and his flock are feeling left out.

            • ropata 1.1.1.2.1.2

              Like I said, the Nat’s fake “CGT” is an ineffectual sop…

              • maninthemiddle

                All CGT’s are. They simply don’t work. We only have to look to Australia to see that.

                • One Anonymous Bloke

                  Yawn. Does not understand basic statistics or accounting. Pretends to know what the effect of a CGT is.

                  🙄

            • reason 1.1.1.2.1.3

              Tax Haven John and the other sub prime nats are making us as dirty as JK’s famous 100% pure water …….

              Maninthemiddle should put on his white disco pants and have a big drink of JKs wealth tonic ….. if nothing else it would have him suitably attired for when he writes his posts.

              The nats have a long connection with tax havens and the rich criminals who run them http://i.stuff.co.nz/business/money/8515361/Money-trail-leads-home-to-New-Zealand

              ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
              http://www.smh.com.au/national/inside-the-shell-drugs-arms-and-tax-scams-20110514-1enkz.html

              “An Auckland-based business which has incorporated “shell” companies linked to arms traders, Russian crime syndicates and Mexican drug cartels is closing its New Zealand and Vanuatu operations.

              Geoffrey Taylor and his sons Ian and Michael, working out of an apartment in Auckland’s Queen St, created a global network of shell companies.

              They incorporated hundreds, using New Zealand’s lax company formation rules, and some of these companies have also been linked to extortion in Romania and corruption in the Czech Republic.”

              “By then Taylor’s name, and the names of family members and associates, began to appear in hundreds and possibly thousands of companies that were formed around the world, mostly centred on tax havens. Their vast empire of directorships spread across Panama, New Zealand, Vanuatu, Britain, Hong Kong, China, Canada, Belize, Samoa, the Cook Islands, and the US, among others.” …… http://www.smh.com.au/national/inside-the-shell-drugs-arms-and-tax-scams-20110514-1enkz.html
              **********************************************************

              Finally …Is it just a coincidence that we get a merryl lynch prime minister ………. and New Zealands response to climate change is to commit Fraud …. which also allows the polluters to scam money ????

              “Incredibly, New Zealand ended up being the largest customer of these climate criminals because our government was the only one that accepted their dodgy wares..” …..

              “What we do know is that the Government knows now. Yet they are still holding up these dodgy credits as proof that we are meeting our international emissions targets.” http://thespinoff.co.nz/politics-media/18-04-2016/dodgy-deals-with-climate-fraudsters-nzs-role-in-the-junk-carbon-scam/

              http://morganfoundation.org.nz/real-cheats/

        • Michelle 1.1.1.3

          like our power price stablised man in the middle yeah right

          • maninthemiddle 1.1.1.3.1

            You bet it did! The market has provided greater choice and better value. Labour’s power policy would have been disastrous.

            • ropata 1.1.1.3.1.1

              Better value for the 1% who now own our public assets?

              • maninthemiddle

                1%? You are joking, right? I’m talking about value to the consumer.

                • Draco T Bastard

                  The consumer’s getting shafted so that a few rich people can bludge more from them.

                  • maninthemiddle

                    No. The consumer is getting an excellent and competitive service. And a large number of kiwi’s are benefitting form having a shareholding in the process.

                • Lloyd

                  If ‘the consumer’ is getting better value than he/she would have got with an Electricity Department of government run the same way it was before the Nats chopped it up then sold it off, please explain.
                  Why are my power bills so much higher than that I could have expected to pay under the old regime?
                  Are private electrons different from public electrons? They must be shiner or brighter or something else unscientific, for I cannot see how privatisation has helped me when I pay my electricity bill. I do know there is a bunch of CEOs that are collectively raking millions out of the consumer who weren’t doing that in the days of the NZED. Is Maninthemiddle an Electricity compant CEO. That would explain his pie in the sky better value.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.3.1.2

              Does not understand basic statistics or accounting. Pretends to be able to predict policy outcomes.

              🙄

        • Draco T Bastard 1.1.1.4

          1. It’s that which makes the per population the only accurate way to measure
          2. Yes they have and you just reinforced their implication

          The poor planning regime is due to the RWNJs and their land banking. I’m quite aware of how markets are supposed to work but I’m also quite aware that, more often than not, they don’t work that way at all usually due to the greed of the RWNJs and other sociopaths.

          • Crashcart 1.1.1.4.1

            He needs to look into the idea of markets being inherently unstable. Watched an interesting Docco on NETFLIX that goes into how more economists are now starting to postulate that markets are by default tended towards bubbles. Essentially a period of stability leads to confidence. Confidence leads to investment. Investment leads to over confidence which begins a bubble. Bubble bursts. Cycle begins again. Has happened multiple times going back to the Tulip bubble.

            http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3332308/

    • Ad 1.2

      Also doesn’t account for commercial, or infrastructure.
      Both in a boom in Auckland and Hamilton, and will be so for many years to come.

    • Lanthanide 1.3

      Consents are a far better measure than “value” of construction, because McMansions pull the total value up, while only housing a single family, just like any other house does, but at a lessor cost.

      • left for dead 1.3.1

        Here here Lan, and of coarse those depressing years between 78-02 helping keep us in a low wage environment.
        Of point I know, but true, we need a gov’ment backed apprentice scheme so we can future proof, Auckland with an extra million by 2050 ha.

        edited oop’s

        • maninthemiddle 1.3.1.1

          We already have a government backed apprentice scheme.

          • left for dead 1.3.1.1.1

            Ha, i’ll do the jokes mitm,
            poultry, oh you thinking of offshore labour, I’m thinking mass employment for New Zealanders.
            chicken shit.

            • maninthemiddle 1.3.1.1.1.1

              Apprenticeships ARE providing employment fro NZ’ers. Many organisations delivering apprenticeship training are promoting themselves because they can’t get enough apprentices. Another example of the reality not fitting the left wing dogma.

      • maninthemiddle 1.3.2

        Consents are not houses. Consents are open for 2 (?) years.

        The value of construction will always include high cost housing, but it will also include ‘affordable’ housing, as in the past.

        • DoublePlusGood 1.3.2.1

          If you’d bother to check earlier, you’d have seen it explained to you how you are wrong. Do pay attention.

          • maninthemiddle 1.3.2.1.1

            Nope, not wrong. Housing value is a legitimate measure becasue it measures ACTUAL building. Not consents.

            • Lanthanide 1.3.2.1.1.1

              “a legitimate measure becasue it measures ACTUAL building”

              So you’re saying every building contract that was signed for $1M, cost exactly that much to build? Never had budget under-runs? Or budget over-runs? Or contracts that got cancelled outright for whatever reason? You also haven’t considered that the building cost you’re reporting likely includes the costs of renovations, which while they improve the housing stock, it’s difficult to know how that reflects on actually building houses for their true purpose of providing shelter for people (adding 2 bedrooms to a house = helpful, adding a second bathroom and a new flash kitchen = not helpful). That’s not to mention that your figure includes COMMERCIAL construction, whereas Bernard’s graph is for consents on dwellings. So you’re comparing apples with oranges.

              You’re acting like these building costs are somehow more accurate than consents, when actually they still have a reasonable degree of uncertainty built in to them, AND it doesn’t adequately reflect the houses cost different prices but have the same end-goal (that we’re interested in), which is how many families are housed.

              To take your point to an extreme, just to show how silly it is, if there were 20 houses built in the country, each of which cost $1B, according to you, we’d be at the highest building rates the country has ever seen. Even though those 20 houses would only house 20 families. Meanwhile this would be shown as 20 consents.

              Also, you haven’t taken inflation into account either. If you scale that $17.6B figure you like so much back to 1974 dollars, and then if you could get the building costs from 1974, you’d likely see that the figure in 1974 was bigger than your inflation adjusted 2015 value.

              So, given all of the above, consents are the *better* metric to use to measure construction activity, if you’re going to be foolish enough to use a single metric in isolation, when comparing historical building trends.

              • maninthemiddle

                “So you’re saying every building contract that was signed for $1M, cost exactly that much to build? ”

                No. The actual number is likely to be higher.

                “So, given all of the above, consents are the *better* metric to use to measure construction activity, ”

                No. They shouldn’t be ignored, and they show a significant upward trend, but they represent tomorrow’s building, not yesterdays.

                • Lanthanide

                  I see you ignored most of my points, and the ones you did reply to, you took completely out of context, and I already anticipated your points and addressed them in advance.

                  D-, could do better.

                  • maninthemiddle

                    Didn’t ignore anything. Your points were largely silly. For example:

                    “when actually they still have a reasonable degree of uncertainty built in to them,”

                    So do consents you muppet. If that’s the quality of what you’re throwing around, don’t expect a line by line rebuttal.

                    Finally…get to grips with Bernard’s graph, and understand the weakness of the per resident calculation when it comes to a rapidly growing population.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Does not understand basic statistics or accounting. Pretends to be able to analyse the housing market.

                      🙄

                    • Lanthanide

                      You said this:

                      Nope, not wrong. Housing value is a legitimate measure becasue it measures ACTUAL building. Not consents.

                      Now you freely admit, that construction value is just as bad, if not worse, than consents for measuring housing activity, after previously suggesting it was a superior measure.

                      So thanks for agreeing with me, I guess.

                      I’ll just point out again, that the figure you’re using includes commercial construction, whereas the consent figures are only for dwellings, so the statistics you’re using aren’t even measuring the same thing.

                    • maninthemiddle

                      “Now you freely admit, that construction value is just as bad, if not worse, than consents for measuring housing activity, after previously suggesting it was a superior measure.”

                      Where did I admit that? You’re just making stuff up to get the last word. Both measures have value, just at different levels. Consents are not houses. There are lags, as much as 2 years in some cases. Construction value measures REAL buildings.

    • adam 1.4

      Can I have the name of the drugs you are smoking maninthemiddle, they seem to make the world a better place, and have the wonderful side effect of believing any old clap trap. It seems another side effect is forgetting about the Global economic melt down in you analysis. Do they make you pee blue as well???

      • maninthemiddle 1.4.1

        Not forgetting anything. Te world’s economy wasn’t ‘melting down’ between 2004 and 2007, in fact we were enjoying extremely favourable terms of trade.

    • left_forward 1.5

      1) Nonsense.
      2) Yeah consents to build houses!
      3) No, just look at the graph middle man – they plummeted after 2008 and have slowly crept back (still not to pre-plummet levels) over the 8 year period of the gnats.

  2. dukeofurl 2

    “an all-time record of 36,000 homes being built in Auckland, which would be the largest in any Parliamentary term.”

    Doesnt that contradict the other story that Auckland Council is the one ‘slowing the building of houses with its silly regulations’

    Anything to contradict Hickey though. Even if its not true

    • maninthemiddle 2.1

      “Doesnt that contradict the other story that Auckland Council is the one ‘slowing the building of houses with its silly regulations’”
      No. Auckland’s planning regime is shot, but it shows what can happen when the government kicks ass.

      • Stuart Munro 2.1.1

        The ass is still ‘leading’ this government – his colleagues are gonna kick him? Not before time.

        • maninthemiddle 2.1.1.1

          No, it’s his government kicking ass. Auckland Councils. And our dopey left wing mayor.

          • Stuart Munro 2.1.1.1.1

            Kicking ass eh.

            Negligible real growth except in bullshit.

            Dumbest, most backward government ever. Made to measure for morons like you.

            • maninthemiddle 2.1.1.1.1.1

              We have one of the best performing economies in the OECD. You don’t like it becasue they aren’t leftist. Suck it up.

              • DoublePlusGood

                Really? With $120bn + in debt?

                • maninthemiddle

                  Yep. By most measures we’re well off.

                  • Stuart Munro

                    Only because Stats are queering the numbers. We’re a paper tiger economy.

                    • maninthemiddle

                      Tin foil hat territory again Stuart.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      Hey – I’ve been out in the real world.

                      The buying power of the $NZ is nothing compared to supposedly much weaker currencies. Our real economy is shot – it’s a paper miracle.

                      You think kiwis want to leave their friends to be in Australia? They’re fleeing our munted economy for the most part.

                      Do the math on tangibles and leave out creative fictions like job ads and there has been no growth.

                      Now, you’re a shill and you don’t understand concepts like gravitas and data integrity. You’re a minority on here though.

                      If you want to improve a system you must look for feedback. Feedback, like the oil light in your car, usually tells you things you didn’t want to know. Fudging the stats is like taping over the oil light – it costs you a whole lot more, and pretty soon too.

                    • maninthemiddle

                      “Our real economy is shot – it’s a paper miracle.”
                      No, our economy is thriving on the back of growth across a number of economic sectors. You really need to get out more.

                      “You think kiwis want to leave their friends to be in Australia? They’re fleeing our munted economy for the most part.”
                      Rubbish! You are now denying the reality of hard data.

              • Macro

                “We have one of the best performing economies in the OECD”

                For whom?

                http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11650103
                http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/80719962/One-in-100-Kiwis-homeless-new-study-shows-numbers-quickly-rising.

                Answer me just this question:

                “what is the economy for?”

                • ropata

                  overall GDP is up thanks to record immigration and housing speculation and money laundering. the real economy is stalling.

                  woohoo

                  • maninthemiddle

                    Nope. The real economy (tourism, tech, etc etc) is doing just fine.

                    • Macro

                      Can you please answer the question:

                      “what is the economy for?”

                      Or have you no answer?

                    • maninthemiddle

                      ““what is the economy for?””

                      To provide goods and services to consumers. To provide people with the means to procure those goods and services.

                    • Macro

                      “To provide goods and services to consumers. To provide people with the means to procure those goods and services.”

                      Is that it??

                      Only consumers get to share in the economy?

                      So how is the economy performing iaw your definition?
                      50,000 unable to live in a home.
                      300,000 living without the means to procure sufficient goods and services for a decent life.
                      the demand for food parcels doubling
                      more and more people coming to soup kitchens

                      So how is our economy performing with regards to providing the means to procure those goods and services?
                      131,000 unemployed
                      even more under-employed
                      a job seeker benefit if you’re lucky, married with children, and can jump through all the hoops of $375 per week nett maximum.

                      And you have the audacity to suggest that our economy is alive and well!!

                      By the way I think you definition of “what the economy is for”, is severely lacking. Perhaps you might have another little think about that – and its not all about consumers.

                    • maninthemiddle

                      “Only consumers get to share in the economy?”
                      Every human being is a consumer.

                      “So how is the economy performing iaw your definition?”
                      Very well. No-one starves in this country. There is employment for everyone who wants to work. We have income redistribution that ensures a safety net for those who need it. We deliver a first world infrastructure to support our communities.

                      “By the way I think you definition of “what the economy is for”, is severely lacking. Perhaps you might have another little think about that – and its not all about consumers.”
                      That’s probably becasue you have demonstrated you don’t understand basic economic terms. A ‘Consumer’ is a person who uses economic services or commodities. Every human being is a consumer.

                • maninthemiddle

                  That means the economy is housing 99/100 kiwi’s. We have high employment (with virtually zero real unemployment), low interest rates, low inflation, a budget surplus and low debt.

                  • DoublePlusGood

                    Why isn’t the economy housing all kiwis? We have the resources. Answer: the government chooses to fail in this area.

                    Also, please note that we have high unemployment and high real unemployment, i.e. the direct opposite of what you state.
                    We are also $120 bn+ in debt last I checked, thrice that of when National took office. That is not low debt, it is high debt.

                    And we have low interest rates and low inflation because the economy is moribund with nothing much causing any growth.

                    Next time you decide to post something, do try to get your facts straight first. Sharpen up.

                    • maninthemiddle

                      The government doesn’t house everyone. Never has.

                      The reason we have low inflation and low interest rates is becasue the economy is well managed. Under Labour we had high interest rates, high inflation, plummeting growth and a huge deficit. Go figure!

                      Our debt is low by international standards, because governments borrowed through the GFC. Tell me which government spending you would have cut to avoid the debt? Health? Education? Welfare?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Bad faith commenter lies, pretends expertise in multiple subjects with a large side order of hatred.

                  • Lanthanide

                    Yes, we are housing 99/100 kiwis. But I think we should aspire to more than simply “housing” people.

                    Because with your simplistic stat, people living 10 to a garage without running water are still “housed”. So are people living in broken houses in Christchurch, or those living in literally rotting and moulding rentals.

                    “low interest rates”
                    Interest rates are low because the economy is not doing well overall.

                    “low debt”
                    This government has taken us from a net-0 debt position, to the largest government debt in the history of this country. The debt will NEVER be paid back, in real terms, and will hang as a millstone around this country’s neck forever.

                    “Under Labour we had … a huge deficit. Go figure!”
                    Actually Labour ran surpluses for 9 years of the 9 years they were in government.

                    • maninthemiddle

                      “Because with your simplistic stat, people living 10 to a garage without running water are still “housed”.”

                      I’m not aware of anyone living in that situation. NZ has never housed 100% of it’s citizens. When my parents first got married (late 1950’s) they lived for 2 years in a hut on my grandfathers section in New Lynn.

                      “Interest rates are low because the economy is not doing well overall.”
                      More economic illiteracy.

                      “This government has taken us from a net-0 debt position, to the largest government debt in the history of this country.”
                      Where do you get this shit. “We are up to our nostrils in debt to the rest of the world at a time when creditors globally have become a lot less indulgent. And now the Crown accounts have turned red too.” http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10536181

                      “Actually Labour ran surpluses for 9 years of the 9 years they were in government.”
                      Actually no. The deficit they left behind for 2008/09 was around 3bn.

              • dukeofurl

                have you looked at those ‘best in OECD’ numbers as per capita as well ?

                last time I checked back in 2013 we were still at 2008 levels.

                But the World Bank has some numbers . For 2015 GDP per capita growth was at 1.46%
                In 2007 it was 1.97%
                http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locations=NZ

                • maninthemiddle

                  So? The population is growing because we have high net migration. We have high net migration because the NZ economy is doing well.

              • Stuart Munro

                I don’t like it because they have an inverted Midas touch – everything they do turns to poo.

                You imagine because they make rightwing noises they’re good economically – the facts do not bear this out.

                Were they as good as their massaged stats they wouldn’t be borrowing money or pursuing austerity policies.

                • maninthemiddle

                  The facts ABSOLUTELY bear that out. National inherited an economy going into recession, internal accounts in deficit, and huge spending committments. We now have an economy that is the envy of the western world.

                  • Stuart Munro

                    National inherited an economy with $8 billion in debt that in a good year produced a surplus of $2 billion. They instituted tax cuts that have cost us $120 billion – Sixty years of Cullen to pay off English’s incompetence to date.

                    National make Brazil look stable, Greece solvent and Mugabe normal. Kleptocracies are never good for their people and Key’s is no exception.

                    • maninthemiddle

                      National inherited an economy that enjoyed the best terms of trade in a generation that labour had STILL managed to balls up. You’ll find plenty of literature praising the governments economic management. Your jealous of their success.

                    • Wayne

                      Stuart,
                      You need to return to planet earth.
                      KDS fever has taken hold. Unfortunately treatment is a year away in the form of an election. I would blame Pharmac for this disgraceful delay.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Insults and Stalinist rhetoric from Dr. Mapp. Getting a bit personal, aren’t we?

                    • Wayne []

                      Funnily enough I am not unduly concerned about the prospect of sitting in prison listening to the tumbrels. Perhaps because New Zealand is not Zimbabwe.

                    • Wayne []

                      A bit of an odd complaint coming from you, given the abuse I normally get from your quarter.
                      It also must be the first time that I have been in the same frame as Stalin.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      Wayne – the only derangement is yours and your colleagues.

                      This lazy, dishonest and unthrifty government has not grown the economy – it has inflated it with migrant capital without growing the productive sectors at all. This has impacted severely on poorer New Zealanders whose livelihoods have been significantly eroded and who are thus righteously angry with their worthless and dishonest government.

                      The scale of the spectacular kleptocracy of doing Alan Hubbard to death so you could steal his assets is unprecedented since the land wars, and the deliberate sabotage of Solid Energy was not a bit more honest. When you sit in prison listening to the tumbrels Wayne, coming to take you to your accounting, remember what you did and why you have it coming.

                    • Lanthanide

                      Stuart, the tax cuts did not cost $120B.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      And I should accept this assertion why?

                      These buffoons have plunged us deeply into debt without growing the economy. They have been massively irresponsible and consistently dishonest.

                      And, frankly, what does it matter whether it was the tax cut, or sustained gross incompetence? The same gibbering idiots are to blame – our lazy treacherous lying corrupt Gnat kleptocracy.

                    • Lanthanide

                      “And I should accept this assertion why?”

                      Because the alternative is that without the tax cut, the government somehow would have had $120B in extra revenue. Which is a fantastical claim to make.

                      “And, frankly, what does it matter whether it was the tax cut, or sustained gross incompetence?”

                      What matters is if you want others to take you seriously. Saying crazy things just makes you look crazy.

                      If you don’t care what other people think about you, or don’t care if other people don’t take the time to debate you, then I guess keep on saying crazy stuff.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      If you want me to follow your reasoning, L, you must have a plausible explanation for phenomena without using bent data.

                      There is a lot of visible incompetence and overt corruption under the Gnats – and very little governance.

                      There are indeed global conditions contributing to their lacklustre performance – global conditions that a ‘kickass government’ would rise to meet.

                      A ‘lickass government’ however only produces excuses.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      Stuart its absolutely clear from the GDP data. Go and look at the govts tax take, this plunged at the time of the recession and has not recovered. It didn’t plunge at the time of the tax cuts (which were also too small to cause such a large deficit). Ergo the deficit was caused by the recession not tax cuts.

                      Of course the fact the country is running a deficit is and remains a non issue anyway. It causes basically no harm to the country anyway.

                      However if the govt wanted to reduce that they probably need to spend more or tax less (or both) and let the economic growth in turnover resulting from that to increase their tax take and reduce the relative deficit and debt this way.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      Thanks Nick, I tend to run on local impressions rather than GDP figures.

                      Let me suggest to to you that running austerity policies in the midst of a downturn may not be optimal.

                      Taxing less, according to Krugman, is the least effective of stimulatory measures – tax foregone goes into non-productive or rent-seeking sectors like finance or real estate that can even be negative for economies.

                      Government spending is a reliable stimulus – but the lower it goes into the economy the greater the effect. So social welfare is particularly effective, while industry support measures are frequently not measurably beneficial because they favour large enterprises and are rapidly sequestered into low churn investments.

                      As supposed economic rockstars, Gnats are supposed to know this shit well enough to produce positive results. I ain’t seeing any.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Nope, I’m not complaining, just noting the double standard. Stalin loved abusing Psychiatric terms too.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke

                      Nick the NZer, or they could do what Cullen did: raise taxes and increase government spending and guess what: that actually works, unlike the failed dogma you mentioned.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      Yes thats absolutely correct. Running austerity policies (which the govts surplus goal is driving) will not be a good idea for the forseeable future.

                      Tax cuts are not particularly stimulatory and if your income tax cuts are accompanied by a hike in sales tax may be a negative stimulus. But that implies they are not causing much of the deficit at the same time of course.

                      We need to demand that the govt runs an appropriate deficit presently and doesn’t run austerity policies which hurt the economy. This implies not calling for a surplus or cut in the deficit. The govts surplus or deficit is never a goal of govt policy or at least it shouldn’t be one.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      OAB, no that is incorrect. We know its incorrect (by accounting) by looking at something called Sectoral Balances (which you can look up). If the govt changed strategy and increased taxes and also increased spending with roughly the same deficit as the present government then the recovery (or course of the economy) would be very similar to what we see with a similarly sluggish recovery (visible in the unemployment rate). The unemployment rate remains high, years after the recession, due to total spending not having recovered to the levels prior to the recession (when the private sector was net spending significantly more), as is visible from GDP statistics.

                      This is because total spending in the economy determines employment and in both cases this is the same net spending balance is the same. The distributional balance of that spending is on the other hand trivial in comparison. The main difference being that the govt will end up becoming a larger share of the economy through following that strategy.

                      In terms of real world examples this is roughly the strategy followed by France, including raising taxes on the upper end of town (which captured some interest from the world media at the time). And if you look up the French unemployment rate you will observe that their ‘recovery’ has been worse than NZ and they now have a higher unemployment rate than any other time since the onset of the recession. This is because simply put, their deficit is not large enough to create a recovery in the unemployment rate in France.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      That’s interesting Nic – and I guess that’s the conventional wisdom – that France’s tax and spend cannot alter the stability for the better.

                      I think it might be an oversimplification however. My late friend Lee Kie-Hong explained that spending quality was vital, and when he began work (back when Korea was poorer than Somalia) every public spend was queued and prioritised to maximise yield.

                      I think we can tell from poor quality spending like flying sheep and the unnecessary Prime Ministerial use of airforce planes, misspending in Christchurch and outsourcing to dodgy entities like SERCO, that tight fiscal discipline is an austerity claim of dubious moral virtue rather than a taut monetary policy designed to circulate prosperity throughout the economy.

                      Given the low quality spend, tax and spend might not achieve much. Much would depend on the quality of the private spending of the tax foregone though, and in NZ that tends to end in real estate – so that even the bumbling ineptitude of the Dipton Dickstick is, counterintuitively, likely to produce a better stimulatory spend.

                    • Nic the NZer

                      Actually its virtually the anti-thesis of the conventional wisdom. It does however appear to be functional in practice so can be considered useful. I take the following quote from Richard Koo, from here
                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_balances

                      Economist Richard Koo described similar effects for several of the developed world economies in December 2011: “Today private sectors in the U.S., the U.K., Spain, and Ireland (but not Greece) are undergoing massive deleveraging [paying down debt rather than spending] in spite of record low interest rates. This means these countries are all in serious balance sheet recessions. The private sectors in Japan and Germany are not borrowing, either. With borrowers disappearing and banks reluctant to lend, it is no wonder that, after nearly three years of record low interest rates and massive liquidity injections, industrial economies are still doing so poorly. Flow of funds data for the U.S. show a massive shift away from borrowing to savings by the private sector since the housing bubble burst in 2007. The shift for the private sector as a whole represents over 9 percent of U.S. GDP at a time of zero interest rates. Moreover, this increase in private sector savings exceeds the increase in government borrowings (5.8 percent of GDP), which suggests that the government is not doing enough to offset private sector deleveraging.”

                      So what would we expect to observe given that total spending has shrunk since 2007? That would be a higher unemployment rate. Is the US unemployment rate higher in 2011 than 2007? Yes it is.

                      We can look at this pattern in virtually any economy (though you may struggle to get reliable statistics for China) and will find that yes, total spending drives total employment first and foremost in practice. Can we say something useful based on the ‘quality’ of spending? Not that I can see.

                      My case for France is nothing to do with ‘stability’ its simply that total spending is deficient, including a limited govt deficit, and therefore unemployment has risen since the recession. On the other hand they have maintained a large component of government spending in their economy and a minimal deficit by significant taxation esp at the top end. Has this mitigated their economy against increased unemployment (presumably due to the increased ‘quality’ of turnover in the French economy)? No, that theory does not appear to work in practice.

                    • Stuart Munro

                      It’s tricky quality – probably runs in bands.

                      Korea’s first highway infrastructure spends probably had very high quality – wages direct to many labourers (paid partially in unfinished cloth to stimulate local industry) – significant change in ease of transport and so on.

                      Contemporary highways or the recent canal project are much more marginal. Construction employs more equipment and less people. So contemporary governments struggle to replicate early stimulus successes.

                      The problem with the assertion that quality is irrelevant though, is that it is self-fulfilling. Ill-judged spending will not produce exceptional results. Yet Somalia remains poor – Korea bootstrapped.

                      I’ll have to see if I can find some more contemporary papers.

                    • reason

                      http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/search?q=mapp%2Bwar

                      Wayne Mapp a known [deleted] and warmonger walks into a thread and squawks out an idiotic non existent condition as a childish ‘your mental’ insult .,…

                      He does this in solidarity with a village idiot troll who is hectoring this site ……………

                      Wayne would need an extra large pair of white disco pants over his large flabby arse if he took on the john keys 100% pure river water drinking challenge….

                      Bovine quantities from wide boy wayne would be my bet …………………. he’d be shitting like a deranged cow ….. national style.


                      [Deleted an unproven allegation which is really just pointless abuse. Not sure whether the alleged flabby arse falls into the same category. Only Wayne knows for sure 😉 TRP]

      • dukeofurl 2.1.2

        Tell us how many of the SHA which have been consented, have even had a building consent application?

        Thats right the greedy developers were land banking and the government was too scared to kick ass, after first saying they would lose their consent it then did nothing.

        • maninthemiddle 2.1.2.1

          Ah no. The developers still have to follow the rules. We’re talking tens of thousands of houses being built. That’s kicking ass!!

          “Mayor Len Brown said the progress of the Special Housing Area Accord was ahead of targets.

          “Forty-four per cent of the consents issued over the last 12 months are for multi-level developments. So we see that the amount of choice in build and also affordable houses in those multi-level developments is picking up,” he said.

          Brown said land supply levels was about six and a half years of expectations.

          “So, we’re not only building at a pace significantly greater than we’ve seen in previous years, we’ve also got land supply at a significant level and in-line for population growth.””

          http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11618399

  3. framu 3

    is this going to be another exercise in thread domination?

    • gsays 3.1

      Was thinking the something,framu.
      I spose if a tory troll is occupied at a blog, they aren’t lobbying their council to get the local library closed.

  4. Psych nurse 4

    How does the period following the Christchurch earthquake with massive rebuilding relate to the lowest consents issued in over 50 years. There can have been no activity in the rest of the country.

  5. Doogs 5

    Don’t know about thread domination. More like thread emasculation.

    Why is every one into the finger pointing ‘did . . . didn’t’ stuff.

    Look, I respect commenters who produce actual data not silly statistics, and who offer possible solutions – debate at a higher level, you know?

    As for the ogres and trolls . . . well, I suppose it could be more satisfying than mindless onanism.

  6. UncookedSelachimorpha 6

    Bernard’s chart and rationale makes sense to me.

    What was happening pre-1977 that produced such high new dwelling consent rates?

    No surprise that the timing indicates neoliberalism can’t take any of the credit – quite the opposite.

    • dukeofurl 6.1

      Pre 1977 there was much more assistance for new home buyers, as well the state was heavily involved in both land subdivision and home building.

    • Lanthanide 6.2

      It’s also around the time the baby-boomers were settling down and starting families, or for the early wave, moving on to their 2nd house.

    • ropata 6.3

      Less formality around builder qualifications, but more actual skilled tradies around, less stringent standards, more availability of land, higher proportion of state housing having a calming effect on the market, better wages in real terms, and better overall AFFORDABILITY.

      • Lanthanide 6.3.1

        Also less technical and varied work. Houses these days have many more materials used in them, as well as higher performance requirements than those in the past.

    • UncookedSelachimorpha 6.4

      Those are all good observations.

      How much have land prices (not house prices) played a role? Even though build costs are high, I get the impression that it is really land prices that are out-of-whack now.

  7. reason 7

    my apologies to TRP and I was basing my redacted opinion on Wayne Mapp on his role in the Brash Iwi/Kiwi election campaign that was designed to provoke New Zealands latent racism and not based on fact or truth . http://www.nickyhager.info/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/untitled10-1024×412.jpg

    ” The Iwi/Kiwi billboards encouraged ‘non-Maori’ to feel separate and threatened by Maori who wanted to take away their beaches, even though there was never a real risk of this. (In fact, the Labour Government was in a political fight WITH Maori, not somehow on the Maori side against the Kiwis.)” http://www.nickyhager.info/propaganda-then-and-now-notes-of-a-lecture-at-auckland-museum-on-wednesday-2-may-2007/

    Also

    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2006/01/one-language-for-all.html

    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2005/10/mapp-vs-waitangi-tribunal.html

    ” he provided the following example of a “politically correct” body in need of eradication:

    [The] Waitangi Tribunal would be another good example. There’s a mixture of remaking our history …”

    NoRightTurn writes :”I should also point out that historical claims are verified by an exhaustive process of historical research by both the crown and claimants (this is one reason the process takes so long – there aren’t enough historians); it is not the Tribunal which is “remaking our history”, but historians”….

    http://norightturn.blogspot.co.nz/2005/10/neither-consistent-nor-liberal.html

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

  • Growth in Police deployments
    The first Police graduation for 2019 creates a new total of 1,101 frontline officers deployed around the country since the Coalition Government took office. Police Minister Stuart Nash today presented awards to the top recruits of Wing 322, whose Patron ...
    4 days ago
  • Andrew Little to lead delegation to UN Human Rights Review
    Justice Minister, Andrew Little, lead a delegation to New Zealand’s third Universal Periodic Review at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva on 21 January. ...
    5 days ago