Daily Review 04/05/2017

Written By: - Date published: 5:30 pm, May 4th, 2017 - 40 comments
Categories: Daily review - Tags:

Daily review is also your post.

This provides Standardistas the opportunity to review events of the day.

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

Don’t forget to be kind to each other …

40 comments on “Daily Review 04/05/2017 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  2. Bill 2
    4 May 2017 at 6:46 pm

    So anyone up for a sweepstake on which date prior to the 8th of June we’ll be being told of a chemical attack by “the Syrian regime” against “rebels”?

    I’m picking somewhere in the last week of May.

  3. mickysavage 3
    4 May 2017 at 6:49 pm

    What is up in the UK? Is Lizzie going to declare a republic?

  4. gsays 4
    4 May 2017 at 7:10 pm

    Good sized, enthusiastic crowd, listening to Andrew Little speak in palmy this evening.

    If you are from overseas and want to own a house, you must build a new one, coming after the property speculators, too.

    Education, mental health, health, and under-engaged youth were also talked about.

    • The Chairman 4.1
      5 May 2017 at 6:38 am

      “If you are from overseas and want to own a house, you must build a new one…”

      It seems Labour don’t plan to fix the flaw in that policy.

      The policy will shift offshore demand from housing to land. Resulting in driving up the cost of land, thus adding to the overall cost of housing.

      Moreover, it will also add more demand on our already stretched construction sector, driving up the cost of building and building supply costs. Further adding to the cost of housing.

      • McFlock 4.1.1
        5 May 2017 at 8:17 pm

        It’ll also lower the cost of already-built housing as well as forcing speculators to shoulder the costs of freeing up that land for development, no?

        • The Chairman 4.1.1.1
          5 May 2017 at 9:26 pm

          When land prices increase it adds to the overall value of the homes that sit upon it. Therefore, as long as demand remains stronger than supply, the answer to your question is no.

          Speculators factor in, thus pass on the cost of their developments.

          • McFlock 4.1.1.1.1
            5 May 2017 at 9:39 pm

            The point being that they’re new developments that the speculator would otherwise not have built. If they didn’t build then they’d be increasing demand on homes without increasing supply.

            And they can’t just pass on costs because people will just go elsewhere – price is set by buyer and seller, not just seller. So if they won’t get enough return after development costs, they can just fuck off without increasing demand on existing houses.

            Basically, what the Labour policy does is lower the impact overseas buyers have on the existing housing supply. How is this a problem?

            • The Chairman 4.1.1.1.1.1
              5 May 2017 at 10:18 pm

              Yes, new offshore owned developments adding to local demand pressures.

              The problem is, it’s effectively forcing a shift in foreign demand, while a number of voters wanted an end to it. Which could be achieved by a hefty tax deterrent on offshore buyers, thus making it infeasible to buy land or houses.

              As for speculators passing on costs, not only do they pass costs on, they also profit from the resale. They wouldn’t last long in the business if they didn’t. Vendors set the reserve price at auctions and vendors tend to seek more in a sellers market.

              • McFlock …
                5 May 2017 at 10:26 pm

                Okay, let’s make it simple: 100 houses, 100 buyers, 100 vacant lots that would cost a bit more to develop and therefore lower profit
                2 buyers are overseas buyers.
                Now: 100% occupancy, prices rise

                Labour policy: 102 houses and 100 buyers, 98% occupancy, prices rise less than without Labour’s policy. Alternatively, 98 buyers for 100 houses. Same result.

                How is this a problem?

                • The Chairman …
                  5 May 2017 at 10:45 pm

                  The first problem is your equations overlook it’s largely a sellers market, thus demand is exceeding supply.

                  And instead of reducing that demand, Labour’s policy is merely shifting it. Defeating the objective (as highlighted above, 4.1).

                  • McFlock …
                    5 May 2017 at 10:55 pm

                    It’s not defeating the purpose if it lowers the competition for current housing stock.

                    It increases the number of people seeking to build new houses. Yes, land prices increase, but the added value is the new house. So the housing stock expands, and resident NZers have less competition for houses that currently exist.

                    • The Chairman …
                      5 May 2017 at 11:48 pm

                      “It’s not defeating the purpose if it lowers the competition for current housing stock.”

                      It is when at the same time it’s merely shifting demand (not ceasing it) thus resulting in increasing house prices (as explained above) . Labour’s objective is to slowdown the rate of house price increases.

                      While Labour’s policy reduces offshore housing demand and adds to the housing stock, it also adds to local land demand. Therefore, the higher demand for land counters the benefit of expanding the housing stock And as land prices are further driven up, so to will house prices. At the current rate of demand, it would take years before the impact of increasing the housing stock had an effect.

                      Moreover, every dollar of profit an offshore owner makes on a resale or from rent is an extra dollar potentially heading out of our economy and offshore. We have enough local speculators, hence we don’t currently need to encourage more from offshore.

                      We need to correct this ASAP. Therefore, a hefty tax deterrent on offshore investors would have an instant result, thus is more fit for purpose.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 May 2017 at 7:04 pm

                      An offshore tax might be something to consider, but it’s a separate issue.

                      Increasing demand for land for housing is offset by more land being freed up because housing is now more attractive in some instances than say grazing.

                      But even then, resident NZers face less competition for existing housing stock. Any increase is shifted onto overseas buyers to shoulder.

                      As for the impact on housing stock, it is one policy that hits the problem from one angle. Patience is a virtue.

                    • The Chairman …
                      6 May 2017 at 9:18 pm

                      A tax on offshore investors making it infeasible to buy land or houses meets the objective. And does so far more efficiently.
                      Not only will resident NZers face less competition for existing housing stock, they’ll also face less competition for land to build upon.

                      Land supply is somewhat limited. Moreover, with high immigration there’s enough local demand driving prices up to a premium to make freeing up land look more attractive. Hence, adding to local demand pressures that are already overheated is not the solution for slowing down price increases.

                      Additionally, freeing up more land for offshore investors robs locals of the opportunity and the local economy of funding as returns potentially head offshore. As it stands, high immigration coupled with offshore and local speculation have already resulted in pricing a number of locals out of the market. Hence we need fast acting policy such as a hefty tax on offshore investors that will correct this ASAP.

                    • McFlock …
                      6 May 2017 at 9:31 pm

                      Ok, this is a market-based policy. By increasing demand for land to be freed up, that motivates people who own land to move it into housing development.

                      It doesn’t “robs locals of the opportunity and the local economy of funding”. The land wouldn’t have been freed up without the increased demand.

                      The tax policy is fine for discussion. But that would work alongside the current policy, it’s not an either/or.

    • The Chairman 4.2
      5 May 2017 at 9:09 am

      Did anybody in that good sized, enthusiastic crowd pull Little up on the flaw (see my post at 4.1) in that policy?

  5. joe90 5
    4 May 2017 at 8:40 pm

    I’m liking their pain.

    But let’s just forget the whys and what fors for the moment. Forget context. Forget about reasoning and process. Lose yourself in the moment: lean back, mentally check out, and enjoy the bizarre beauty of a New Zealand court—judge, lawyers, witnesses—having to listen to “Lose Yourself” by Eminem in full, in silence, with absolute earnestness.

    It’s a masterpiece. Put it in the Tate Modern.

    https://noisey.vice.com/en_au/article/ah-the-beauty-of-a-new-zealand-court-listening-to-lose-yourself-in-silence

    • The decrypter 5.1
      4 May 2017 at 9:00 pm

      Joe.,lol.– No work in that lot, pretty hopeless. Not one of them would pass a drug test. Sitting around listening to music all day while the tax payer foots the Bill.

  6. adam 6
    4 May 2017 at 8:40 pm

    Wow this is really not helpful

    http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/03/politics/air-force-test-icbm/

    So what that, four missile tests in under a month, and two in a week?

    How that going to work out for us?

    Playing chicken with a nutter, can not see that working out real well.

  7. joe90 7
    4 May 2017 at 9:10 pm

    Phil the Greek’s pulling the pin.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C–JtUkXoAAvQS1.jpg

  8. PMC 8
    5 May 2017 at 12:04 am

    A heck of a lot of support for NZ reciprocating around Australia’s decimation of the so-called special relationship:

    http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/92242934/gerry-brownlees-aussie-trip-nothing-but-a-fizzer

    I hope Little and Labour take note and accept that NZ/Aussie relations have changed. If Oz is going to treat us the same as other nations then we need to do the same to Oz.

    • McFlock 8.1
      5 May 2017 at 12:27 am

      But we won’t be doing the same to oz.

      We’ll be doing to our neighbours across the road what the Aussie govt is doing to our (often distant) relatives.

    • The Weatherman 8.2
      5 May 2017 at 11:16 am

      It’s shocking really, the way the Australians treat New Zealanders like criminals when the founder of an Australian political party so big on “user-pays” is sending sexual communications to little girls and taking smack on holidays to SEA.