If home is where the heart is, then…

Written By: - Date published: 11:32 am, January 4th, 2017 - 188 comments
Categories: class war, discrimination, poverty - Tags: ,

The social context is the same but the raw numbers for New Zealand are different – significantly higher and from a much lower population base than the England Jonathan Pie is referring to in the video below. As for homeless services in NZ…someone else is going to have to provide that info, because as far as my thinking goes, there isn’t really anything. A reliance on the philanthropy of various marae doesn’t cut the mustard and surely, cannot be acceptable.

Anyway.  Jonathan Pie, from half way around the world, and presumably with little or no knowledge of New Zealand, drives a number of points home better than I ever could. And that’s the thing with this liberal programme of globalisation that we’re all meant to support and treat as ‘natural’- the results are the same everywhere. There are no exceptions or anomalies; just woeful failures in terms of basic human decency – a promotion of heartlessness.

Let’s end it.

188 comments on “If home is where the heart is, then… ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. One Anonymous Bloke 1
    4 January 2017 at 12:19 pm

    The National Party’s responses to this run the entire gamut between denial and outright hate speech. They are most comfortable talking about “poor choices” and blowing dog whistles.

    When they are thrown out, they and their proxies will heap bitterness and scorn on anyone who enacts policies to address the problem.

    They are the problem.

    • Pete George 1.1
      4 January 2017 at 12:57 pm

      They are the problem – but better than any of the other problems available.

      • millsy 1.1.1
        4 January 2017 at 1:18 pm

        And what other problem are they. If we had other problems, everyone would have a roof over their head.

        • wellfedweta 1.1.1.1
          4 January 2017 at 1:38 pm

          Really?

          https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/research-papers/document/00PLEcoRP14021/homelessness-in-new-zealand

          “In 1864 the Otago Daily Times reported that Dunedin and Auckland had ‘filthy back slums’, by 1903 Auckland’s Chief District Health Officer was still reporting that the city contained ‘ruinous and insanitary houses’.

          A 1936 national survey found nearly a third of the total urban housing stock was unsatisfactory and 15% of this only fit for demolition.

          During the 1950s, the National Government moved to reduce the waiting list for state housing and promoted home ownership, but lengthy waits for some people were reported. Likewise, concern was expressed over severe overcrowding, especially among Māori.

          In the 1960s voluntary organisations recorded a gradual increase in some groups experiencing housing difficulties. The Christchurch Methodist Church night shelter found that their main users were employed people who could not afford other accommodation, unmarried women with children, and those leaving homes because of domestic violence also increasingly sought shelter.

          In 1975, the Housing Corporation referred to the ‘serious effects’ of a housing shortage with ‘many situations of overcrowding’, and a 1979 pilot survey of Auckland found that numerous people did not have access to adequate housing. [11] Surveys conducted in the early 1980s concluded there was a ‘housing crisis’ in Christchurch, and in Auckland homelessness also appeared to be a ‘significant problem’. [12] A 1988 report by the National Housing Commission estimated at least 20,000 households had a serious housing need.

          There was publicity and discussion over homelessness during the early 2000s, and a 2007 report on homelessness for the Methodist Mission said that increasing attention from media and local government over the past few years suggested growing concern about homelessness.”

          Homelessness is a historic problem in NZ, as it is across the planet, a problem that has been around a long time across governments of all stripes.

          • WILD KATIPO 1.1.1.1.1
            4 January 2017 at 2:38 pm

            You can quote all the statistics you like , you can blather on about how everyone else is doing it so why should we be different , – but that doesn’t change the fact that homelessness and poverty such as we now see are on a par with the great depression era in this country . That in itself demonstrates your lies and aggrandizement of the failed Key era National led govt and its more than failed Finance minister Bill English.

            Do you like slums? Do you like seeing people sleeping rough on the streets ? Do you like seeing family’s sleeping in cars working jobs and not being able to afford the rent? Do you like small children dying in moldy , damp , cold state houses through poverty and preventable illness? Do you like seeing massive queues lining up for food parcels at Christmas ? Do you like seeing exploited immigrant labour undercutting the already miserably low wages in this country?

            Go on , go ahead – quote a few more of your bent , twisted statistics to justify your grotesque neo liberal viciousness.

            You and your Key sycophancy with his ‘ brighter future ‘ hypocrisy .

            You make us all sick to the stomach.

            • Pete George 1.1.1.1.1.1
              4 January 2017 at 3:39 pm

              “but that doesn’t change the fact that homelessness and poverty such as we now see are on a par with the great depression era in this country”

              How do the unemployment and homelessness rates compare between the Great Depression and now?

              Does anything now compare to what people did to try to earn a living in the 1930s?

              “The tunnel and the associated Milford Road were built by relief workers during the Depression. The men had to live in tents in a mountainous area where there might be no direct sunlight for half of the year.”

              • millsy …
                4 January 2017 at 3:55 pm

                Sounds like you find homelessess acceptable in this country, because it means you have huge tax cuts and high rental income.

                Which is fine I guess, but it would be nice if you had the guts to admit it.

                • Pete George …
                  4 January 2017 at 6:22 pm

                  Sounds like you’re making crap up.

                  Exaggerating the current situation, either deliberately or through ignorance of history, doesn’t help anything. It’s easy to ignore extravagant claims. Making a case based on reality and facts has more impact.

                  • WILD KATIPO …
                    4 January 2017 at 6:25 pm

                    What skewed facts are you referring to ?

                    What … Weka’s ?

                  • wellfedweta …
                    4 January 2017 at 6:56 pm

                    “Making a case based on reality and facts has more impact.”

                    Most here seem incapable of doing that. And tat is the great tragedy, because amongst the noise there are people genuinely in need, whose voices are never heard because of the foolishness of the left in general on this issue. They need to own that.

              • WILD KATIPO …
                4 January 2017 at 6:23 pm

                @ Sycophant George

                Mate – we already HAVE people living in bloody tents !!!

                WHOLE bloody family’s of em !!!

                And cars , and caravans, and under bridges , and in garages , and on the streets !!! Are you blind ? Do you read what the Salvation Army and other social agencies have been saying ? Do you ???? !!!

                Open your damn eyes !!!

                And don’t you worry about workers living in tents to complete a govt project , either – we’ve had successive neo liberal govts trying to bring that shit back in and push that bullshit as well – multiple times.

                • Pete George …
                  4 January 2017 at 6:38 pm

                  I know that quite a lot of people have extreme problems with housing. More has to be done to address that.

                  But making silly comparisons and abusing anyone who doesn’t fit your fanaticism won’t do anything to help anyone.

                  • WILD KATIPO …
                    4 January 2017 at 7:19 pm

                    Abuse?… you say abuse ? !!?

                    You are trying to convince us all that a coroners report into the preventable death of a small child that clearly states that it was because of the direct results of a political party’s housing policy’s is not abuse?

                    You extreme right wing neo liberals really take the cake !!!

                    Thing is… no one believes your bullshit crap anymore – and btw – Keys gone and doesn’t give a flying fuck about you rear guard idiots there to fend off Nationals detractors.

                    You are little more than useless tools that nobody even awards credibility towards… here you are only good for a long piss in the pants laugh.

                    Seriously… that’s actually the truth.

                    You sound like pompous , blowhard , out of touch resurrections of supporters of Mary Antoinette – equally as daft – and equally as braindead , flippant and unqualified to lead as she was.

            • wellfedweta 1.1.1.1.1.2
              4 January 2017 at 6:54 pm

              “but that doesn’t change the fact that homelessness and poverty such as we now see are on a par with the great depression era in this country . ”

              Utter nonsense. If your going to try to make a point, at least get your facts right.

              • WILD KATIPO …
                4 January 2017 at 7:07 pm

                The facts are right , moron.

                Go have a talk with all the social agencies saying the same .

                Perhaps instead of dredging up a smattering of selected historical stories to justify your vicious neo liberal bent you address what is happening right NOW in this country and stop trying to spread your bogus bullshit selective historical narrative.

                Any A – hole can cherry pick stories to make their own twisted bullshit bias sound credible.

                Just like you have.

                • wellfedweta …
                  4 January 2017 at 7:16 pm

                  So you get your ‘facts’ from social agencies who are taking government money? You made a claim…post some actual data to support it.

                  • WILD KATIPO …
                    4 January 2017 at 7:30 pm

                    Why?….

                    For the past year the amount of articles in the media in this country on the subject is truly staggering – and for most of 2016 its been almost a daily event even in the MSM .

                    Whats the problem ?

                    Are you blind ?

                    – Or just too damn lazy to research it yourself or perhaps too damn dishonest to admit there are serious issues in this country directly attributable to this National govts wanker neo liberal policy’s.

                    Somehow I think your evasive maneuvering has just entrapped yourself.

                    So which is it?

                    !) Blind ( deliberately )

                    2) Lazy

                    3) Dishonest

                    I’m not here to bloody hold your hand – you made a statement – you back it up. The evidence is there all through the media for 2016 . The onus is now on YOU to back your statements up.

                    And I’m warning you now… you risk looking even more the fool than you already are if you start trying to claim you are more informed than bodies such as the Salvation Army , City Mission and other agencies and social services.

                    You better do you homework reaaaaal well , son.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      4 January 2017 at 7:37 pm

                      You claimed the following:

                      “but that doesn’t change the fact that homelessness and poverty such as we now see are on a par with the great depression era in this country . ”

                      I have asked, politely, for you to support that claim. So far all you have done is rant.

                    • WILD KATIPO …
                      4 January 2017 at 7:59 pm

                      “but that doesn’t change the fact that homelessness and poverty such as we now see are on a par with the great depression era in this country . ”

                      I have asked, politely, for you to support that claim. So far all you have done is rant. ”

                      L0L ! – you really are more of an A – hole than I originally took you for.

                      Dredges up a bunch of loosely knit historical examples to justify the current govt’s incompetence and avarice… and then when the penny drops ( or doesn’t in Wekas case ) that I just quoted a historical example to counter his/ hers… gets all rancid and because it undermines his/her line of reasoning…

                      Go talk to a few family’s living in TENT’S , in CARS , in GARAGES , under BRIDGES , in CARAVANS , in DILAPIDATED state houses .

                      IDIOT.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      4 January 2017 at 8:36 pm

                      “Go talk to a few family’s living in TENT’S , in CARS , in GARAGES , under BRIDGES , in CARAVANS , in DILAPIDATED state houses .”

                      I do. I encounter them as part of what I do to help. What I don’t do is go on a blog and make claims I cannot substantiate.

                      “but that doesn’t change the fact that homelessness and poverty such as we now see are on a par with the great depression era in this country . ”

                      Produce some evidence or admit you got it wrong.

                  • WILD KATIPO …
                    4 January 2017 at 9:37 pm

                    You still haven’t fronted up about ‘ who ‘ you do your ‘ voluntary ‘ work for and your material assets and cashflow that enables you to be a ‘ voluntary ‘ worker .

                    Until you do that and put your money where your mouth is you’re still talking fabricated shit – to all of us . AND trying to sound if your some sort of important authority figure on the issue as well.

                    Which obviously you are not . Your simply a far right wing neo liberal sycophant trying desperately to sound as if you have ‘ inside ‘ knowledge the rest of us don’t.

                    Your full of shit.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      4 January 2017 at 10:00 pm

                      “You still haven’t fronted up about ‘ who ‘ you do your ‘ voluntary ‘ work for and your material assets and cashflow that enables you to be a ‘ voluntary ‘ worker .”

                      You haven’t asked me. And I wouldn’t tell you, simply because I wouldn’t risk you turning up and taking out your sick attitudes on the people I work with.

                      In the meantime…

                      “but that doesn’t change the fact that homelessness and poverty such as we now see are on a par with the great depression era in this country . ”

                      Prove it, or piss off.

                    • WILD KATIPO …
                      4 January 2017 at 11:05 pm

                      wellfedweta 5.1.1.1.1.1
                      4 January 2017 at 8:39 pm

                      1) ‘Prove it, or piss off.’

                      Your still evading the question , Idiot. Your all big and brave about how much you ‘ know’ and then try to invoke ‘authority’ on the subject by stating you work ‘ voluntarily ‘ for the homeless. Ive called your bluff and find you full of shit.

                      2) You haven’t asked me. And I wouldn’t tell you, simply because I wouldn’t risk you turning up and taking out your sick attitudes on the people I work with.

                      First of – I wouldn’t waste my time chasing round after bogus addresses that you furnish over on online blog and secondly I have asked you TIME AND TIME AGAIN on this very post to state who you do your ‘ voluntary ‘ work for and so far you have been nothing but evasive.

                      As I said before in this post – you’re full of shit , – and a gutless liar to boot.

                      Selecting historic timeframes to justify your sycophantic right wing bullshit statistics – what a fraud .

                      I notice you couldn’t handle the fact that I brought up the great depression as a deliberate counter to you’re selected tidbits from history.

                      I notice also that consistently throughout this post you have exalted yourself arrogantly over the findings and reports of our leading social services.

                      So who would you honestly believe – them or an online obviously National party shill like yourself who lies to try to prove a point ?

                    • wellfedweta …
                      5 January 2017 at 4:42 pm

                      ” Ive called your bluff and find you full of shit.”
                      You haven’t called my bluff on anything. I’m not giving personal information out. My question to you was not personal. You’re simply evading.

                      “First of – I wouldn’t waste my time chasing round after bogus addresses…”
                      And yet you ask….wierd.

                      “Selecting historic timeframes to justify your sycophantic right wing bullshit statistics – what a fraud .”
                      More evasion.

                      “I notice you couldn’t handle the fact that I brought up the great depression as a deliberate counter to you’re selected tidbits from history.”
                      Actually the great depression proved my point. I challenged you to justify your claim and you have failed.

                      “but that doesn’t change the fact that homelessness and poverty such as we now see are on a par with the great depression era in this country . ”

                      Where is your evidence? Come on, you’ve been asked plenty of times.

          • The Other Mike 1.1.1.1.2
            4 January 2017 at 2:43 pm

            So… what are you suggesting?

            Previous govts did not try to solve the problem by SELLING OFF the social housing. This “Government” has made a major problem immeasurably worse!

            Building new stock is an investment in the future (via rents) – but, sadly, no. Short term gain rules the neocons.

            • wellfedweta 1.1.1.1.2.1
              4 January 2017 at 7:04 pm

              The Government doesn’t have to own the houses people live in. So answer this…is there more or less social housing available in total than there was, say, 10 years ago?

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                4 January 2017 at 7:15 pm

                Percentage of people homeless. That’s the statistic you’re failing to obscure.

                • wellfedweta …
                  4 January 2017 at 7:20 pm

                  About 4,100 divided by 4.5m, or .091%.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    4 January 2017 at 7:27 pm

                    If I thought your opinions had any credibility, I’d ask you what the equivalent statistics were ten years ago, and that you provide citations for both figures.

                    But I don’t, because you are a lying racist parrot.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      4 January 2017 at 7:35 pm

                      “The Otago University findings (including estimated 2006 figures for rough sleepers) were:

                      “Approximately 34,000 people were identified as severely housing deprived in 2006 (84 of every 10,000 New Zealanders, or close to 1 percent of the population). The prevalence of severe housing deprivation increased 9 percent between 2001 and 2006, though 1 percent of this change was due to the different response rates of emergency accommodation providers. Two out of three severely housing deprived people were sharing with others, usually family, in severely crowded dwellings; 18 percent were living in commercial accommodation or marae; 15 percent were living on the street or in improvised or mobile dwellings; only 2 percent were living in emergency accommodation, such as night shelters or women’s refuges.””

                      http://gimmeshelter.co.nz/why-we-need-a-count/

                      Not sure how your question relates to my response to TOM though.

                    • WILD KATIPO …
                      4 January 2017 at 7:43 pm

                      So… weka reckons $5000 to leave Auckland and another $2000 to come back and do it all again is an effective housing/employment option for those who cannot afford Nationals housing bubble…

                      What I’d really like to know is the salary this muppet is on as he /she states he/ she works ( voluntarily ) for the homeless… I wonder what other investments this person owns that disassociates he/she from the situation.

                  • Macro …
                    4 January 2017 at 7:43 pm

                    the weta continually quotes 4,100 homelesss – out by a factor of 10.
                    This has been pointed out to him several times, but he continues to deny the actual number of homeless in the country (which is well evidenced to be around 41,000 at any one time) and make up bull shit figures.

                    The number of homeless people in New Zealand rose between the last two Census counts, a new study says.

                    The University of Otago study, which is based on Census data, said one in 100 were homeless in 2013, compared with one in 120 in 2006 and one in 130 in 2001.

                    The study used the Government’s official definition of homeless, which is people living in severely crowded houses, in motels, boarding houses, on the street or in cars.

                    Between 2006 and 2013, the rise in homeless people outstripped population growth.
                    New Zealand’s population grew by 4.8 per cent over this period, while the number of homeless grew by 25 per cent.

                    The total number of homeless in 2013 was 41,075, or 1 per cent of New Zealand’s population. In 2006, the number of homeless was 33,295, or 0.8 per cent of the population.

                    People living in night shelters were excluded from the research.

                    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11650103
                    Just a lying scum.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      4 January 2017 at 8:46 pm

                      “the weta continually quotes 4,100 homelesss – out by a factor of 10.”

                      “If the homeless population were a hundred people, 70 are staying with extended family or friends in severely crowded houses, 20 are in a motel, boarding house or camping ground, and 10 are living on the street, in cars, or in other improvised dwellings.”

                      10% of 41,000 is 4,100.

                    • Macro …
                      4 January 2017 at 11:00 pm

                      🙄
                      Really !!
                      I know 4 out 3 people have trouble with maths – and you are obviously one of them.

                    • ropata …
                      4 January 2017 at 11:10 pm

                      I think wtf.weta finds life challenging now that his diet of fake news from John Key’s rectum has been rudely interrupted.

              • WILD KATIPO …
                4 January 2017 at 7:52 pm

                Weka seems to be waiting in the wings for state housing to become sold off and privatized, … more to the portfolio so you can write self congratulating posts about working for the homeless , Weka ?

                No wonder that’s where you get all the finance to be able to work ‘ voluntarily ‘ – after taking cash off renters in overpriced rentals – then working as a ‘ voluntary ‘ worker for an aid outfit for the homeless.

                L0L ! – What a total hypocrite and scam monger!!!

                • wellfedweta …
                  4 January 2017 at 8:53 pm

                  WETA, not Weka. (There is another contributor here who uses the pseudonym ‘Weka’. At least attempt to get the basics right).

                  Perhaps you can explain to me the difference for a person requiring social housing whether the state owns the house or you do.

                  • WILD KATIPO …
                    4 January 2017 at 9:47 pm

                    Oh yes… its ‘ weta’…getting a little touchy , aren’t we now?

                    The well stuffed , bloated off the poor ‘ weta’.

                    Interesting point… so now we see ‘ weta’s’ angle… ‘the social provider’.

                    Always knew there was a n angle there for you , mate.

                    And there it is for all to see.

                    Tell us,… why didn’t you have the guts to come outright and say it instead of trying to sound all puffed up and self important that you work as some philanthropist ‘ voluntary worker’ for the homeless?

                    You’re nothing but a bullshit far right wing neo liberal leeching the life blood off the poor wage earners. No wonder you’re such a bloody NATIONAL party sycophant.

                    So now we see ‘ weta’ views him/her self as a ‘ voluntary worker’ helping the homeless because s/he gets a pay out from the govt to provide ‘ social housing’.

                    Tripping over yourself , ‘ weta’…

                    • wellfedweta …
                      4 January 2017 at 10:02 pm

                      “Oh yes… its ‘ weta’…getting a little touchy , aren’t we now?”

                      No, but as there is another poster here called ‘Weka’, I’m just saying you should get the detail correct.

                      But you avoided the question:

                      “Perhaps you can explain to me the difference for a person requiring social housing whether the state owns the house or you do.”

                      It seems you’re just another left wing bullshit artist who has no idea about what they’re talking about.

                    • WILD KATIPO …
                      4 January 2017 at 11:11 pm

                      You still haven’t answered the question , liar – WHO is it that you do ‘ voluntary ‘ work for ?

                      As far as we can all tell your nothing but a right wing shill trying to invoke some sort of authority by saying you work in a ‘ voluntary ‘ capacity – what as ?… the toilet cleaner?

                      For all we know that could mean you are the valet for the guy who runs the regional head office.

                      And until you name that organization – anything you say is simply to be viewed along the same track record you have consistently demonstrated – that of being a far right wing shill for the National party.

                      You’re bogus.

              • Macro …
                4 January 2017 at 8:16 pm

                There is less social housing available than 10 years ago. National is selling it off as it has always done. They have tried to sell it to NGO’s but they by and large don’t want it. So it goes to private buyers.
                Occassionally the National gets around to building some new housing – but never at the rate it is selling it off.
                There are plenty of Statistics available . As you say you have an interest in this matter I would hope that by now you have read “Homes People can Afford – How to Improve housing in New Zealand” Edited by Sarah Bierre, Phillippa Howden-Chapman, and Lisa Early. published 2013.
                There you will find some excellent articles including a graph of the number of state rental houses under Labour and National governments since 1940. National held a massive sell off during the 1990’s. Partly restored under the Clark Government – but again a huge sell off since 2008. Despite a continuing increase in population.
                But the real kicker was the introduction of Market rents by National to all state tenants, and finally the changes to state housing tenancy agreements by this current government, means that the state rental housing provision is restricted to families in the very greatest need and new tenants have regular tenancy reviews to ensure their home best suits their housing requirements. Those whose circumstances have changed would be placed in more suitable homes or evicted. Now state housing tenants face the same uncertainty of tenure as those in private rental. We can say that the provision of social housing ended in 2008.

                • wellfedweta …
                  4 January 2017 at 8:43 pm

                  “There is less social housing available than 10 years ago.”

                  Cite?

                  “There you will find some excellent articles including a graph of the number of state rental houses under Labour and National governments since 1940. ”

                  You;re still not getting it. OWNING state houses is NOT the only way to deliver social housing.

                  • Molly …
                    4 January 2017 at 8:51 pm

                    ” OWNING state houses is NOT the only way to deliver social housing.”
                    But it is the most effective and efficient, particularly if it provides security of tenancy and is maintained well. The SROI and the benefits to society of tenants living long-term in state housing, reduces costs to health and other social programmes.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      4 January 2017 at 8:55 pm

                      “But it is the most effective and efficient, particularly if it provides security of tenancy and is maintained well. ”

                      Says who? Security of Tenancy is guaranteed with private ownership because 10 year leases are taken out. Maintenance is carried out by the state irrespective of who the owner is.

                    • Macro …
                      4 January 2017 at 11:05 pm

                      You were asking before @ 1.1.1.1.2.1 – whether there was more or less social housing – I showed you the answer – effectively there is now none! The little that is provided is by local councils and they are providing less and less.

          • Whispering Kate 1.1.1.1.3
            4 January 2017 at 4:55 pm

            Wedfedweka – and so your comments are telling us this is a righteous way to have a civic society doesn’t mean its right, we should all be learning from history and trying to, to the best of our ability, enable everybody to have a roof over their heads. Shame on you, you self righteous p…….. Each and every one of us is a heart beat away from being without a roof over our heads, shame on you because you don’t sound like you have the fortitude or ability to cope if serious misfortune falls on your head. Have a nice day.

            • wellfedweta 1.1.1.1.3.1
              4 January 2017 at 7:09 pm

              Perhaps you should have read the post I was responding to before stooping to ad-hominem. Some here are trying to politicise this issue because of their irrational hatred of the current government. My post simply demonstrated that is irrational, because homelessness is a long term problem that has existed under governments of all stripes. What you don’t know is that I work (voluntarily) amongst, other groups, the homeless. I want as much as anyone to resolve this issue, but the causes are complex, and the sort of knee jerk response contained in your post is, frankly, not helping.

              • WILD KATIPO …
                4 January 2017 at 7:37 pm

                ‘ Some here are trying to politicize this issue because of their irrational hatred of the current government. ‘

                No , idiot.

                Some here are trying to politicize this because they see that the root cause of this is because of the wanker neo liberalism that has ingratiated its way into NZ politics.

                Starting with worms such as yourself and working its way on up.

                THATS … what people dislike.

                That and the blatant lying bullshitters who propagate this disgusting ideology for the rich .

                Such as you.

                ‘ What you don’t know is that I work (voluntarily) amongst, other groups, the homeless. ‘

                Start quoting , A – hole.

                And then tell us how you live , what salary you are on , where you live , what assets you have and what perks you live off – and this organization that you ‘ voluntarily ‘ work for …ALL paid for by the taxpayer via govt subsidy’s and grants to your organisation.

                • wellfedweta …
                  4 January 2017 at 8:48 pm

                  “Some here are trying to politicize this because they see that the root cause of this is because of the wanker neo liberalism that has ingratiated its way into NZ politics.”

                  And yet homelessness has been a part of the landscape in NZ for decades. You are just making shit up.

                  • WILD KATIPO …
                    4 January 2017 at 11:14 pm

                    Youve been making shit up ever since youve been posting on this site.

                    BTW – even Farrar is going to be struggling without Key around.

                    And you right wing National party shills are going to be sounding more and more ridiculous as the days pass.

              • Whispering Kate …
                4 January 2017 at 8:43 pm

                My God you could have fooled me – what a skewed attitude you have for the homeless, from what everybody else posted in reply to your tome it seems you have confused a whole lot of us. Good on you helping the homeless. just explain yourself a little more rationally, you come across as a heartless rwnj. And, by the way I did read your post and I haven’t changed my view on what you wrote. With our shaky isles we could all end up with no homes so we more fortunate should count our blessings.

          • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.1.1.4
            4 January 2017 at 6:45 pm

            Propagandist parrot fail. I think you are racist scum. I doubt you share my opinion. Let’s agree to disagree.

      • One Anonymous Bloke 1.1.2
        4 January 2017 at 6:46 pm

        Nice to see you honestly displaying your low status.

      • Rae 1.1.3
        5 January 2017 at 11:20 am

        Sounds like a pretty piss poor excuse to me

  2. Adrian Thornton 2
    4 January 2017 at 12:20 pm

    Thanks Bill, nice little piece there…
    “There are no exceptions or anomalies; just woeful failures in terms of basic human decency – a promotion of heartlessness.”
    You are is exactly right, this free market, laissez affaire economic ideology that is at the core of both parties, has as one of it’s primary objectives, to commodify absolutely everything.
    The result being that one of the greatest aims for citizens under this ideology, is to be able to join the renter class, rent their assets to other citizens, invest in the markets and make ‘free money’
    This ‘free money’ of course doesn’t exist, as we all know there are no free lunches in the law of economics, well none that I am aware of.
    Notice also that citizens are no longer regarded as such any more, no citizens are now viewed solely as consumers.

    Still there are no surprises here, all the politicians (with solid support from most MSM) pushing this disaster, are only operating within the boundaries that their free market ideology dictates…and here we are.

    The only way to the change course this slow train wreck, is to flush out the free market liberals from the Labour Party, and start afresh with a new (old) fair and equal for all socialist ideology as the core belief and driving force of the party.

    Turn Labour Left.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1
      4 January 2017 at 12:31 pm

      I think this analysis misses the point: the National Party promotes hate speech against poor people. The problem isn’t economics it’s bigotry.

      • Bill 2.1.1
        4 January 2017 at 12:34 pm

        The economics produces predictable outcomes. The bigotry is optional.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.1.1
          4 January 2017 at 12:45 pm

          The bigotry shifts the blame onto the victims. Without it, the outcomes would be intolerable to a far larger proportion of electors.

          • Siobhan 2.1.1.1.1
            4 January 2017 at 12:58 pm

            The problem isn’t just bigotry..its greed, its consumerism and its the fact we have all been seduced into ‘playing the market’.
            Someone may shed a tear for the homeless and the struggling renters, but tell them that part of the answer is killing off the ridiculous housing market and taxing their capital gains…and that tear quickly evaporates.

            • Red 2.1.1.1.1.1
              4 January 2017 at 6:16 pm

              A bit simplistic Siobhan Killing off the housing market is not just about sorting out a few fat cats, it has implications for the economy in general be it young family with high mortgages, the impact on the wealth affect on consumption and investment and the tax take re people feel poorer ( the paradox of thrift),, the impact on the financial system, Fx, interest rates, inflation and credit etc etc, hence while it may feel good to blame somebody this is not a simple fix, you also do not want to throw the baby out the bath water, ie nz in many measure ( not all)is doing ok , so don’t completely fk it up with a emotionale response to housing as you seem to be suggesting. Things are happening but will take time to avoid making overall situation worse

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                4 January 2017 at 6:48 pm

                🙄

                Incoherent streams of consciousness are a great niche market for you.

              • Adrian Thornton …
                4 January 2017 at 7:25 pm

                What things are “happening” exactly?
                What I see happening is the highest rates of household come to debt ratios ever recorded.
                The highest rental rates to income ratios ever recorded.
                And of course a very dangerous bubble already formed in the housing market, with outrageously overvalued housing around the whole country.
                Then I see the two main political parties terrified of offending the rental classes, so hence unwilling to do anything to substantially alter this obscene fetish of housing investment.
                If you see anything different, please enlighten me.

      • Adrian Thornton 2.1.2
        4 January 2017 at 2:37 pm

        @One Anonymous Bloke, I think that if you are suggesting that a political parties economic ideology is less responsible for social outcomes, than the rhetoric that it releases, then I think you are very mistaken.
        In fact I would go far as to say that that nearly all social outcomes in a society is a direct result of the economic ideology that is in ascendance at the time.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1
          4 January 2017 at 7:23 pm

          It’s the hate speech that makes those outcomes palatable.

          After all, this level of economic incompetence has been seen before. Social pressure against bigotry was a far bigger influence against it than Economics.

          • Carolyn_nth 2.1.2.1.1
            4 January 2017 at 7:35 pm

            I think there’s always underlying cultural assumptions for any “ecxonomic ideology” – some of neoliberalism abouty individualism, competition, financial reqards for the deserving, etc, lead to bigotry against the poor.

            I read the following today by Sheila Rowbotham – long time UK socialist feminist historian:

            We have been hearing a lot about scroungers since the recession set in. In the media it really has been scroungers, scroungers, scroungers. It is funny how scroungers are always poor people, whereas the rich get classified as ‘deserving’. You could write a fascinating history of scroungers from the sturdy beggars of Tudor times to the present day. I have a strong suspicion that scroungers tend to make their entry when ruling classes are getting twitchy about their grip.

            From a Journal “Soundings” 2014 – an article “After Thatcher” – accessed from public library digital library.

          • Adrian Thornton 2.1.2.1.2
            4 January 2017 at 9:11 pm

            Well I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, I don’t often (never) quote Bill Clinton, however here I think we was right…”It’s the economy, stupid”

            I do think though, that one of the main projects of progressives and activists on the Left, should be in actively helping in raising the consciousness of the communities they live and work in.

            Racism, intolerance, inequality etc are things that are far less tolerable to a critical thinking mind, I hope you would agree.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.2.1.2.1
              5 January 2017 at 11:35 am

              You don’t think bigotry helps right wingers ignore/excuse the effects of their economic incompetence?

      • fisiani 2.1.3
        4 January 2017 at 5:36 pm

        Can you give even a single example of this hate speech you claim exists?

        • Red 2.1.3.1
          4 January 2017 at 6:03 pm

          Of course he can’t, he makes this stuff up and perpetually post It using a BOT

          • WILD KATIPO 2.1.3.1.1
            4 January 2017 at 6:31 pm

            Who was it that said NZ workers were lazy , drug addled , hopeless?

            Ahhh … that’s right … the two biggest wankers in the National party – Key and English.

            Nice way to justify the ‘ brighter future ‘ and bring in another 70,000 immigrants to fuel the cheap labour market and push down wages while pushing up that housing bubble – also funny how your hero Keys pissed off and left you all with your dicks standing in the air when he saw the writing on the wall , though ….

            Extreme right wing neo liberal sycophantic tools.

            What a joke.

            • fisiani 2.1.3.1.1.1
              4 January 2017 at 6:59 pm

              Bill English repeated what employers told him. Are you claiming that the employers were lying about their applicants? Do you seriously doubt that this description applies to some workers? if so can I interest you in some Nigerian wealth that my cousin gave me.

              • WILD KATIPO …
                4 January 2017 at 8:06 pm

                And are you claiming that a fair percentage of those employers ARENT opportunistic wankers who gladly endorse ( and donate to ) the National party and their policy of unbridled and irresponsible immigration designed to create the vote catching housing bubble ( now starting to tank – goodbye votes for National ) – and also to lower the already miserably low wages and undermine NZ workers ?!!?

                Another A – hole.

                • fisiani …
                  4 January 2017 at 8:27 pm

                  Can you go to stats nz and find me anywhere some evidence of wages lowering – cause it simply ain’t so .

                  • WILD KATIPO …
                    4 January 2017 at 9:53 pm

                    Tell that to the immigrant workers working for BELOW the national average.

                    And while your at it… … Idiot…

                    Just WHY do YOU think there is a campaign for a LIVING WAGE ?

                    Because people were fucking bored and woke up one day and thought having a campaign for a LIVING WAGE was a good idea at the time? Just for the shits and giggles value ?

                    Just another far right wing neo liberal wanker of the year award for you too.

                    Just like that other blood leeching parasite weta.

        • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.3.2
          4 January 2017 at 6:58 pm

          Sure:

          “People are poor because they made bad decisions”.

          • fisiani 2.1.3.2.1
            4 January 2017 at 7:00 pm

            And this what you call hate??? Do you deny that this is the case for some of the poor?
            Come on try again?

            • One Anonymous Bloke 2.1.3.2.1.1
              4 January 2017 at 7:08 pm

              Why – hate speech is hate speech. I provided an example. You are incapable of understanding it and I don’t really care to be your educator. Choke on it.

              • wellfedweta …
                4 January 2017 at 7:27 pm

                Telling someone they made a bad decision and that led to them being poor is ‘hate speech’? Geez I hope aren’t breeding.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  4 January 2017 at 7:32 pm

                  “Breeding”

                  And there it is.

                  • wellfedweta …
                    4 January 2017 at 7:36 pm

                    Breeding = the mating and production of offspring. I really hope you haven’t.

                    • Molly …
                      4 January 2017 at 8:55 pm

                      “Breeding” – a biological function of organic lifeforms.

                      “Disdain” – a learned behaviour for some of those lifeforms.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      4 January 2017 at 9:06 pm

                      ““Disdain” – a learned behaviour for some of those lifeforms.”

                      Yes, I agree Bloke does display that, and frequently.

                • WILD KATIPO …
                  4 January 2017 at 8:17 pm

                  wellfedweta …
                  4 January 2017 at 7:27 pm
                  ” Telling someone they made a bad decision and that led to them being poor is ‘hate speech’? Geez I hope aren’t breeding.”

                  Echoes of Darwinian SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST coming through there , Weta?…

                  Sounds like you’ve really taken the Eugenics bit hook , line and sinker…

                  Tell you what chump… if your drowning and need a line thrown to you… that recollection of what you’ve just said online just might give me cause to hesitate…then again… being the nice bastard that I am ,… against my better judgement … I’d throw you the life jacket as well.

                  While still thinking what an absolute A – hole you really are.

                  • wellfedweta …
                    4 January 2017 at 8:37 pm

                    So you think it’s ok to let someone make bad decisions and NOT tell them?

                    • Molly …
                      4 January 2017 at 8:56 pm

                      Yes.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      4 January 2017 at 9:05 pm

                      “Yes.”

                      I would rather they know and learn, so they avoid making such decisions a second time.

                    • Molly …
                      5 January 2017 at 11:30 am

                      “I would rather they know and learn, so they avoid making such decisions a second time.”
                      I know that is what you think you are doing. But you are not.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      5 January 2017 at 4:48 pm

                      “I know that is what you think you are doing. But you are not.”

                      No, that IS what I’m doing. If someone makes a mistake and they’re never told, how do they correct it? Did you go to school? To university? Do you work? Have you never been told you did something wrong and shown how to correct it?

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 January 2017 at 6:48 pm

                      By pretending that a “mistake” caused their situation, you are victimising them, not helping them.

                      You do not understand this and never will. Don’t try.

              • Fisiani …
                4 January 2017 at 7:38 pm

                Do you know what hate speech is? I thought so. Your definition of hate speech is anything said by a National politician.

                • One Anonymous Bloke …
                  4 January 2017 at 9:23 pm

                  You hear the dog whistle and salivate reflexively. I don’t expect you to recognise the bigotry: self awareness isn’t your strong point.

                • wellfedweta …
                  5 January 2017 at 4:49 pm

                  The lefts definition of hate speech is any comment they disagree with.

                  • One Anonymous Bloke …
                    5 January 2017 at 6:51 pm

                    The Left, you witless gimp, is not a hive mind.

                    Victim blaming is hate speech. Your mind is too shit to grasp this, and how it applies to you.

            • WILD KATIPO 2.1.3.2.1.2
              4 January 2017 at 8:12 pm

              fisiani 2.1.3.2.1
              4 January 2017 at 7:00 pm

              ‘ And this what you call hate??? Do you deny that this is the case for some of the poor?
              Come on try again? ‘

              And does it matter ?

              Even Trump was bankrupted several times .. did you hold that against him when he was bankrupted ?

              Face it , A – hole ,… people are poor for many reasons – and is your Darwinian Eugenics so entrenched that you actually believe human beings should act like animals in the SURVIVAL OF THE FITTEST ?

              Again …what an A – hole.

            • Adrian Thornton 2.1.3.2.1.3
              4 January 2017 at 10:04 pm

              @Fisiani OK you asked for some stats well here you go…
              Statistics NZ
              Labour Market Statistics: March 2016 quarter;
              -Growth in weekly earnings down on previous quarters
              -Annual mean increase in wages lowest since June 1994
              “a mean increase of 2.9 percent (the lowest since the year to the June 1994 quarter, when it was also 2.9 percent)”
              http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/income-and-work/employment_and_unemployment/LabourMarketStatistics_HOTPMar16qtr/Commentary.aspx

              This is assuming you are on the average income of $29.47 p/h which isn’t good,
              but it is a disaster if you are cleaner and your average wage is $15.59 p/h
              http://www.payscale.com/research/NZ/Job=Cleaner/Hourly_Rate

              Or how about an aged care worker $15,15 p/h
              or a Senior Caregiver $17.35 p/h
              Fuck even a registered nurse doesn’t make the NZ average wage.. $26.18
              http://www.payscale.com/research/NZ/Hospital_Setting=Extended_Care_%2F_Nursing_Home/Hourly_Rate

              I think you defending a system that abuses workers is actual hate speech.

            • framu 2.1.3.2.1.4
              5 January 2017 at 8:46 am

              “And this what you call hate??? ”

              when its used to dog whistle support and demonise a wide group of people with different circumstances, then i think the answer is pretty bloody obvious

          • Red 2.1.3.2.2
            4 January 2017 at 10:19 pm

            Weak and pathetic example

  3. weka 3
    4 January 2017 at 12:53 pm

    Strap the National party caucus to their seats and make them view that video on loop. A few of them might actually feel ashamed. The rest at least need their faces rubbed in the fact that they’re happy for humans to suffer. Heartless, there is no pretending.

    As for the rest of NZ, we have our work cut out for us to change the culture to something that cares.

  4. Alison Lewis 4
    4 January 2017 at 1:00 pm

    Well, Jonathan Pie says it all doesn’t he. With John Key out of the way perhaps the NZ public can start see what a threadbare Government this is.
    No vision, no compassion, no empathy.
    I will be working hard this year in my home city of Dunedin to get the Labour Party elected this year.

  5. Rosemary McDonald 5
    4 January 2017 at 1:27 pm

    Bugger! The You Tube isn’t working for me at the moment…I was also going to share a Jonathon Pie clip from August about the underfunding of mental health services in the UK…maybe later.

    They will say that this is all about ‘building resilience’…making individuals, families, communities stronger by forcing them into less reliance on the state for solving problems with housing, education, mental health and disability care etc.etc.

    For that to work it needs a ‘hand up’ philosophy rather than the ‘kick them when they’re down’ one they operate under now.

    And a complete overhaul of the economy….

    • wellfedweta 5.1
      4 January 2017 at 1:57 pm

      Paragraph 2…thumbs up.

      Paragraph 4…modelled on what, precisely?

      • WILD KATIPO 5.1.1
        4 January 2017 at 6:37 pm

        Crawl back into your hole , weta – for a start – dismantling the neo liberal destruction and replacing it with an updated true Keynesian based economy — regulations and all ( I can hear you squeal like a stuck pig from where I sit ) – coupled with a return to a true social democracy .

        That’s enough for you to try to get your head around .

        I open the floor.

        • wellfedweta 5.1.1.1
          4 January 2017 at 7:11 pm

          You do know that Keynes advocated lower taxes and increased Government spending during recessions? Which is exactly what National did in response to the GFC.

          • WILD KATIPO 5.1.1.1.1
            4 January 2017 at 8:35 pm

            ‘ You do know that Keynes advocated lower taxes and increased Government spending during recessions?

            Are you stupid as well as an A – HOLE?

            Key also borrowed to provide tax cuts for the RICH – while raising GST knowing full well that proportionately the poorer ranks in society would shoulder that burden.

            Along with that – ” Which is exactly what National did in response to the GFC. ‘ – ( you really are a bullshitter of the first order …Ive just got to say it ) – Keynesian economics dictates that in times of recession a govt should INCREASE public spending – so what did we get ?

            A bullshit bicycle pathway and sell offs of state owned housing ( at least a big attempt to do so to enable private investors instead – like charter schools ) and assets and a failed $26,000,000 vanity flag referendum – along with massive cuts (or at the very least – a budget freeze that is years out of date ) in ALL areas of essential social services spending.

            And ABSOLUTELY NO major public works . No ,… what we got instead was fight clubs in privatized prisons and people living in cars.

            You don’t know the first fucking thing about Keynesian economics , A – hole.

            • wellfedweta 5.1.1.1.1.1
              4 January 2017 at 8:39 pm

              “Key also borrowed to provide tax cuts for the RICH – while raising GST knowing full well that proportionately the poorer ranks in society would shoulder that burden.”

              The tax cuts in the past 8 years have been given to all income earners.

              “Keynesian economics dictates that in times of recession a govt should INCREASE public spending – so what did we get ?”

              An increase in public spending.

              You really are ignorant.

              • WILD KATIPO …
                4 January 2017 at 9:01 pm

                wellfedweta 5.1.1.1.1.1
                4 January 2017 at 8:39 pm

                ” You really are ignorant.”

                Nah , JANLAH – Im not ignorant , your Just Another Neo Liberal A- Hole.

                And JANLAHS say what JANLAHS do – which is obfuscate the facts , slant the statistics and create bogus story’s about govt ‘waste ‘ – except in the case of that ‘waste ‘ ( which is actually in the form of taxation to provide and upkeep essential public services ) the JANLAH believes its better going into her/ his pocket / bank account instead.

                And when under attack when they are found out ,… the JANLAH goes on the defensive … hence the bullshit they try to spin above. Like you do.

                And deny the bald faced facts everyone can plainly see for themselves – such as Trump winning , Brexit happening and Key leaving other self serving JANLAH’s in the dust to fend for themselves.

                And again – ( this is getting kind of boring ) – you don’t know the first fucking thing about Keynesian economics , A – hole.

                Otherwise you would have kept abreast of what even this Key sycophantic MSM have been saying for the last year and a bit. And well respected social services reports that have people far above the likes of you and your ‘ voluntary ‘ efforts in helping the homeless.

                BTW – you still haven’t had the guts to name the organization you supposedly do ‘ voluntary ‘ work for and just what position you hold there to be an authority on the subject .

                And if I / we didn’t know any better?

                I ‘d / we’d say your full of shit talk to try and sound important.

                Just Another Neo Liberal A – Hole .

                ( JANLAH )

                • wellfedweta …
                  4 January 2017 at 9:08 pm

                  More ad-hominem bullshit. Still no actual evidence to support your claims.

                  • WILD KATIPO …
                    4 January 2017 at 11:18 pm

                    And you call the random historic homilies you originally providde actual ‘evidence’ ?

                    Seriously if that’s the case you stand on its a pretty threadbare one , buddy.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      5 January 2017 at 4:43 pm

                      You have made claims you cannot support. You have already been warned by the moderators for resorting to personal abuse. Go away, have a cold drink, and re-engage when you can behave like an adult.

                    • One Anonymous Bloke …
                      5 January 2017 at 4:46 pm

                      🙄

                • Red …
                  4 January 2017 at 10:24 pm

                  and your economic credentials Wk barring about bleating on about security guards and German Shepard beefing up your ego

            • Jono 5.1.1.1.1.2
              5 January 2017 at 1:37 pm

              This is the perfect case of ‘Requiem of an American dream’ where it was said in the american constitution that the minority opulent wealth must be protected against the majority at all costs. We can see that agenda here through the policies of this government. Protect the Wealthy all costs…

          • Nic the NZer 5.1.1.1.2
            4 January 2017 at 8:55 pm

            Keynes also advocated ending involuntary unemployment using these means. NZ essentially did this having an unemployment rate of about 2% across the 1970’s, which is about what no involuntary unemployment equates to. But National has a way to go on that account. One of the important consequences of having a high unemployment rate with plenty of labour market slack is lowering wages in certain sectors of society (for obvious reasons). Thanks for highlighting the primary shift in society (and the accompanying abandonment of political goals) which happened under neo-liberal economic management of the economy.

            • wellfedweta 5.1.1.1.2.1
              4 January 2017 at 9:04 pm

              1. NZ does not have ‘neo-liberal’ economic management. If we did, we would not have half the social spending we have now.
              2. Unemployment was far higher in the 1930’s than it is today.

              “At the depth of the Depression, New Zealand had approximately 80,000 registered unemployed, about 12% of the labour force. ” http://keithrankin.co.nz/NZunem1933/

              And that rate was measured when women were a far smaller part of the active workforce.

              A 5% unemployment rate is not ‘high’, and in fact has been falling steadily since the height of the GFC (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/unemployment-rate). Unemployment today is only marginally higher than it was (4.2%) in 2009, despite the country having gone though a GFC and recession, and is lower than for much of the post 1986 period. (http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/unemployment-rate)

              • Nic the NZer …
                4 January 2017 at 11:22 pm

                5% is certainly high compared to a full decade in the 1970s.

                That (as i mentioned) is where the neo liberal economic management comes in. As noted its not far from a ‘successful’ unemployment rate of 4.2 (or there abouts).

                Do you expect people to forget all the inflation targeting (using the unemployment rate to keep wages down, which was official reserve bank and treasury policy) which went on in the 1990s. Are people supposed to forget that they turned to benefit rates because wages had fallen so far they were approaching benefit rates?

                People remember that much of the results here were quite intentional policy choices and are in fact still considered sound economic management today.

                • wellfedweta …
                  4 January 2017 at 11:43 pm

                  “5% is certainly high compared to a full decade in the 1970s.”

                  Why chose the 1970’s? In the 1930’s the unemployment rate reached 12%, and that was a far narrower measure than today. And the rate of unemployment in 1983, just before this ‘neo-liberal economic management’ you speak of, was about the same as it is today, and had been steadily rising since 1977. (http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/research-policy/wp/2014/14-01/04.htm)

                  Also – if you check the reference above, you will see the graph that shows the unemployment comparison between 4 recent downturns. The graph shows that the downturns that occurred post 1984 have resulted in a far shorter period of rise in unemployment.

                  • ropata …
                    5 January 2017 at 7:52 am

                    Shifting goalposts, making excuses. You obviously support mass unemployment and wage suppression. Disgusting.

                  • Nic the NZer …
                    5 January 2017 at 8:20 am

                    Of course i selected the 1970s as it demomstrates a period when the government was exercising policy towards low unemployment. It indicates that a 4% unemployment rate should be considered quite high compared to what is possible. Yes in 1977 the unemployment rate was considered to be quite high.

                    • wellfedweta …
                      5 January 2017 at 4:45 pm

                      Also – if you check the reference above, you will see the graph that shows the unemployment comparison between 4 recent downturns. The graph shows that the downturns that occurred post 1984 have resulted in a far shorter period of rise in unemployment.

                      I have reposted because you’re avoiding the issue. 1983 was BEFORE the ‘neo-liberalism’ you rail against.

                    • Nic the NZer []
                      5 January 2017 at 7:18 pm

                      You realise that through Muldoon’s last term the economy hit a major recession. That is where the 5.1% unemployment rate peak comes from. There were some unique challenges to the NZ economy at the time but the actual matter of discussion here is that these days (thanks to neoliberal economic management) an unemployment rate of an economy in recession or immediately recovering from recession is called a success!

                      Also before you try to characterise the 1970s as unique. The 1960s and 1950s had similar economic policy and similar results.

                    • Nic the NZer []
                      5 January 2017 at 7:41 pm

                      Also i dont know what you consider to be the success part in your analysis of the downturns. Clearly what matters is the average of unemployment over time. If you start from a significantly higher baseline then shortening the rise is hardly an improvement for anybody.

                      “The graph shows that the downturns that occurred post 1984 have resulted in a far shorter period of rise in unemployment.”

                      Also your just wrong the 1985 recession rose over 2 years (and rose much more steeply) than 1977 according to exactly the chart you posted.
                      I suggest you need to retract your assertion or we will be required to conclude you are incapable of reading a chart.

                    • Clump_AKA Sam …
                      5 January 2017 at 9:05 pm

                      Recently the question, why do people disagree with Max Kieser arose. There are at least 8 different schools of thought.

                      1. neoclassical (mainstream) with 2 subgroups – academic economists, they dominate policy advice and government advice. They’re key question is can the economy reach equilibrium with demand equal to supply in every market

                      2. Austrian/libertarian- popular with politicians and journos, key question is how does innovation and change happen in capitalism, the best policy in there opinion is to limit or even eliminate the government and let the markets work out things on its own. They reject the use of math in economics as physics envy. Because they see modelling of individual human action unnecessary.
                      3. Post Keynesian- some prominent bloggers are but they’re less influential than politicians. Key question is what caused the Great Depression and can it happen again. They don’t see individuals as maximising utility they see individuals as coping with uncertainty about the future.
                      4. Marxism popular in tiny left wing groups. Key question is how did capitalism evolve and will it turn into something else. And Capitalism is based on the exploitation of labour
                      5. Ecological or evolutionary , prominent in progressive politics, the key question is how does the economy produce more outputs than inputs, and what are the inputs on the environment.
                      6. Behavioural- prominent in media and blogs, how do real people behave in economic situations. Rather than deciding to sell when shares should be sold they’ll holding on to shares, compounding loses.
                      7. Feminist prominent in social media, key question is how do relations between the sexes affect economics, emphases on aspects of society undervalued by markets, they reject any tendency to treat everything as a commodity
                      8. Econo physicist. If you want a job in finance, drove out of economics and go and do a degree in physics. Because that’s where most of the technical people in hedgfunds are hired. Key question how can we understand the economy using tools from physics

                      George Orwel wrote an essay called the “Literary censorship in England,” it was about thought control in free societies and he used England as an example because he was there. The point he made was it wasn’t any different from totalitarian Russia done in different ways. One difference he mentioned was if you have a good education you have it instilled in you – there are certain things that wouldn’t do to say or think if the systems working properly. Other factors that come from private ownership of press end up as a result of unpopular ideas ending up as inconvenient facts and silenced with effectiveness. This isn’t well known because it was intended for his famous animal farm. As if to prove his point it was silenced with amazing effectiveness which biographers don’t go into, but they must know. But George Orwell’s most important points that effect us is kept silenced. He was writing about England but the message applies to us because of American power.

                      American power established the current world order. Only occasional moments when human affairs change dramatically so it makes sense to talk about a world order, namely 1945 when much of the industrial world was left destroyed except for the US and benefited enormously. That ended the depression which had not been effected by the new deal. That set the stage for corporate self interest to organise the global economy into what’s called today as the national interest. These truisms are a curiosity of intellectual culture because they’re commonly viewed as a Marxist view which is odd because these are Adam smiths notions. These notions to describe an economy shouldn’t strain an 8 year old but it does which you can put down to the education system. That’s an inconvenient fact but it’s a fact.

                      There are conflicting visions of organising the world – elites have there visions of how to organise the world, they’re not uniform by any stretch of the imagination but there are opposing forces that have to be dealt with. If you want to borrow Cold War rhetoric they have to be contained or rolled back if that can be done. That was done with varying success the basic concepts persist for simple reasons about values of justice/reason/human rights. These values are in a constant arena of conflict with arenas of power that exist because the rest don’t, thats shared with this century and last century.

                      In post war New Zealand what had to be contained or rolled back was we had strong values of social reforms and positions that the business world considered vital to there domination of the economy. In there own words it was the hazard facing industrialists and the rising political power of the masses which had to be contained and suppressed. That’s a constant theme that came up again in the National Parties bid to find a new leader. Elites are trying to out flank passive political participants trying to enter the arena and press there own demands, which elites view as a crises of democracy. These are the ones who make sure the wrong thoughts don’t come to mind. The period since the new PM was appointed has been one of assault against fringe issues through out media.

                      Suppression of popular ideas have taken on new forms since 1945 because of conservatives association with fascist notions and are trying to discredit the discreditors. This is done all over the world in other forms, some times bloodily sometimes in other ways. That should be chapter 1 of John Keys the PM biography. In the United States this project continues in a new form since president elect Trump under the guise of a new form of neoliberalism or economic rationalism or free markets and other terms that push a good deal of fraud and hypocrisy back in. In the 3rd world there are similar problems compounded by imperial systems and the legacy of subordination and dependency on western supply chains. Through out the world there are similar policies of suppression but you can really see them in South America, the reason is because there the United States reins supreme, because there policy is formulated with no challenges. It’s not true that there are no challenges because elites recognise popular mass movements and smash them right away.

                      This is the range of debate about how to come up with a decent model of the economy because most of us have to admit we don’t have one at the moment and we clash on world views.

                      My basic assertion is we can’t observe the economy from the outside.

                      The problem is these groups are selling corporate PR messages, that has been given to them and are being told what to say. They tell you all the good stuff and none of the truth. So we should explore good and bad stuff. If you’re spending a lot of money on training programmes, you need to know what you’re applying to. To fast forward this debate I wanted to show stuff that takes 10 years to work out so you can be successful by dodging all the bad stuff.

      • Rosemary McDonald 5.1.2
        4 January 2017 at 8:16 pm

        “Paragraph 4…modelled on what, precisely?”

        Been thinking while being busy WFW…trying to formulate a suitably clever- sounding and pithy response.

        A complete overhaul of the economy would be judged a success when a person who works a forty hour week at the legal minimum wage needs no government subsidy to pay the rent on a livable home situated within an affordable commute from their place of work.

        • wellfedweta 5.1.2.1
          4 January 2017 at 8:40 pm

          Can you name an economy where that is the case?

          Can you assure me that is not possible in NZ?

  6. Sanctuary 6
    4 January 2017 at 3:15 pm

    What gets me about poverty in NZ is in other, overpopulated, countries they sometimes say “…but there isn’t enough to go around!” Well, in this country that cannot ever be an excuse. There is plenty in NZ to go around. We have just chosen to NOT share it around fairly, we have no excuses for poverty except our own greed, avarice and stupidity.

    • garibaldi 6.1
      4 January 2017 at 4:55 pm

      The main reason housing is a major problem is the fact that we have made it into the best financial investment around. Until we tax the hell out of the profits in it and redirect our investment streams into societal good then the problem will not be solved.
      The other big issue is excessive immigration making demand exceed supply.
      All we need is for the media to wake up to what this neolib nightmare is doing to the country.

      • Red 6.1.1
        4 January 2017 at 5:16 pm

        I agree the unfair advantage in investing in property needs to be sorted out but are you saying all private savings should be taxed at 100pc and the state should then take over all investment, also who determines societal good, the collective decisions of individual who make up society or a little club who knows better

        • garibaldi 6.1.1.1
          4 January 2017 at 5:29 pm

          No I am not a communist. I would push for the same tax rate on all property profits as for other income sources. I don’t see why one’s own house should not be subject to a tax on any profit when it is sold. A 20% tax on profit would put it in line with other investments. Naturally one would be able to deduct improvements etc.
          When I said “societal good” I was meaning things which are sustainable and not environmentally damaging ie not “investments” like intensive dairying.

          • Red 6.1.1.1.1
            4 January 2017 at 5:40 pm

            tend to agree but devil is always in the detail, what if you are selling to move up, ie bigger house, new location where your capital gain reflects general movement in house prices and is in the cost of your new house. There a multitude of these types of issue where the cost of unwinding what we have now is not as simple as people wish to make out. If it was it would just be done Blaming Nick Smith is also an easy scape goat. likewise comedians like Jonathan pie making comedy as such on the problem but no real answers

    • Red 6.2
      4 January 2017 at 5:28 pm

      Fair enough but how do you deal with morale hazard when sharing becomes counter productive. Ie those who produce slowly dwindle in number as the incentive to do so is lost in your sharing society How do you ensure a balance between individual responsibility and sense of Entitlement Saying that I see an interesting article in herald today, Finland are running a trial of 2000 people who will get UBI of 560 euro or equavaent against average monthly wage of 3500, no strings attached, thus no reporting, can work etc as a trial to possibly answer or address the morale hazard question Outcome will be interesting

      • One Anonymous Bloke 6.2.1
        4 January 2017 at 7:00 pm

        The first thing you have to do is demonstrate that any of your assertions of “what will happen” (Chicken Little springs to mind) actually happen.

        • Red 6.2.1.1
          4 January 2017 at 10:46 pm

          It’s not chicken little numb nuts but human nature, morale hazard is well researched in many spheres be it a cause of the GFC, insurance, agency theory etc, You spend your whole working day tossing off about individuals, politicians etc ripping off the system as they take advantage of it, so the neonliberal system ( of which Nz is not with huge social expenditure)!must change and suddenly according to you every one will become paragons of virtue, , Which one is it, the system or individuals taking advantage of the system, you seem to want to have it both ways The problem is the system may change people and human nature does not so you need to strike a balance, not simply believe in fairy tail redistribution is going to fix everything or wank on about replicating Norway in Nz. just a pointer Norway ain’t Nz but they do both begin with N, I will give you that

          • Pat 6.2.1.1.1
            4 January 2017 at 11:57 pm

            you are correct in that you will not change human nature and the traditional way to curb human nature was regulation……the antithesis of the current neoliberal system.(just because the job isn’t complete doesn’t detract from the fact of the trend and intent)

            Regulation curbs excesses (abuse of the system) by all parties…capital and labour….and as you rightly state it is a matter of striking the balance that serves society as a whole that should be the objective…..quite obviously what we currently are subjected by is not remotely achieving that (laissez faire or neoliberal economic theory)….in fact quite the opposite.

            well past time for the pendulum to swing….only problem is….C.C.

          • ropata 6.2.1.1.2
            4 January 2017 at 11:59 pm

            What’s your solution then genius? BAU? That’s fucken great. Twiddle your thumbs.

  7. The decrypter 7
    4 January 2017 at 3:17 pm

    Labour speaks up about the poor. MSM headlines –Labour makes poor speech.

    • Leftie 7.1
      4 January 2017 at 7:05 pm

      +1 Decryptor.

    • ropata 7.2
      5 January 2017 at 12:07 am

      Pretty much.
      Peter Davis: Lessons of the Labour Party’s little-noticed centenary

      [T]he mission of the Labour Party in New Zealand has been to usher in practically all the major institutional changes the country has experienced over the past century, and, in doing so, it has attempted to balance the requirements of social justice with those of economic development and modernisation.

      Davis reviews the book [The New Zealand Labour Party, 1916-2016], highlights some major achievements, and some important themes for the future of the Party. Shame that this huge part of NZ history has mostly been ignored by the MSM, indeed some of them just reported negative nitpicks from the last LP conference.

  8. fisiani 8
    4 January 2017 at 5:38 pm

    But here is the truth

    85,000 new houses to be built in this term of Parliament.
    40 houses built every working day in Auckland, four times what it was when we were elected.
    Over 28,000 building consents issued in year to May 2016 – double the number of five years ago.
    Over 2,000 homes to be built on Crown land we’ve freed up in Auckland and Christchurch.
    209 special housing areas created across New Zealand to speed up development of an estimated 70,000 homes.
    12,000 New Zealanders helped into their first home in the year to March 2016 with HomeStart grants from the Government of up to $20,000 for a couple to put towards buying their first home.
    Around 2,000 homes to be built on redeveloped Housing New Zealand land over the next two years.
    42,000 apprentices currently in training and we’re funding 8,000 more apprentices and trades training places across the country over the next four years.
    40,000 more people working in the construction industry across the country than two years ago.

    • Brendon 8.1
      4 January 2017 at 7:01 pm

      Actually here is the truth. In 2016 -Auckland built about 10,000 homes and Auckland’s population rose by 45,000. So 4.5 new people per new home. Auckland average house occupancy is 3 so the building boom is not big enough to decrease the homeless numbers…..

      • Pat 8.1.1
        4 January 2017 at 7:50 pm

        you may have simplify….Fisi struggles with numbers.

      • Fisiani 8.1.2
        4 January 2017 at 7:57 pm

        40 houses built every working day in Auckland houses 120 people each day using your figures that’s 250 x 120 or 30,000 people housed. A huge rise from the 7,500 housed in 2008 The restraints are gradually being dealt with and given the special housing areas, the hnz land and the huge rise in builders and apprentices you can look forward to the biggest housing boom in your lifetime.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 8.2
      4 January 2017 at 7:05 pm

      Home ownership declined by 5% between the 2001 and 2006 census to just 62.7%. To put that into context, home ownership for the preceding five years had been stable at 67.4%.

      If you dig down into those numbers a little deeper, some worrying facts emerge. The share of homes owned by people aged 20 to 40 dropped significantly between 2001 and 2006. Young people – the people we most want to prevent joining the great Kiwi brain-drain – are really struggling to get onto the property ladder.

      This decline shows no signs of slowing. In fact, on current trends, the crisis will only deepen. Home ownership rates are predicted to plummet to 60% within the next decade. And one of the biggest factors influencing home-ownership rates over the next 10 years will be the difficulty young buyers will have getting into their first home.

      Dear Leader, 2007.

      Your tongue is this man’s toilet paper. Sad and true.

    • trademark 8.3
      4 January 2017 at 8:37 pm

      Fisiani, you have listed some numbers. How do they compare to the actual need?

      Why is the number of people sleeping in cars/garages increasing instead of decreasing despite these figures?

      Were this many people (considering population increases) living and sleeping in cars / garages when the GFC hit and we were facing “a decade of deficits”?

      Or would you say that things were a lot worse back when Key was arguing there was a housing crisis in ’08?

  9. Fisiani 9
    4 January 2017 at 8:01 pm

    No one has a right to own a house. Stop confusing ownership with houses. Have a look outside NZ Home ownership is very high here.

    • Muttonbird 9.1
      4 January 2017 at 8:03 pm

      Interesting that you want to bring the rest of the world’s problems here.

      • fisiani 9.1.1
        4 January 2017 at 8:41 pm

        You what???? I never wrote that.

        • Muttonbird 9.1.1.1
          4 January 2017 at 9:04 pm

          Despite an alarming drop in home ownership under the current government you don’t see it as a problem because you claim home ownership here is high compared to other countries.

          It’s well known home ownership in communities is good for health, achievement in education, and law and order yet you are happy to see what once was a strength in this country deteriorate to a level that other countries have to endure. And so you are happy for other countries social problems related low home-ownership to take root here in NZ.

          You guys do this a lot. With poverty your argument compares modern NZ with post war NZ, central African countries, or even medieval Europe. With corruption, it’s not about maintaining a once stellar record, it’s about staying in the top 10. On the environment according to you guys as long as we are slightly cleaner than industrial China then that’s ok too because Chinese people will still want to come here.

          There seems to be a lack of concern about the slow fall of our once proudly championed social and environmental records. To your type it is collateral damage, unavoidable in the race for unrestrained and infinite economic growth.

          • wellfedweta 9.1.1.1.1
            4 January 2017 at 10:25 pm

            “Despite an alarming drop in home ownership under the current government…”

            Cite? Home ownership in NZ peaked in 1991, and has been steadily declining ever since.
            http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/money/70240843/nz-home-ownership-at-lowest-level-in-more-than-60-years

            “…you don’t see it as a problem because you claim home ownership here is high compared to other countries.”

            And it isn’t. Declining home ownership is a long term trend, internationally and in NZ. Are you suggesting we should force people to buy houses? And why weren’t you bleating about this when it was happening under Labour? Because you enjoy making a big deal out of nothing.

            “It’s well known home ownership in communities is good for health, achievement in education, and law and order…”

            Cite?

            • Muttonbird 9.1.1.1.1.1
              4 January 2017 at 10:32 pm

              From the right wing troll’s handbook:

              ‘Labour did it too.’ Check.
              ‘It’s happening everywhere.’ Check.
              Jump the shark. Check.
              Attack the person not the argument. Check.
              Deny obvious truths. Check.

      • WILD KATIPO 9.1.2
        4 January 2017 at 8:47 pm

        Fisiani 9
        4 January 2017 at 8:01 pm
        ‘No one has a right to own a house. Stop confusing ownership with houses. Have a look outside NZ Home ownership is very high here.’

        ” Muttonbird 9.1
        4 January 2017 at 8:03 pm
        Interesting that you want to bring the rest of the world’s problems here. ”

        ……………………………………………………………………………..

        S/He’s a globalist A – hole, that’s why – no loyalty to his/her nation , therefore ‘treasonistic ‘ by nature.

        Types like fizzpop would happily stampede right over you if it meant an extra dollar in the bank – and to hell with notions of the national good.

        Just another neo liberal A – hole ( JANLAH ).

        [lprent: You appear to be starting to tip over into routine pointless abuse. Not allowed. Read the policy and heed the warning. ]

        • ropata 9.1.2.1
          4 January 2017 at 11:20 pm

          wtf.weta has earned a ton of abuse from it’s persistent trolling, repeating debunked BS, and ignoring evidence that has been laid out time and time again. I wish wtf.weta would stop wasting everyone’s time with its deliberate derailing tactics.

          Katipo’s response seems pretty rational to me, I have tried to argue sensibly with w.f.weta but it’s not possible, they just deny deny deny like good little Nat poodles.

          • ropata 9.1.2.1.1
            4 January 2017 at 11:48 pm

            Oops, wrong RWNJ. Fisiani is annoying but at least he makes a decent argument sometimes.

          • Rae 9.1.2.1.2
            5 January 2017 at 11:35 am

            Class-ic I hope some time there is a reason to put up the travel agent sketch with Eric Idle’s phenomenal monologue

    • trademark 9.2
      4 January 2017 at 8:50 pm

      “NZ Home ownership is very high here”

      Near the bottom of the list here:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate

      And this list too:
      http://www.tradingeconomics.com/country-list/home-ownership-rate

      We should be able to do much better. Aspiration and whatnot.

      Or should we be complacent?

      • Rosemary McDonald 9.2.1
        4 January 2017 at 9:10 pm

        A cursory squizz at those charts trademark and one wee point instantly pops out.

        Those countries with a high home ownership rate are not exactly high on the list of desired destinations for cashed up property investors.

        Clever, humane governments would have anticipated that allowing unfettered investment from overseas buyers would put not only home ownership but affordable rentals out of the reach of many Kiwis and regulated accordingly.

        • AsleepWhileWalking 9.2.1.1
          5 January 2017 at 2:15 pm

          This is why NZ has become so depressing. I try to look on the bright side, but that only lasts until my landlord puts up the rent again. I feel so trapped that a monsterous mortgage that I can’t really afford actually looks appealing.

  11. Ad 11
    5 January 2017 at 7:51 am

    This is the Labour Party policy on housing:

    http://www.labour.org.nz/housing

    If they don’t win the public debate on this issue, the government will not change.

    Housing is the best chance of changing public opinion enough to win the 2017 general election.

  12. jcuknz 12
    5 January 2017 at 8:52 am

    The banks are not making enough profit because fewer people are mortgaging their lives to them with house purchases and banks are worried ?
    Really this thread is wonderful click-bait for the left.