Open mike 10/06/2021

Written By: - Date published: 6:00 am, June 10th, 2021 - 148 comments
Categories: open mike - Tags:

Open mike is your post.

For announcements, general discussion, whatever you choose.

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

Step up to the mike …

148 comments on “Open mike 10/06/2021 ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Sabine 1
    10 June 2021 at 8:17 am

    https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/covid-19-coronavirus-auckland-30000-jabs-behind-vaccine-schedule-hipkins-pleads-for-priority-people-to-step-forward/EU7BLNG3U73GWXVYZ4KEYEUCSQ/

    Stop pleading with people who can't be bothered, or don't want to be vaccinated and allow people who want to be vaccinated to get the jabs.
    Also stop sending out invites to people from the DHB and the GP at the same time to the same people. One could understand if there is some confusion if you can’t even get that right.

    • KSaysHi 1.1
      10 June 2021 at 11:29 am

      Hard to imagine the vaccine programme failing given the heavy coercion via media, and all that censorship.

      I'm fully expecting vaccine lotteries similar to those in the US and Canada to be rolled out next although it might be illegal here at present. Be surprised to see medical Drs speaking out against this type of manipulation if it does occur

      • Sabine 1.1.1
        10 June 2021 at 11:38 am

        Well i would be happy if they could just co-ordinate enough to send the same person to two different places at the same time because they are ovbiously on more then one list.

        After all is that not what a new IT system was invented? I have heard that from a few people now, specifically those that appear on different lists as they are healthcare workers, or in a particular age group and then again in a different group due to health reasons.

        I honestly don't care if people go for the vaccine or not – unless it is made mandatory you can't force people to get it, but you can prioritise those that WANT the vaccine, and then sweep up those that may change their mind over the time.

        I however am not happy about getting people back from Melbourne without a requirement to either go into quarantine or self isolate, but then the risk is acceptable to us unvaccinated. Right?

      • Anne 1.1.2
        10 June 2021 at 12:01 pm

        … and all that censorship.

        What censorship? I've not heard of any. Unless you're referring to the conspiracy theories which people are rightfully encouraged to ignore.

        I agree with Sabine. Stop wasting time on the lazy and the doubters. I have a close relative who is 77 with underlying conditions (not overly serious but they exist) and he tried to get a jab from the one and only vaccine clinic in the North Shore region. He was turned down on the basis he was out of the zone. He lives in Devonport.

        Based on that premise it means all over 65s who live in the south of the region are currently out of luck – unless you received an official invitation to make a booking which only applies to a portion of the local elderly. Nobody seems to know why they got an invite and not the rest of us. The invitees I know don't know either.

        Bit of a mess here.

        • Rosemary McDonald 1.1.2.1
          10 June 2021 at 12:24 pm

          What censorship? I've not heard of any.

          Excellent! It's working then.

          • mac1 1.1.2.1.1
            10 June 2021 at 1:29 pm

            Clever response, Rosemary. It's very hard to identify good censorship.

            On the other hand, and by the same logic, how do we know we are being censored at all?

            How do you prove that something is not happening, especially when the proponents are saying it is happening but you don't know it is because that is the nature of censorship, od secrecy, and dare I say it, of conspiracy?

            I see the answer might be found below at #6 from Isaac. The key to it all……..

      • Drowsy M. Kram 1.1.3
        10 June 2021 at 12:43 pm

        Coercion: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats

        Hard to imagine the vaccine programme failing given the heavy coercion via media, and all that censorship.

        What heavy coercion via media? If some do feel heavily coerced about anything in the NZ media, my advice is to limit their exposure to said media – a kind of reverse censorship. It's really easy as no-one can be coerced to 'consume' media offerings.

        I do hope that NZ's optional COVID-19 vaccination programme achieves it aims of limiting the spread of COVID-19 and/or the severity of symptoms, just like other optional vaccination programmes to protect against rotavirus, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, polio, hepatitis B, Haemophilus influenzae type b, pneumococcal disease, chickenpox, measles, mumps, rubella, human papillomavirus, and shingles.

        No vaccine is 100% effective, as they all rely on immune systems, but their ‘prevent and protect‘ functions are, on balance, beneficial to human health.

        If you want to get vaccinated, or vaccinate your children, then go for it – I'm looking forward to getting my COVID-19 jabs – no (heavy) coercion via media required.

        • mauī 1.1.3.1
          11 June 2021 at 7:14 pm

          "What heavy coercion via media?"

          Where have you been living for the past year? We get daily news about everything vaccine in the major print, radio, tv and internet news.

          Anyone with a negative view towards the vaccine is labelled "anti-vax", "vaccine hesitant", or a "conspiracy theorist".

          Anyone taking a critical look at what the media has been saying for months should clearly be able to see this bias.

          • McFlock 1.1.3.1.1
            11 June 2021 at 8:01 pm

            Someone with a negative view towards anything would be "anti", or at least "hesitant", about that thing, no?

            How would reporting that be "bias"?

          • Drowsy M. Kram 1.1.3.1.2
            11 June 2021 at 10:33 pm

            Coercion: the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats

            Maui – yes, there's plenty of MSM coverage about COVID-19 vaccines, both positive and negative. As the global pandemic death toll closes in on 4 million tragic deaths (with the realistic death toll much higher) that's hardly surprising.

            As far as I can tell no Ministry of Health staff or reputable media outlets are concealing the fact that the Pfizer vaccine is effective for ‘only‘ ~19 of every 20 recipients, or that there is a (very very) tiny risk of significant side-effects. Just type "COVID vaccine side-effects" into a Google search to see for yourself.

            So if you believe that the media coverage amounts to "heavy coercion" = use of heavy force or heavy threats (to do what?), then we'll have to agree to disagree.

            Tbh, it saddens me that you, or anyone, might feel coerced by the release of factual information about the effects and side-effects of COVID-19 vaccines.

            https://www.health.govt.nz/our-work/diseases-and-conditions/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/covid-19-vaccine-side-effects-and-reactions

            Fwiw, vaccine hesitancy is fairly commonsense, and shouldn’t be confused or lumped in with ‘anti-vax’.

            • Incognito 1.1.3.1.2.1
              11 June 2021 at 10:42 pm

              Maybe peer pressure or social pressure are better terms? There’s always pressure to conform to the majority view. I have to confess that I often like to give the finger to majority views and social ‘expectation’ especially when it there appears to have no solid foundation. I’ve learned to resist that temptation though because of OOS 😉

              • Drowsy M. Kram …
                12 June 2021 at 12:42 am

                Hard to imagine the vaccine programme failing given the heavy coercion via media, and all that censorship.

                Hard to imagine anyone wanting the 'vaccine programme' to fail, but…

                Yep Incognito, pressure/encouragement from peers and wider society (including government agencies) to get vaccinated against COVID will be significant; certainly far greater than peer pressure to not get vaccinated.

                Just thought 'heavy coercion' was ott – more appropriate to describe the treatment of WWI conscientious objectors, 1951 Waterfront workers, or indeed events such as the Dawn and Urewera raids.

                Can't rule out the possibility that there are instances of "heavy coercion" to get vaccinated against COVID-19, but imho such a claim should be supported by at least one NZ example.

                I support the freedom of any NZer to remain unvaccinated, although it's reasonable that those in critical border control and healthcare roles who choose not to, or are unable to get vaccinated must accept redeployment to duties with a relatively low risk of COVID-19 infection.

                I have to confess that I often like to give the finger to majority views…

                I too have a propensity to be suspicious of majority views. Regarding this global pandemic, is there a credible minority view (not Plan B) that's advocating against the widespread use of effective COVID-19 vaccines?

                Potentially useful prediction of how much of the population needs to be vaccinated for herd immunity.

                Will be interesting to see if, like the 1918 'Spanish flu', this pandemic burns out, or whether it settles into a (hopefully low-level) 'virus-vaccine arms race'.

  2. Adrian Thornton 2
    10 June 2021 at 8:31 am

    Good news for the Left, Socialists look to be winning in elections in Peru, despite vicious attacks and smears from the local MSM….of course.

    Socialist Castillo clings on to tight lead in Peru election as count nears end

    https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/socialist-castillo-holds-slim-lead-peru-presidential-vote-count-reaches-tense-2021-06-08/

  3. Incognito 3
    10 June 2021 at 8:38 am

    The other side to the PHARMAC story by somebody who has at least has some inkling how things work – no mention of cycling & walking bridges anywhere 🙂

    https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/125379927/stop-blaming-pharmac–wed-be-worse-off-without-it

    • Sabine 3.1
      10 June 2021 at 9:38 am

      Penny Tucker is concerned that there are “miracle drugs and biologics that have transformed many conditions from a death sentence to a surmountable challenge” and blames the lack of supply of these squarely on Pharmac. She is disappointed that Pharmac’s budget is not part of the review and is critical of its bureaucracy.

      I acknowledge that she has declared no involvement with the pharmaceutical industry but her arguments sound about the same as those from Graeme Jarvis of Medicines New Zealand. She makes no mention of the role that the pharmaceutical industry plays in the difficulty of funding these.

      The headline “Pharmac works well. Unless you’re sick” is seriously misleading. The contrary is true for the vast majority of New Zealanders, who received pharmaceuticals worth $1.04 billion last year

      Funny thing is though, that this is true for both, Pharmac is ok for those that don't need extra super duper special medication, but for those that need it, Pharmac does not work quite so well. And for those that had their working meds changed to a cheaper alternative without consultation, Pharmacs decision can be well say challenging.

      https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/118814341/bipolar-disorder-patients-suffer-terrible-side-effects-after-pharmac-drug-brand-switch

      But then, if this does not affect certain people, these same people might not give a dime that someone else is suffering.

      • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1.1
        10 June 2021 at 10:59 am

        Virtually every drug has side effects and often people have to stop taking them, luckily for me Pharmac had a second choice but because it was more expensive needed a specialist sign off.

        A bit baffled over a generic switch , but not surprised the concerns were from people with a 'mood related ' disorder or have been on a previous drug for a long time can forget the original adjustment wasnt easy either.

        Placebo and Nocebo effects show no active ingredient or no change in drug can still trigger side effects

    • Matiri 3.2
      10 June 2021 at 10:30 am

      Another side to the PHARMAC story from someone who would benefit from them being much more generous with funding certain miracle drugs and procedures if you read the media reports. I research the relevant medical publications and expert assessments relevant to my condition and conclude that PHARMAC decisions are robust and clinically sound in this respect.

    • woodart 3.3
      10 June 2021 at 11:59 am

      quite correct incognito. the usual moaners on here looking for a reason to whinge, should get out and pay full $$ for their meds. would make them stop and be very slightly grateful for pharmac(but probably not, too full of their own misery). their will ALWAYS be patients with unusual medical problems that need meds that arent subsidized, but with the HUGE range of meds for all sorts of conditions, that really is unavoidable. as someone who takes lots of meds, I am grateful for pharmac and how much they save me. a couple of the meds arent subsidized but winz often helps, and I figure if pharmac is saving me $50 on every ventolin inhaler, I can afford to put something toward meds they dont subsidize. too many on here are constantly whineing about how the gov isnt doing enough..get off your arse and help yourselves!!

    • bwaghorn 3.4
      10 June 2021 at 12:29 pm

      Why does nobody go after the drug greedy companies, $70k a year for the latest alzheimer medicines, hell if they sold it for $10k a year I bet they would sell more than 7 times the amount.

      • Sabine 3.4.1
        10 June 2021 at 12:34 pm

        the guys in the US ask that one too.

        Best one to ask this question is this Lady here……

        https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/katie-porter-big-pharma-whiteboard-b1850248.html

      • Nic the NZer 3.4.2
        10 June 2021 at 12:44 pm

        You think drug companies would be made more popular meerely by planning to increase alzheimer's patient numbers by 7 fold?

        • bwaghorn 3.4.2.1
          10 June 2021 at 6:08 pm

          Not sure what you mean . My point us once a drug is developed selling more of it at a cheaper rate must increase profits, but they chose to be arsholes!!

          If the UN had balls or teeth they would sort this out . If companies are gouging fuck them and their patents just steal thier recipe.

          • Nic the NZer 3.4.2.1.1
            10 June 2021 at 6:37 pm

            I have this strange belief that the demand for alzheimers treatment is less related to price and more related to the number of people with the condition. Especially in NZ where there is public funding.

            But if we take your reasoning as true then they are apparently surpressing alzheimers by 7x just by over charging. Maybe they could be asked to reduce the condition further by over charging even more?

      • weka 3.4.3
        10 June 2021 at 1:47 pm

        lol, how very anti-capitalist. There are some things we are not allowed to touch, and big pharma is one of them. AIDS drugs in Africa being a prime example, but covid vaccines is fast catching up.

        • Drowsy M. Kram 3.4.3.1
          10 June 2021 at 3:46 pm

          There are some things we are not allowed to touch, and big pharma is one of them.

          Maybe "we are not allowed to touch", but 'big pharma' occasionally takes its lumps.

          5 Famous Class Action Lawsuits Against Pharma Companies
          1. GlaxoSmithKline – Unlawful promotion of prescription drugs – $3bn

          And to think Glaxo started in NZ – "…symbolises the culture of innovation that New Zealand is known for around the world."

          Joseph Nathan and Co. was founded in 1873, as a general trading company in Wellington, New Zealand, by a Londoner, Joseph Edward Nathan. In 1904, it began producing a dried-milk baby food from excess milk produced on dairy farms near Bunnythorpe. The resulting product was first known as Defiance, then as Glaxo (from lacto), and sold with the slogan "Glaxo builds bonnie babies." The Glaxo Laboratories sign is still visible on what is now a car repair shop on the main street of Bunnythorpe.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GlaxoSmithKline#Glaxo_Wellcome

          https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2021/01/26/2164640/0/en/Drug-Guardians-Exposes-the-Growing-Number-of-Lawsuits-against-Giant-Pharma.html

          • Rosemary McDonald 3.4.3.1.1
            10 June 2021 at 4:38 pm

            And our very own favourite Pfizer has had it's day in court…https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/biggest-pharmaceutical-lawsuits/

            …but if anything goes awry in the Dominican Republic with the Covid vaccine….Pfizer has well and truly protected it's butt.

            https://www.keionline.org/35485

            Pfizer has asked some Latin American countries for “indemnity from civil cases, meaning that the company would not be held liable for rare adverse effects or for its own acts of negligence, fraud or malice,” according to a recent report from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism. “This includes those linked to company practices – say, if Pfizer sent the wrong vaccine or made errors during manufacturing.” In comments featured in the Bureau of Investigative Journalism report, Georgetown Law professor Lawrence Gostin explained that “[s]ome liability protection is warranted, but certainly not for fraud, gross negligence, mismanagement, failure to follow good manufacturing practices.”

            (A copy of the contract is embedded in the article, and is written in both Spanish and English.)

            • Drowsy M. Kram 3.4.3.1.1.1
              10 June 2021 at 4:51 pm

              yes And yet we NZers can't get enough of (some of) those wonder(ful) drugs!

      • Incognito 3.4.4
        10 June 2021 at 9:13 pm

        Never heard of Dr Ben Goldacre?

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma

  4. Prickles 4
    10 June 2021 at 8:55 am

    Chinese medicine to be included under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act (HPCAA). Now that's a big step for the government.

    http://www.voxy.co.nz/health/5/388498

    • weka 4.1
      10 June 2021 at 10:59 am

      What does the Act do?

      • Prickles 4.1.1
        10 June 2021 at 12:07 pm

        Essentially the Act is about protection of the public – makes sure that all those who are covered by it have appropriate qualifications, standards and scopes of practice etc and prevents others who do not have the right training from being able to call themselves a doctor, nurse, physiotherapist or whatever other health profession.

        The Act covers all the health professions but until now the Chinese medicine practitioners have not been covered by it.

    • ghostwhowalksnz 4.2
      10 June 2021 at 11:01 am

      Its not medicine, its folk cures as my (indian) doctor calls them.
      Apart from acupuncture.

      • weka 4.2.1
        10 June 2021 at 11:44 am

        5,000 years of empirical practice, theory development and building knowledge. Not to diss folk medicine but TCM is a form of medicine that requires training to n complex theory and practice. What qualifications in TCM does your doctor have?

    • joe90 4.3
      10 June 2021 at 1:11 pm

      So, lip service to the woo-believers while patients, families and communities are not only left to fund their own drugs, they're forced to stump up to administer life saving therapies to friends and loved ones.

      /

      https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/415797/without-keytruda-30-deaths-a-week-in-nz-from-cancer-lung-foundation

      Because Keytruda is unfunded in New Zealand for all cancers other than advanced melanoma: The Ministry of Health has directed that public hospitals are not to administer unfunded medicines and therefore Keytruda can only be given in a private hospital setting.

      This directive adds another $27,000 on top of the $60,000 which pays for the administration, scans, oncologist fees and GST for the private hospital.

      https://www.bowelcancerfoundation.org.nz/immunotherapy

  5. greywarshark 5
    10 June 2021 at 12:33 pm

    For reducing fossil fuels use coastal shipping? The Jane Gifford, a dainty looking scow is still going.

    https://www.junctionmag.co.nz/junctionmag/2020/7/31/the-historic-jane-gifford-scow

    http://www.janegifford.org.nz/

    • Stuart Munro 5.1
      10 June 2021 at 12:50 pm

      My granddad had that boat for a few years.

      • greywarshark 5.1.1
        10 June 2021 at 1:24 pm

        Looks like one of those reliable usefully shaped workhorses of the sea that could come into its own again do you think?
        https://www.ultimatenzsoccer.com/Onehunga/other_vessels_of_note.htm

        I think ‘Jane’ had masts and they took them down. So sail and fuel enhancement – batteries?

          • greywarshark 5.1.1.1.1
            10 June 2021 at 2:00 pm

            What a busy, demanding job being a seaman on a sailing ship eh!

            • KJT 5.1.1.1.1.1
              10 June 2021 at 4:58 pm

              Well. It could be, at times.

              An awful lot of time spent waiting for wind and tide to be in the right direction, and for loading and discharging.

              A big contrast to a modern container ship working 24/7 day and night every day of the year.

              I worked years ago with many of the old scow sailors and several people who were on the Pamir.

              Most of them much preferred the more relaxed, old days.as

              Plenty of stories of days in the pub, waiting for wind and tide. One swore that the story of a scow spearing an, occupied, farmers dunny with the bowsprit while tacking up a creek, was true.

        • Stuart Munro 5.1.1.2
          10 June 2021 at 2:02 pm

          Yeah, she had sails, but an engine too. You use the sails when you've got a bit of room, not up tidal creeks and such. Electrification is I think a later step for improving transport fuel efficiency – just getting freight off the roads is the first step, and given industry resistance, you'd want to see how that battle played out before electrifying our largely extinct coastal shipping.

          I think the government hasn't really given much thought to coastal shipping. You'd want to develop Clifford Bay or somewhere nearby, as the fairweather ferry port, and move freight through there when conditions allow – knocks a big chunk of fuel out of the interisland equation. And fuel = emissions.

          • greywarshark 5.1.1.2.1
            10 June 2021 at 2:26 pm

            Oh dear Clifford Bay again. I knew it was a bit closer for trucks and the ferry. Now you say that it would be a better port from the weather situation. If it was open could Picton still be used by inter-islander for tourist purposes and the rail link? Would that be viable? Picton needs to use its investment in seagoing ventures, and they keep the town going. It would be bad for it to divert too much elsewhere.

            • Stuart Munro 5.1.1.2.1.1
              10 June 2021 at 7:57 pm

              A port outside the Sounds saves about an hour on the ferry, together with some wake erosion. Picton will still be needed in strong easterlies apparently, so it doesn't close. Less ferries and more leisure craft can still keep it prosperous.

          • RedBaronCV 5.1.1.2.2
            10 June 2021 at 9:51 pm

            I seem to have a vague memory of Gerry Brownlee selling the land at Clifford bay that was being held fr a port. My understanding was, if a breakwater was built, then the ferry trip from wellington is shorter, the trip to christchurch is shorter and the rail wagons don't have to be hauled over the Dashwood incline.

      • Macro 5.1.2
        10 June 2021 at 10:13 pm

        The "Janey!" – Do you have the pamphlet written about her and the crew? A real work horse. The Warkworth Cement works started by Wilsons was dependent upon her fetching shell from the shell banks at Miranda in the Firth of Thames – where the godwits now feed. She is of course back at her old locality on the Maharangi River in Warkworth. My wife is an descendant of Davy Darroch who built her. Named after the ship which brought Davy and his father George and mother Nicholas to NZ in 1842. (Jane Gifford was the wife of the owner of the ship). Davy's tools are held in the Warkworth museum.

        • Stuart Munro 5.1.2.1
          10 June 2021 at 10:33 pm

          I still have a copy of The Janey and Her Skipper – written by Ivy Collins – Reg's wife.

          He worked her pretty hard, loading shell and shingle by barrow as often as not. My understanding was he let her go when the rules changed requiring him to carry an engineer – which must have affronted someone who lost so much hair nursing a temperamental diesel into life with a blowtorch.

          • Macro 5.1.2.1.1
            11 June 2021 at 8:54 am

            laugh

            I enjoyed reading a lent copy of it from a g'son of a former crew member. The family here have a fond attachment to the Janey and have a copy of the painting of the Jane Gifford and The Duchess of Argyll arrival in Auckland on the wall.

          • Macro 5.1.2.1.2
            13 June 2021 at 4:14 pm

            Here she is approaching her berth at the Warkworth Wharf.

            • Stuart Munro 5.1.2.1.2.1
              13 June 2021 at 5:51 pm

              Got to love anything schooner rigged – they always look like they're going a million miles an hour.

      • greywarshark 5.2.1
        10 June 2021 at 2:18 pm

        Amongst the photogenic pictures of 'Jane' there were ads for Omaha Beach's Jane Gifford Place and this was put up only 2 years ago.

        Imagine waking to the gentle sounds of surf, leaping out of bed, a 3-minute stroll to watch the sun rise on the pristine, white sands of Omaha Beach. Walk your dog with a friend, cast your fishing rod or catch a wave, then wander back via the café

        I hope that people have finally caught up with the idea of – a Sea level rise b Weather bombs c King/queen tides more frequent d Huge waves from local or distant weather events. Just not what you want to wake up to and definitely not 'the gentle sounds of surf'.

        I hope too the Rip van Winkels don't wake up with a shock, and go waah Council, government, come and help us now we have been foolish and wilfully ignorant and invested in wet sand. Even the bible warns against that though note; it isn't the real estate 'profession' bible.

        ..shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 7:27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. Matthew 7: 24-27

      • Stuart Munro 5.2.2
        13 June 2021 at 6:03 pm

        Damn – I've never sailed on her – my marine career was mostly down south. Did the Foveaux yacht race a couple of seasons – never got up to Warkworth.

    • mac1 5.3
      10 June 2021 at 3:21 pm

      The historical reason for Blenheim being where it is comes from the fact that it was the first firm land suitable for wagons to unload cargoes from coastal scows such as the Edwin Fox etc.

      It would be interesting to see the Clifford Bay proposal revisited in these changing times.

  7. greywarshark 7
    10 June 2021 at 1:22 pm

    Spite. There is a fair amount of it in politics and surrounds.

    Interesting thoughts – https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/queensbirthday/audio/2018798701/can-any-good-come-from-spite

    • greywarshark 7.1
      10 June 2021 at 5:36 pm

      quiztest.
      In this game you’re told you’re playing a game against somebody and that person has been given a pot of money which they must share with you. They may have $10 and make you an offer of $2.
      “And then you have a choice, you can choose to take that $2, which is real money, walk away and buy something, or you can decide to turn the offer down.

      But if you turn the offer down, then you leave with no money, and the other person also leaves with no money…”

      “But what they found was that if people were offered $2 out of a $10 pot then around half of people would turn that down.”
      This held true even for larger amounts of money, he says.

      “An American group then did it where it was $100 a game. And they still found that when people were offered 20 bucks out of that 100, around half would still turn it down. So even if there's quite a lot of money on the line people will still spitefully turn it down.

      “They turned it down because they didn't want the other person to get more money than they did.”
      This could simply be a fairness instinct manifesting itself, but other games show a darker impulse.

      The ‘Joy of Destruction’ game is when everybody has a task and earns the same amount for it.
      “At the end, you're asked under conditions of anonymity whether you'd like to destroy some of the other person's money just because you can do and about 40 percent of people spitefully choose to destroy the other person's money – just because they can.”

      What do you think. A bit of something, is worth more than a lot of nothing, all things being equal?

      • alwyn 7.1.1
        13 June 2021 at 6:41 pm

        I have observed the instinct in cases where the person wasn't going to get anything but was simply jealous of someone they don't know being fortunate. The one where people will reject quite large sums still surprises me though. I simply don't understand the psychology of such people.

        In terms of the spite behavior though I can offer the variant I never understood either. An acquaintance of mine bought an old Rolls Royce a couple of years ago. It was about 30 years old and it only cost him about $15,000, ie the price of a 3 year old basic car. He just wanted to own one once in his life and it being old and a bit unreliable didn't bother him.

        It was totally ruined for him because he couldn't park it anywhere in Wellington. It would have some idiot run a coin down the side, just for spite it appeared. It happened to him 4 or 5 times in just a couple of months. Why did people behave that way? He got rid of it because the behavior of other people who were simply jealous of someone they didn't even know was too much for him.

      • Pat 7.1.2
        13 June 2021 at 7:33 pm

        Nobody was earning, it was (potentially) fortuitous gain…the logical and fair thing to do was offer to split it….id suggest if that was done the uptake would be near universal.

      • Incognito 7.1.3
        13 June 2021 at 7:49 pm

        I wonder if the outcome would have been different if it had been apples, pies or marbles, for example, instead of dollars. We seem to have an other-worldly relationship with money.

  8. Stuart Munro 8
    10 June 2021 at 2:13 pm

    Chloe is in good form in the Guardian – a bit of common sense on renting.

    Under the government’s current plans it will be half a century before house prices return to affordability

    • gypsy 8.1
      13 June 2021 at 7:03 pm

      I suspect Ashley Church may be rather better informed about housing affordability than Chloe. And I'd suggest Chloe may need to do more reading if she is seriously advocating for rent controls.

      • Incognito 8.1.1
        13 June 2021 at 7:58 pm

        I suspect Ashley Church is not an elected MP with an electorate seat who is in Parliament for the whole of Aotearoa-New Zealand. You sure make some silly comments.

        • gypsy 8.1.1.1
          13 June 2021 at 8:11 pm

          Being an elected MP does not make Chloe any more educated on housing affordability. That is abundantly clear from her comments.

          • Incognito 8.1.1.1.1
            13 June 2021 at 9:07 pm

            Never said that. Point is that as an MP, she gets to make policy and decisions that affect many more than just a Real Estate lobby group. She’s accountable to all Kiwis. You’re betting on the wrong horse, but maybe you have an engrained bias against the Green Party or an agenda or both.

            • gypsy 8.1.1.1.1.1
              13 June 2021 at 9:22 pm

              My comment was never about influence, it was about knowledge and experience.

              "I suspect Ashley Church may be rather better informed about housing affordability than Chloe."

              If Chloe wants to use her policy and decision making ability in a constructive way, she could a lot worse than to have a chat about housing affordability with someone with Ashley Church's experience.

              • Incognito …
                13 June 2021 at 9:45 pm

                So you did, which was a meaningless comment, at best, and more like an attack on a Green MP. For example, Andrew Little is not medically qualified in the slightest yet he’s the Minister of Health. The way it works is that Government MPs and Ministers get professional and expert advice from qualified people. I doubt Ashley Church is among those, for obvious reasons. National MPs OTOH might welcome it with open arms and lots of hugs & kisses; a few former MPs are now Real Estate agents I’ve heard.

                • gypsy …
                  14 June 2021 at 12:36 pm

                  " I doubt Ashley Church is among those, for obvious reasons."

                  The only "obvious reason" would be that Church is informed, knowledgeable and experienced. Chloe is not. Which, despite your obvious misreading of my post, is why I suggested she does some more research.

      • Pat 8.1.2
        13 June 2021 at 8:00 pm

        I suspect a property spruiker is the absolute last person you would seek information from regarding property affordability

        • gypsy 8.1.2.1
          13 June 2021 at 8:19 pm

          In a choice between Ashley Church and Chloe Swarbrick, Chloe wouldn't even get second.

          • Stuart Munro 8.1.2.1.1
            14 June 2021 at 6:00 am

            Vox populi says otherwise – the only Ash I know of, except the man with the boomstick, is a doctor.

          • Drowsy M. Kram 8.1.2.1.2
            14 June 2021 at 7:55 am

            Thanks, gypsy, for that confirmation of where you're coming from.

            In a choice between [insert name here] and gypsy, gypsy wouldn't even get second.

            Sound familiar?

      • Stuart Munro 8.1.3
        14 June 2021 at 5:55 am

        By all means point to the errors in her reasoning – looked pretty good to me.

        • gypsy 8.1.3.1
          14 June 2021 at 12:38 pm

          Look at Chloe's claims on housing affordability, then look at Ashley's Church's evidence based article. That's just a start.

          • Drowsy M. Kram 8.1.3.1.1
            14 June 2021 at 1:27 pm

            Swarbrick/Church aren't the only ones making claims on housing affordability.

            CoreLogic report shows continued decline in housing affordability

            Rising unaffordability “nothing new”

            CoreLogic notes that affordability analysis can rarely be based on absolute comparisons – it has to be an area’s figures measured relative to its own history or to other parts of the country. All in all, Mr Davidson says, “There is nothing new about increasing unaffordability – to combat it, New Zealand needs more supply of housing and more intensified housing – making use of prefab techniques and tiny housing.”

            “The key message from this report is that housing affordability worsened quite appreciably in the final three months of 2020 and any further declines will increase the divide between existing owners and those who aspire to buy, and lessen the pool of people who can actually enter the market, ensuring that this issue remains right at the top of the public agenda for some time to come.”

            About CoreLogic
            With coverage of 99% of the New Zealand property market and more than 500 million decision points in our database, we're absolutely passionate about data accuracy which allows us to deliver on our promise of the most reliable and powerful property insights and analytics.

            Maybe Church's analysis is the odd one out, which would be odd indeed given that he's a former CEO of the Property Institute of New Zealand.

            That being said, maybe the recent tax changes for residential investment properties will begin to have an effect at the lower end of the property market.

            • gypsy 8.1.3.1.1.1
              14 June 2021 at 1:58 pm

              I have the answer for you. It is in the words "final three months of 2020". Church's analysis covers a considerably longer time frame.

              “That being said, maybe the recent tax changes for residential investment properties will begin to have an effect at the lower end of the property market.”
              My personal view is they won’t, because there is still a huge issue with supply. Ashley Church, in his letter to the PM, points out that the biggest impediment to first home buyers is the deposit, and there are ways to fix that that the government could be considering.

          • Stuart Munro 8.1.3.1.2
            14 June 2021 at 8:56 pm

            No, before you bring in your dodgy propagandist, you must answer Chloe's case.

            Church seems to be disqualified by avarice (he's a rentier) and inclination (he is involved with the untruthful and frankly toxic taxevader's "union") from meaningful commentary – if we wanted even more failed Chicago school bullshit, we need only consult the ape-descended primates on Kiwibog.

            • gypsy 8.1.3.1.2.1
              14 June 2021 at 9:16 pm

              So being a rentier disqualifies a person from having an informed opinion on the property market? That's like saying anyone who benefits financially from climate change policy is disqualified from having a qualified on opinion on climate change. It's silly.

              As for Chloe's case, I have answered it. She speaks about it taking decades for housing to return to affordability, but as Ashley Church points out, housing is more affordable now than it was 33 years ago.

              Chloe also argues for rent controls, and in support links to the UK Labour Party's proposals, which are untried, while ignoring the evidence that rent controls have perverse outcomes.

              I have nothing against Chloe personally, but she is seriously out of her depth.

              • Incognito …
                14 June 2021 at 10:55 pm

                I have nothing against Chloe personally, but she is seriously out of her depth.

                How lovely to know that your attacks on Chlöe are not personal, nor on James Shaw or the Green Party at large, I take it. And you would know this because your hero/guru Ashley Church told you?

                The Green Party has opened this for public discussion and feedback and put up eight options to start the debate.

                https://www.greens.org.nz/reasonable_rents

                Clearly, housing affordability is low, especially in Auckland. As the Greens point out, there are international examples of various ways of control and regulation that work. Unsurprisingly, you had to cherry-pick the untested proposals by Labour UK. However, I do assume that those proposals are founded on research too, as is the case with the Green Party’s initiative.

                The Taxpayers’ Onion has no credibility whatsoever until they put up a discussion document that National or ACT can take to Parliament. Instead, they fear-monger in the hope of stymying the debate and killing off any firm policy proposals by this Government. It goes without saying that they don’t ACT in good faith. Never have. Never will. Do you donate to them?

                • Pat …
                  14 June 2021 at 11:08 pm

                  Pointless exercise ….gypsy has misinterpreted the claim in his linked 2019 article (median house price has increased by over 30% since) where Ashley Church does what he accuses others of doing and cherry picks 'serviceability' criteria to compare two points in time to create a false narrative and conveniently ignores deposit criteria, mortgage terms and income ratios.

                  Corelogics most recent report notes these factors in its analysis and is a much better source of analysis than an industry spruiker.

                  • Incognito …
                    15 June 2021 at 7:57 am

                    Thanks. Indeed, it is obvious what gypsy is doing here. Have seen it before and it always ends the same way, which they should know by now 🙁

                  • gypsy …
                    15 June 2021 at 1:31 pm

                    The Core Logic data is looking at a much narrower window. I havn't misinterpreted any claim. And the deposit criteria is something Ashley Church specifically mentions in his letter to the PM.

                    What I do find strange is the seeming willingness to accept untried political opinions over the word of someone who understands the housing market. I doubt that principle would be applied in other areas?

                    • Pat …
                      15 June 2021 at 4:36 pm

                      Lol…what I find strange is the supporting links in his letter to the PM are his own articles….he provides ZERO evidence for his talking points…all of which are regularly trotted out by the industry.

                      The fact is housing affordability is completely controllable by the government should they so choose….the real question is whether the consequences are politically saleable.

                      As the Gov and RBNZ are well aware its a question of when not if the housing ponzi crashes….and every action to date has been to defer that day.

                  • gypsy …
                    15 June 2021 at 5:27 pm

                    " the supporting links in his letter to the PM are his own articles….he provides ZERO evidence for his talking points…"

                    Yes he does…they are in the articles he links to.

                    "The fact is housing affordability is completely controllable by the government should they so choose…"

                    Over the long run, I agree. But as you point out, there would be political costs that would likely be unpalatable.

                    • Pat …
                      15 June 2021 at 5:38 pm

                      If (contrary to what Ashley Church espouses) the Gov can control housing affordability as you agree AND that is a political decision then why would you listen to his advice ( a failed politician) over that of a successful politician (Chloe Swarbrick)?

                      He's a lobbyist using an industry provided outlet and his opinion deserves to be viewed as such.

                  • gypsy …
                    15 June 2021 at 7:23 pm

                    " If (contrary to what Ashley Church espouses) the Gov can control housing affordability as you agree AND that is a political decision then why would you listen to his advice ( a failed politician) over that of a successful politician (Chloe Swarbrick)? "

                    1. That isn't what Ashley Church espouses. In fact his letter makes suggestions about how the government could fix the housing market.

                    2. Why would I listen to the advice of a proven expert over someone with zero experience?

                    3. Ashley Church was the youngest ever person elected to the Napier Council. He served 3 terms. Like Stuart, you don't seem to know much about Ashley.

                  • gypsy …
                    15 June 2021 at 8:11 pm
                    1. Do you understand the difference between house prices (from Ashley's Church's quote) and housing affordability (from your quote I replied to)? Clearly you don't, which could explain a lot. FYI, this was the headline of his letter to the PM “Dear Prime Minister, how I would ‘fix’ the housing market”.
                    2. Ashley Church's credentials are well recognised. I'm not aware that Chloe Swarbrick is called on to offer her expert opinion on any aspect of the property market.
                    3. Your reference is a Napier general election result. In a safe Labour seat in which Church stood for National. Church served for 3 terms as an elected Councillor. “He was responsible for the ‘NapierLife’ Marketing program, which was a key driver in reversing population decline and re-energising economic activity in Hawke’s Bay during the 1990s. ” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashley_Church#Political_career). Chloe failed in her bid at the Auckland mayoralty. She only got 7.33% of the vote. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Auckland_mayoral_election) Does that make her a 'failed politician'? I think not.
                    • Pat …
                      15 June 2021 at 8:37 pm
                      1. You do understand the meaning of 'affordability' and its relationship to price?

                      2. Ashley Church's credentials have no basis in housing affordability, the area you attribute his 'expertise'….indeed his experience is more accurately in property investment and sales and marketing, the almost antithesis of affordability.

                      3.Yes Chloe Swarbrick lost her first foray into local body politics and went on to succeed within national level politics whereas Mr Church never managed to progress beyond local Councillor….and we know the quality of local body politics.

                      4. You are welcome to hang on Mr Church 's property proclamations regarding property investment but if he wishes to make policy then he can re-offer his services to the electorate and see if he fares any better this time round, meanwhile C Swarbrick can continue to perform the role she was elected to do.

                  • gypsy …
                    15 June 2021 at 10:36 pm

                    "You do understand the meaning of 'affordability' and its relationship to price?"

                    Yes. It is one component of many. But you really did confuse the two didn't you.

                    "Ashley Church's credentials have no basis in housing affordability"

                    Of course they do. He is a well regarded expert on property matter generally, and has written on the topic for a living.

                    "Yes Chloe Swarbrick lost her first foray into local body politics and went on to succeed within national level politics whereas Mr Church never managed to progress beyond local Councillor….and we know the quality of local body politics."

                    So by your own standard, Chloe has failed at politics. Unless you have a different standard for people you disagree with?

                    "You are welcome to hang on Mr Church 's property proclamations regarding property investment but if he wishes to make policy then he can re-offer his services to the electorate and see if he fares any better this time round, meanwhile C Swarbrick can continue to perform the role she was elected to do."

                    I don't hang my hat on anything. It is important to consider a range of viewpoints. If and when Chloe establishes her bona fides in property, I will even listen to her.

                • gypsy …
                  15 June 2021 at 1:13 pm

                  " Clearly, housing affordability is low, especially in Auckland. "

                  Ashley Church has presented an argument that housing affordability is better than it was 30 years ago. You have an opportunity to refute that.

                  " The Green Party has opened this for public discussion and feedback and put up eight options to start the debate. "

                  I never critiqued Green party policy. I was commenting on an article written by Chloe Swarbrick that contained her ideas about housing affordability and rent controls. I consider her opinion ill-informed, and have provided references to support that view.

                  “How lovely to know that your attacks on Chlöe are not personal, nor on James Shaw or the Green Party at large”
                  In this entire discussion I have not made any comment about James Shaw (who I admire) or the Green party generally. I have also made no mention of the Tax Payers Union, National or Act.

                  [Time to start moderating you because it seems that you’re pushing a nefarious agenda on this site and your comments don’t appear to be in good faith, as others have come to realise and have noted too.

                  Housing affordability is low, especially in Auckland.

                  This is a fact that does not get nullified by some historical comparison, which is a disingenuous debating trick. In addition, the comparison is arguably flawed anyway, as others have already pointed out.

                  I never critiqued Green party policy. I was commenting on an article written by Chloe Swarbrick that contained her ideas about housing affordability and rent controls.

                  Actually, Chlöe Swarbrick didn’t give or discuss any specific ideas about rent controls in her article in the Guardian. She mentioned that her party had started talking about rent controls (see the link in my comment listing 8 options to kick-off debate and consultation). And you went apeshit. When you try to refute her “ideas about housing affordability and rent controls”, by using Ashley Church as your prop – do you have any expertise of your own at all in this area? – you are, in fact, trying to critique “Green party policy”. Don’t you even realise what you’re doing here or is this part of your gaslighting MO? So far, you have not critiqued anything, but just went out on a full-scale blanket attack against the broad concept of rent control in Aotearoa-New Zealand. Quite possibly, because you’re ideologically opposed or have vested interests or both.

                  In this entire discussion I have not made any comment about James Shaw (who I admire) or the Green party generally.

                  Strictly speaking, this is correct, but I (and others here) read all your comments and I put this in context of what you’re doing here specifically in this thread. For example, starting here with your obscure Listener article that nobody else here could access: https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-13-06-2021/#comment-1797969. Short memory? Comes with the job, I guess.

                  So, others and I see a pattern emerging and when challenged, you deny and obfuscate.

                  I have also made no mention of the Tax Payers Union, National or Act.

                  Not verbatim, correct again, but you mentioned/introduced Ashley Church and keep propping him up. Are you playing cute when insulting our intelligence?

                  The way I see it is that you are a slippery commenter who does not comment in good faith, particularly on housing affordability, rent controls, and Chlöe Swarbrick. You don’t engage in constructive debate, which is why others are wasting their time on your comments (26 so far here and going on for 3 full days now). Here is your warning: stop with this disingenuous way of commenting or take it somewhere else. Please acknowledge that you have read and understood this warning, thanks – Incognito]

                  • greywarshark …
                    15 June 2021 at 1:33 pm

                    It seems gypsy that you are a candidate for thought along the lines of Bertrand Russell:

                    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. Bertrand Russell

                    https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/bertrand_russell_121392

                    There is a problem with housing affordability for the younger working age group, and it has been shown that the number of years income required to buy a house has shot up skyhigh, compared to earlier times when there was more gradual rise in line with young adults' earnings.

                    I think this is generally recognised and you criticising people for thinking differently makes you seem a hostile provocateur in the column. Are you a rentier yourself only concerned with your own interests or those of family or friends or clients? We are thinking about the interests of general society, it is a different perspective; it seems there is a chasm between the two sides.

                    • gypsy …
                      15 June 2021 at 1:47 pm

                      "I think this is generally recognised…"

                      What is generally recognised is that getting together a deposit is the problem, which is precisely the point Ashley Church makes.

                      " We are thinking about the interests of general society, "

                      …which cannot be served by poor analysis of the problem. Being nice is not a solution. On this issue, Chloe is neither experienced or wise.

                    • greywarshark …
                      15 June 2021 at 2:15 pm

                      gypsy You are cherry picking things to go on about, and repeat, and go on about, and… Why don't you take up building mountains out of molehills elsewhere? We want to see real housing being carried out, and not leaky stuff either, and haven't got time to indulge in acrimonious arguments with people 'vaccinated with a gramophone needle' as my Gran used to say. Please go and find yourself a good hobby where you can show off your aggression and erudition to an appreciative well-heeled audience. Body building or ultimate fighting might be to your taste.

                    • gypsy …
                      15 June 2021 at 3:05 pm

                      " We want to see real housing being carried out, "

                      I have only been commenting on Chloe's opinion piece, and only about housing affordability and rent controls.

                    • Stuart Munro …
                      15 June 2021 at 4:06 pm

                      seaman's language?

                      Seamen have been known to enhance their expressive range with deck spanners – nor is their tolerance for fools infinite. But it is better not to lay one's vices off on one's profession. A certain terseness and directness of expression sometimes, perhaps.

                    • gypsy …
                      15 June 2021 at 10:44 pm

                      " There is so much to read and follow and these people are a distraction "

                      No-one is forcing you to engage. Given your responses, I would suggest your issue is sensitivity to criticism of Chloe rather than truly believing she is more qualified to speak authoritatively on this than Ashley Church.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    16 June 2021 at 5:03 pm

                    You have thoroughly established yourself as a bad faith commenter.

                    I consider her opinion ill-informed

                    I consider your opinion fatuous.

                    I would suggest you get help,

                    I'm sure we are all amused by

                    • your assumption of mental health credentials you don't possess
                    • your departure from them by offering diagnosis without consultation or consent

                    But it is entirely consistent with the quality of your opinions on real estate, and on Chloe Swarbrick; that is to say, not worth a moment of anybody's time.

                    • gypsy …
                      16 June 2021 at 7:06 pm

                      You continue to believe the word of a 26 year old who has no experience, and I'll continue to listen to expert opinion. I hope you feel better soon.

                  • Incognito …
                    16 June 2021 at 6:06 pm

                    See my Moderation note @ 1:13 pm.

                    • gypsy …
                      16 June 2021 at 7:09 pm

                      When you try to refute her “ideas about housing affordability and rent controls”, by using Ashley Church as your prop – do you have any expertise of your own at all in this area? \

                      Providing expert opinion is not a 'prop'. I can just imagine your response if I had given my own opinion without support! And yes I have expertise. Considerable. But that doesn't actually matter, so I quoted from an industry professional whose analysis people actually pay for.

                      [So much to unpack in this short comment; a most revealing litigious comment, which should have been a short and simple acknowledgement of a Moderation note, no more, no less.

                      If all you do is refer to one single so-called expert without providing your own arguments and facts, yes, then it is a prop. You’re hiding behind your prop and this is the well-known authority fallacy.

                      My imagined response is mostly irrelevant; more importantly, imagine the response of other commenters if you had given your opinion supported with well laid out arguments and information and you had engaged in good faith; we wouldn’t be having this convo right now. But no, Ashley Church is the best thing since sliced bread, apparently, and Chlöe Swarbrick is ignorant, inexperienced, and young – “a 26 year old who has no experience”, FFS!!

                      So, it does actually matter that you argue from your own position of knowledge and expertise instead of hiding behind a prop. It also adds authenticity to your comments, which builds trust and respect, even when others don’t necessarily agree with you. This is the kaupapa of this site and your comments run counter to this.

                      So, you chose a prop that people pay for? What kind of argument is that? Should we be impressed, in awe, and stunned? Does it make his opinion any better than Chlöe Swarbrick’s who’s also paid by the people to do her job dutifully as MP? Does it make him more trustworthy and accountable?

                      It is a pathetic argument and we know it – Incognito]

                    • Incognito []
                      17 June 2021 at 8:45 am

                      See my Moderation note @ 7:09 pm.

                    • gypsy …
                      16 June 2021 at 7:21 pm

                      Housing affordability is low, especially in Auckland.

                      Now this is a really good example of how you operate – you either don't understand the content or you deliberately misrepresent it. I have never argued affordability is or is not 'low'. What i did was introduce Ashley Church's evidence that housing is more affordable than it was 30 years ago. Chloe's article was headed " Under the government’s current plans it will be half a century before house prices return to affordability ". The point I made from the outset was that this is misleading, because housing is more affordable now than it was 30 years ago. That's why I referred to the work by Ashley Church.

                      [Chlöe Swarbrick correctly stated in her article that housing affordability is low. I stated the same thing (https://thestandard.org.nz/open-mike-10-06-2021/#comment-1798194). Your response was to mention some silly historical comparison by Ashely Church with which you agreed, obviously. Now you’re saying “I have never argued affordability is or is not ‘low’.” You’re lying through your teeth; you attacked that statement of fact more than once!

                      Chlöe’s statement was about how long it might take to correct this unaffordability, a projection into the future, which you ‘countered’ with a backward statement. If that isn’t the comment of a disingenuous troll, I don’t know what is.

                      Now this is a really good example of how you operate – you either don’t understand the content or you deliberately misrepresent it. [my italics]

                      QFT

                      The only one who has been misleading is you – Incognito]

                    • Incognito []
                      16 June 2021 at 11:44 pm

                      See my Moderation note @ 7:21 pm.

                    • gypsy …
                      16 June 2021 at 7:25 pm

                      This is a fact that does not get nullified by some historical comparison, which is a disingenuous debating trick.

                      Chloe's article was headed " Under the government’s current plans it will be half a century before house prices return to affordability ". Presenting historical evidence that housing is more affordable now than 30 years ago in response to that claim is a "disingenuous debating trick"?

                      Seriously, I've enjoyed this little exchange. And yes, I understand the warning. It is a petulant rant from a moderator who clearly doesn't like their pets being criticized.

                      [Nope, you pulled the debating trick arguing against my comment that housing affordability is low, particularly in Auckland. This is undeniable and yet you deny it!? And it could indeed take decades to get down to levels that are more acceptable.

                      Yes, I’m sure you’ve enjoyed your little exchange with me and all those other ones with other commenters here. So far, 31 comments here. Unfortunately, you don’t want to understand the warning and rather attack the Moderator, which is a silly thing to do. Your attack is misplaced and misguided, anyway, because they are not my “pets” nor did you criticise anything. All you did was sniping and yapping.

                      I see that you ran some other counter-attacks on my Moderation note, which is just wasting more Moderator time. I will deal with those later, but first I will put a stop to this charade. Banned for 31 days, one day for each comment – Incognito]

                    • Incognito []
                      16 June 2021 at 11:21 pm

                      See my Moderation note @ 7:25 pm.

                  • gypsy …
                    16 June 2021 at 6:55 pm

                    You need to get over yourself. This isn’t North Korea FFS.

                    But you mentioned/introduced Ashley Church and keep propping him up. "

                    No, I responded to ad-hominem attacks on an expert commentator that were irrelevant to the post. Have you moderated those who carried on those attacks? I’ll bet you haven’t.

                    but I (and others here) read all your comments and I put this in context of what you’re doing here specifically in this thread.

                    This seems to go to the heart of your moderating. You don’t like criticism of something you agree with. But whatever you may assert, an article in the listener is not 'obscure'. I do note that criticism of any Green Party policy is now unacceptable to you. Particularly one that is supported by a reference.

                    Actually, Chlöe Swarbrick didn’t give or discuss any specific ideas about rent controls in her article in the Guardian.

                    This is arguably one of your sillier comments.
                    Her piece in the guardian is headed "Everyone deserves a decent, secure life. It’s time New Zealand talked about rent controls." Her article links to Green Party policy on housing, which includes control of rents!

                    I could go on, but you have form that I was warned about by other commenters here when i was new. In the case of this convo, I understand it goes back to your silly comment here.

                    [This is a note for future reference.

                    Indeed, this is not North Korea, because here you can freely comment and argue your opinion without fear of repercussions. FFS.

                    Moderators here are more concerned about ad homs at other commenters and, above all, Authors. If somebody doubts your ‘expert’ this is hardly the stuff that would trigger moderation unless it kills debate and/or creates a bad vibe. Moderation usually starts with a warning, anyway.

                    Moderation is all about commenting behaviour, not about disagreeing at all. You’ve got it all wrong. I really don’t care if you want to criticize any Green Party policy but that’s not what you did here; you attacked a Green MP in a dishonest way without proper arguments other than your prop Ashley Church.

                    It is rather puzzling that you think so highly of Ashley Church and think his opinion on the matter is definitive and some kind of ‘industry standard’ since you wrote about a week ago:

                    That is a personal opinion provided based on someone’s experience. That has value, but it is certainly not definitive.

                    The Listener article that you quoted was “obscure” because it was inaccessible to others here, me included, i.e. it was hidden. This is an accepted meaning of “obscure”.

                    Indeed, Chlöe Swarbrick and the Green Party want (us) to talk about rent controls. The Green Party website lists 8 options to kick-start the discussion. You did not counter any of those options. You want to kill off any debate about rent controls full stop. No discussion needed around any of the options. No need to evaluate the supporting material provided. Just abort it ASAP. All rent control is bad, according to you, without actually arguing any specifics in the GP discussion document. We should simply take Ashley Church’s word for it. Yeah, right!

                    If you don’t want to debate rent controls here on this site, then you can leave it or go somewhere else. Others may want to discuss it and don’t need you riding roughshod all over the thread and diverting it away to Ashley Church of all people, i.e. without you diversion trolling here.

                    No, you cannot go on, because you have now been banned and when you come back you can pull your head in.

                    Yes, I saw your comment at the time (https://thestandard.org.nz/about-trevor-mallard/#comment-1791405) and thought it was silly and I took it a face value. So, you were new here, were you? Not only do you treat other commenters here with contempt, you also treat a Moderator as a fool. Let’s stop playing your silly little game, because we both know how this will end, don’t we? – Incognito]

              • Stuart Munro …
                15 June 2021 at 2:04 pm

                No, you have not even begun to answer Chloe's point, the crisis of unaffordability, nor are the opinions of a dishonest extreme right provocateur of interest.

                housing is more affordable now than it was 33 years ago

                Liar.

                "Only one country in a worldwide survey saw house prices rise faster than New Zealand in 2015. And no country could top New Zealand for house price jumps relative to income." New Zealand house price rises outpace all but one country | Stuff.co.nz

                You and Ashleigh Church can ‘make love elsewhere’.

                • gypsy …
                  15 June 2021 at 2:14 pm

                  House price increases and income levels do not determine affordability. You have ignored interest rates for one. And providing a single comment from a moment in time 6 years ago is not a credible argument.

                  Your comment is precisely the reason you need to be listening to more informed voices.

                  Edit – if you enjoy snap shot comments, here’s one for you:

                  “We’ve always been expensive. When I bought my first house 46 years ago, I struggled to get it. I sold all the nice things and put in flat mates. It was never easy.” https://www.oneroof.co.nz/news/kiwi-house-prices-how-do-they-compare-to-the-rest-of-the-world-38726

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    15 June 2021 at 2:52 pm

                    You trying to peddle the views of a dishonest redneck on a left-leaning site really takes the cake.

                    you need to be listening to

                    No, no I don't. You and the revolting Mr Church can find somewhere else to peddle your facile lies.

                    Here, we are concerned with making progress on the clusterfuck people like you and the revolting Mr Church have made of what was once a functional and well-ordered society.

                    If you're not with that program, maybe you don't belong here. People on the BFD are apparently stupid enough to pay attention to you – you'll be right at home.

                    I rate Chloe infinitely more trustworthy and better informed than either of you – you constitute a mighty low bar.

                    • gypsy …
                      15 June 2021 at 3:01 pm

                      Ashley Church is a commentator on property with considerable knowledge and experience. I can only suggest you have lost all sense of proportion.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    15 June 2021 at 3:12 pm

                    Ashley Church is a commentator on property with considerable knowledge and experience. I can only suggest you have lost all sense of proportion.

                    Ashleigh Church is a liar and a provocateur. These things are bad manners in civilized societies.

                    Sod off and take your scoundrel with you.

                    • greywarshark …
                      15 June 2021 at 3:59 pm

                      Brief and salty Stuart – seaman's language?

                    • gypsy …
                      15 June 2021 at 4:09 pm

                      First it's Ashley, not Ashleigh.

                      Secondly – he knows his stuff when it comes to property. In the context of this discussion, that's all that matters, notwithstanding your irrational dislike for the man.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    15 June 2021 at 5:33 pm

                    First it's Ashley, not Ashleigh.

                    His mother might care, but we do not.

                    Secondly – he knows his stuff when it comes to property.

                    You have produced no evidence whatsoever to support this dubious assertion – on the contrary, you have pointed out his conflicts with the well respected Chloe Swarbrick, and it has surfaced in the course of discussion that he is a member of that rat pack, the so-called taxpayer's union. With the possible exception of the Nazi party or Nambla you would look long and hard to find an organization less deserving of public confidence.

                    Now, have you anything rational to offer beyond beyond your tawdry and utterly discredited appeal to authority?

                    • gypsy …
                      15 June 2021 at 5:44 pm

                      " You have produced no evidence whatsoever to support this dubious assertion "

                      As you seem to possess a pathological dislike for the guy, I would have thought you would have known more about him. Including:

                      1. He is a frequent commentator on property matters across multiple forums.
                      2. He is a past CEO of the Auckland Property Investors Association.
                      3. He is a past CEO of the Property Institute of NZ.

                      And Chloe's credentials on property are?

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    15 June 2021 at 9:15 pm

                    Look – I posted a good sensible column from Ms Swarbrick, on housing policy.

                    You rubbished her, without addressing anything she said, and wheeled out the despicable person of Ash Church.

                    As you seem to possess a pathological dislike for the guy, I would have thought you would have known more about him. Including:

                    1. He is a frequent commentator on property matters across multiple forums.
                    2. He is a past CEO of the Auckland Property Investors Association.
                    3. He is a past CEO of the Property Institute of NZ.

                    All of which make him competent to advise on property investment – and make his advice self-interested and unworthy of consideration in relation to public policy.

                    The wankers and property speculators who have created the present housing crisis are not competent in regard to housing policy, which thanks to their antisocial input now stands in need of frankly heroic intervention, as Chloe points out, and which you would know if you had read and understood her column instead of trying to crawl up Asley Church's spotty bottom.

                    Is the penny finally starting to drop yet?

                    The function of government is not to enrich sociopathic assholes like Mr Church – nor yet their lamentable lickspittle lackeys neither.

                    • greywarshark …
                      15 June 2021 at 9:41 pm

                      We've had this type of commenter before haven't we. Can't be convinced of anything because it doesn't suit them to think or change. Could be someone working for the right, working for NZ Initiative, or even the Treasury. You can't convince them of anything that doesn't enhance their position. And the other thing they like to do is adopt the superior position! They have all the facts and understand them thoroughly, and you are either ignorant, or missing the point, or putting the wrong construction on the wording.

                      It's your time if you want to keep replying, but remember we already have Alwyn. Do we want another wilfully ignorant person here with commenters wasting their time on them? There is so much to read and follow and these people are a distraction; I believe they set out to be and possibly have a modus operandi that they follow that presses our buttons, but fail to ring a warning bell in our heads.

                    • Incognito []
                      15 June 2021 at 11:12 pm

                      greywarsharp!

                    • gypsy …
                      15 June 2021 at 10:26 pm

                      " I posted a good sensible column from Ms Swarbrick, on housing policy. "

                      And I refuted two key elements of her 'policy' using the writings of someone far more eminently qualified. Chloe is 26 years old. I'm not aware she has ever owned a house, let alone had any experience of managing housing as a market.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    16 June 2021 at 7:51 am

                    You refuted nothing, instead resting your flimsy smear on the reputation of a liar and a profiteer.

                    We can forgive fools who make errors through ignorance, but not those whose motive for wrongdoing is profit.

                    Church's knowledge of property is like the wolf's knowledge of sheepfarming – exhaustive, but motivated by self interest, not general prosperity.

                    Address Chloe's argument without reference to that charlatan – if your object is to actually discuss housing policy and not exhibit your unseemly enthusiasm for that despicable grifter.

                    • gypsy …
                      16 June 2021 at 9:04 am

                      Yes your hatred is truly psychopathic. That doesn't affect in any way the expertise of the source.

                  • Stuart Munro …
                    16 June 2021 at 10:13 am

                    Yes your hatred is truly psychopathic. That doesn't affect in any way the expertise of the source.

                    Your failure to engage in actual argument is typical of trolls – without your false prophet you are incapable of grappling with the issues the surround housing, and fall back on ad homs, first of Ms Swarbrick, and now of me.

                    Housing is, frankly, a mess. As Swarbrick notes, and your idol is unable to refute, it is going to take fifty years on current trends, for housing to return to reasonable affordability – which given the way variability affects economic predictions over time, is tantamount to never.

                    Property investors and real estate companies are largely to blame for this. They are also to blame for many of our homeless, and those the government is presently lodging in dodgy motels as a stopgap. They are freeloaders, whose business model was built on tax free capital gain, but neither the homelessness nor the tax evasion is the greatest damage they have done to New Zealand. That would be the massive inflation they have caused, and continue to cause – some 30% this year. Anything over 20% or so is usually referred to as hyperinflation.

                    This imposes massive deadweight costs right across the economy, money that should be circulating productively is sucked into the black hole of property. There will be no rising tide, even with the current dairy receipt boom, while property is sucking all the liquidity out of the economy.

                    It needs to be addressed – but we fully understand why the guilty parties, Church and his fellow travelers, are desperate that it not be.

                    Your disparagement of Swarbrick is part of an extended campaign on behalf of the self-styled Taxpayers Union that goes back to its ill-natured and ineffectual attacks on Mojo Mathers. How proud you must be to be part of that group of momentarily unincarcerated villains.

                    • gypsy …
                      16 June 2021 at 4:02 pm

                      " Your failure to engage in actual argument… "

                      I was commenting on an article written by Chloe Swarbrick that contained her ideas about housing affordability and rent controls.

                      I consider her opinion ill-informed, and have provided references to support that view.

                      You, on the other hand, have engaged in an ad-hominem diatribe that reveals an irrational hatred of real estate agents, property investors, the Taxpayers Union, none of whom I have even commented on.

                      I would suggest you get help, but no doubt you've got some deep set hatred of anyone who could help you.

                    • In Vino …
                      16 June 2021 at 7:48 pm

                      Is that you on meth, alwyn?

                    • alwyn …
                      16 June 2021 at 9:13 pm

                      @Il Vino.

                      I would suggest that it is yourself who is on some illicit drug.

                      I haven't made a single comment on this subject, except for this one.

                    • In Vino …
                      16 June 2021 at 11:40 pm

                      Fair enough, old boy. I have come to like your wry humour, even if your attitude often shows a right-wing bias.

                      But it seems to me that this gypsy fellow is a bigger nit-picker than either of us ever was.