Treachery

703 comments on “Treachery ”

• Comments are now closed

1. willie maley 1

   28 January 2012 at 10:13 am

   “Free market” my arse!
   This government would sell their Granny.
   • Colonial Viper 1.1

     28 January 2012 at 10:48 am

     Actually, if Granny were costing them money in a nursing home, they would give Granny away to save on the fees.
   • Hami Shearlie 1.2

     28 January 2012 at 4:58 pm

     But Johnny would reassure us that it would only be 49 percent of said “Granny” and that half of Granny would be bought by “mum and dad” investors ! But of course, in reality, no-one would want to buy a Granny – I seem to recall reading that old people are, according National’s former MP Ruth Richardson, “unproductive units”!!
2. Graeme 2

   28 January 2012 at 10:40 am

   Why werent the farms broken up and offered individually? surely that would have been the best way to ensure they remained in kiwi hands??

   Korda Mentha have questions to answer, but i doubt they ever will.
   • Lanthanide 2.1

     28 January 2012 at 3:18 pm

     I’m sure they’ll have some reasonable sounding plausibly-deniable “business” reason up front for what they chose to do, to disguise whatever the real reasons were (if any; it’s quite possible they have no ulterior motive and just genuinely think selling them off as 1 block was best).
3. Fran O'Sullivan 3

   28 January 2012 at 10:43 am

   FFS – Red Logix –

   My column does not say” “The day is past when state ownership is thought capable of finding their most efficient use. These days a free market is considered better at ensuring resources pass into the hands of those who will extract most value from them. The question that must be asked about the Crafar farms sale is whether the purchaser is a state agency or a market participant.”

   You go onto say:

   “Sub-cretinous drivel. Where the hell was her precious ‘free market’ when all these magically efficient the private sector business’ collapsed the world economy in this last three years? And then dumped the costs onto taxpayers all over the world at metaphorical gunpoint?”

   Stay on point – please,
   • The Voice of Reason 3.1

     28 January 2012 at 10:58 am

     You are right, Fran. That para comes from the related Herald editorial, not your article. It clearly supports your position and reads like you wrote it. Did you? And do you agree with it, if you are not the author?
   • burt 3.2

     28 January 2012 at 11:08 am

     Fran

     I think you can probably boil this down to: You didn’t agree with Winston so therefore you are the enemy of the Labour party.
     • Inventory2 3.2.1

       28 January 2012 at 3:59 pm

       Quite so Burt; and the irony of Winston Peters now in Sir Michael Fay’s corner is simply precious. Has Winston forgotten the Winebox?
       • Jackal 3.2.1.1

         28 January 2012 at 5:13 pm

         Firstly Fran admonishes RedLogix for making the association between the recent worldwide depression and National’s decision to continue down that failed ideological path… then Burt makes a completely spurious association between Winston Peters and the Labour party… and then Inventory2 says that Winston is in Fay consortiums pocket. WTF!

         Firstly it appears that Fran has not given the post enough time to properly understand it and has responded inadequately to RedLogix, who made it clear where the excerpts have come from… also making the logical association between free market idealism promoted by a biased media and unscrupulous politicians trapped in dogma… that has resulted in a huge mess.

         Then burt tries to confuse the issue by raising the RWNJ’s favorite politician to hate: Winston Peters. As far as I’m aware, Peters has not mentioned Fay consortiums bid… so why believe a word that the idiot David Farrar writes?

         Then we have the typical slack-minded response from Inventory2, who tries and fails to back up the rights pathetic disinformation campaign.
         • seeker 3.2.1.1.1

           28 January 2012 at 6:10 pm

           +1 Jackal
           • Colonial Viper 3.2.1.1.1.1

             28 January 2012 at 6:23 pm

             Its like a blow by blow commentary to Right Wing Dumb and Right Wing Dumber.
             • Jassen …

               30 January 2012 at 9:28 am

               Again I read the posts with interest and every post follows the same pattern.

               We start with the topic on hand, a few good general comments and then it breaks down into a mud slinging match. Is there no way that instead of the vocal abuse that takes place on here, someone can actually come up with some fucking answers? Is this too much to ask? I am not talking cut and paste rhetoric from some left or right party pamphlet, I am talking genuine, self thought out ideas and concepts, that may actually challenge someones thought process and who knows out of a small acorn a mighty tree will grow.

               I took the fact that the people who write on here were in fact probably the more intelligent 1% of the population of NZ.

               Clearly I was wrong and should sit down with my daughter and watch the wiggles, especially now that Greg is back in the yellow. Wooohoooo…….
             • Blue …

               30 January 2012 at 9:54 am

               If the right wing are “dumb” why are their so many poorly educated and unemployed (unemployable) that support the left?? Genuine question.
               • felix …

                 31 January 2012 at 12:18 am

                 Oh wow. You just made my day.
                 • ropata …

                   31 January 2012 at 12:35 am

                   Blue, first you should attend to your grammar, then consider why Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman supports the Left, as does a likely majority of university faculty.

                   It’s about what makes for a just society and who is getting crushed by the excesses of right wing greed, not who is the smartest asshole in the room.
                   • Colonial Viper …

                     31 January 2012 at 12:40 am

                     Of course university types support the Left; they are effete intellectuals and academics who have no real function or purpose in the real world, and would find it impossible to add value in the private sector doing an actually needed job, as opposed to say hiding out in an ivory tower being totally irrelevant /sarc
               • Frank Macskasy …

                 31 January 2012 at 12:26 am

                 Blue… you’ve kinda proven a point. Not that you’ve noticed.

                 *swisssshhhh!* That was the sound of the irony of what you said going over your head…
   • ghostwhowalksnz 3.3

     28 January 2012 at 11:16 am

     The actual running of the farms day to day is in state ownership ( Landcorp).

     How does that figure with the free market extracting the ‘most value’.
4. nadis 4

   28 January 2012 at 10:44 am

   Yes I agree with you. Some of my best friends are Chinese too.

   Anyone now doubt what Key is and more importantly WHY he left a very well paid, highly influential job in the merchant banking industry back in 2000 to become a very lowly back-bench MP for a party that had been firmly booted from power just a year before?

   Are you seriously, explicitly accusing Key of personal corruption? Rather than the innuendo, man up and say it explicitly.
   • RedLogix 4.1

     28 January 2012 at 10:54 am

     Personal corruption no. He’s far too experienced in the banking business to expose himself to any kind of obvious risk of corruption. From my reading of his past he had a couple of close shaves in the 80’s and he’s learnt that lesson. Far too risky and not when there are plenty of non-criminal ways to benefit from your position within the system.

     Indeed the ‘benefit’ to Key doesn’t even really have to be personal; human motivation is much more subtle and complex than simple material rewards.
     • seeker 4.1.1

       28 January 2012 at 8:00 pm

       Agreed Redlogix.

       An article I was reading called “When the brain refuses to take cash” describes how, through magnetic resonant imaging,

       “Brain images show personal values that people refuse to disavow—even when offered cash to do so—are processed differently than values that are willingly sold”

       http://www.futurity.org/society-culture/when-the-brain-refuses-to-take-the-cash/

       Apparently, ” As culture changes, it affects our brains, and as our brains change, that affects our culture. You can’t separate the two,……. We now have the means to start understanding this relationship, and that’s putting the relatively new field of cultural neuroscience onto the global stage.”
       Future conflicts over politics and religion will likely play out biologically….. Some cultures will choose to change their biology, and in the process, change their culture…”……!!!!!

       I would love to see the image of John Key’s brain and which part he uses to process his sub standard, self delusional, unprincipled, exploitative thoughts and subsequent utterances, thus proving his inadequacies. I think he may have acquired his unfortunate brain function in the sub culture of his heady, eighties trader days, heaven help us.(I also think some of his brain cells may be missing due to the required champagne drinking of those magnificent years.)

       Could it be that with future cultural neuroscience we would be able to put Key and his fellow neo liberal selfish, greedy heads in the dock, find them wanting in their treatment of fellow human beings in their drive for gold and self aggrandisement and require them to have their brain biology changed, thus changing their foul neo liberal culture?

       I know that this would stop Occupy having to Occupy, and it woild give a whole new meaning to “off with their heads”.!
       • seeker 4.1.1.1

         28 January 2012 at 8:08 pm

         Sorry for typos on my 8.00pm 4.1.1. comment, but edit is not working. Think it makes sense.
       • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.2

         28 January 2012 at 8:09 pm

         Psychopaths can kill and maim while their brain scans look like they are taking a relaxing walk in the park on a sunny day. That’s why they’re psychopaths.
     • the pink postman 4.1.2

       29 January 2012 at 3:01 pm

       Am I not right in hearing Shipley’s name banded around regarding this sale.Perhaps someone in the know will inform.
   • JohnC 4.2

     28 January 2012 at 2:34 pm

     New Zealanders own land overseas. They own land in South America. Uruguay has far less stringent regulations on foreign ownership than New Zealand has.

     Should Uruguay chuck out New Zealand investors in Uruguayan land until New Zealands laws on land ownership are the same as those of Uruguays’?

     [that’s up to the Uruguayans. It’s their land. Eddie]
     • mik e 4.2.1

       28 January 2012 at 8:11 pm

       Uruguayans didn’t have to chuck out NZ farmers because the NZ farmers went bankrupt because the Uruguayans didn’t want to change their culture to suit NZ farmers.
     • Galeandra 4.2.2

       30 January 2012 at 4:35 pm

       Should Uruguay chuck out New Zealand investors in Uruguayan land until New Zealands laws on land ownership are the same as those of Uruguays’?

       No, but the landless poor of Uruguay should continue to protest about NZ economic imperialism aka neo-colonialism that puts local land even further out of indiginous reach.As should fair minded New Zealanders.
5. ianmac 5

   28 January 2012 at 10:54 am

   How will the high priced Crafar land sale assist young would-be dairy farmers buying their own farm at affordable prices in the future?
   How much land could we buy in China as a reciprocal agreement?
   Why not allow just leases as opposed to ownership?

   And yes. I too found Fran O’Sullivan’s piece distasteful if not insulting. I object to the “xenophobic” label. And object to all the previous land sales which creep our heritage into foreign ownership regardless of nationality.
   • Fortran 5.1

     28 January 2012 at 1:53 pm

     Landcorp are able to provide good learning management experience on 16 farms for young wannabe dairy farmers.
     They assist younger farmers to a sharemilking herd start, as most farmers today did to start.
     Being a dairy farmer was never an easy start for anybody, but Landcorp are a good start.
     • Colonial Viper 5.1.1

       28 January 2012 at 2:53 pm

       Too bad then that Landcorp didnt actually buy the land huh, instead of being the sharemilkers for foreigners.
     • mik e 5.1.2

       28 January 2012 at 8:13 pm

       National want to sell Land corp as well they have clearly signalled that from 2007 onwards
       saying that Farming is not govt core business.
6. tsmithfield 6

   28 January 2012 at 10:56 am

   Given:

   1. There has been far more land sold to non-Chinese by both Labour and National.

   2. So far as I can see, there is a complete dearth of articles from authors for “the Standard” complaining about land sales sold to non-Chinese.

   So why the sudden patriotic fervour here now when it is Chinese purchasing the land? To an unbiased observer, I expect this would smack of subtle racism.
   • RedLogix 6.1

     28 January 2012 at 11:18 am

     There has been far more land sold to non-Chinese by both Labour and National.

     Yes. It’s been quietly going on for quite some time; it’s now something in the order of 10% of our really valuable productive farmland. That’s a lot more significant than the medaciously misleading 1% of total land area that was being bullied about yesterday by the Nats and their backers.

     The Greens were always opposed to it. Labour has recognised it’s prior policy was weak and wrong and has now changed it’s policy. Appeals to what prior governments have done as justification for what all future governments should do are also weak and usually wrong.

     So far as I can see, there is a complete dearth of articles from authors for “the Standard” complaining about land sales sold to non-Chinese.

     For a number of reasons that I outlined earlier:

     1. John Key himself campaigned on his opposition to these sales and came out with the ‘tenants in our own land’ line. His actions are completely the opposite. It is the job of the Opposition to point this out and to extract the maximum possible political cost for this treachery. Any fool can tell Key manipulated the OIO process to ensure the announcement was made AFTER the election… and that alone pisses people off.

     2. Over the years there have been numerous comments made around land sales made here on The Standard; but no single sale has emerged with the profile like this one has. The Crafar sale has been in the media spotlight for several years now giving it a momentum like no other prior.

     3. People are now only just becoming aware of the scale of what has been going on quietly for about a decade now… and that something in the order of 10% of all NZ’s best productive farm land has already been sold. This is no longer a trifling small concern; everyone with any sense knows this cannot continue.

     4. While it is true that various private individuals and corporates have already purchased land; this transaction is heavily backed by the Chinese goverment willing to pay over the odds for the purchase Again only a fool would ignore the long-term strategic implications of this.

     Events have a life of their own, all these factors have converged onto one sale; but one that has become highly symbolic of a process of neo-colonisation that is going on under our noses.
     • Colonial Viper 6.1.1

       28 January 2012 at 11:34 am

       Harvard University have been much lower key in their acquisition of NZ dairy farms and forestry assets.

       http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/farming/4326929/Harvard-University-fund-buys-Otago-farms

       The Chinese screwed the Crafar PR up from the start by having that dodgy Chinese woman front the deal. She had to disappear from sight double quick when the SHTF.
       • David H 6.1.1.1

         28 January 2012 at 5:26 pm

         And now it seems she’s on the wrong end of a few fraud counts, but I see that has not stopped the sale from going ahead.

         And can the censoring please STOP I am not a Spambot But if every`time I have to fill out silly capcha’s for every comment, then I don’t comment. and to me thats Censorship!

         [lprent: I really don’t care what you think, that is your problem not mine. My problem is to get dickhead robots and those alleged humans who act like them out of the site with the least effort. Akismet appears to not like you, and I trust it a lot more than I trust any commentator. There are more than a 120k comments that it has sucessfully blocked standing behind it on this site alone with false positives in less than a thousand.

         Conditional capcha just asks akismet if you look like a problem. If you do then it pops up a dialog. It used to be that everyone not registered had to fill in a capcha. We get many hundreds of comments daily. Those getting capcha are usually 5-20.

         Akismet not liking you means you do one or more of; write like a bot according to reports from site moderators, have been tagged as spam or just obnoxious by moderators or that your IP is suspect based on past reports by moderators. In other words the community that is WordPress using akismet has something about you flagged as a waste of sysop and moderator time.

         Since akismet is a very big coop and seldom incorrect (crying censorship on a private site tends to indicate it is correct about you as well), you can only change it by getting comments accepted by humans or changing your online profile like IP and writing style. Or do the really basic thing of logging in.

         Your problem. And based on your comment, it is proving its worth to me yet again. Read the last section of our about to understand why. ]
       • Fortran 6.1.1.2

         29 January 2012 at 1:05 pm

         It is possible that Harvard University will be involved with the purchase of the dairy parts of South Canterbury Finance, shortly.
         This will enable some more funds to be given back to the Taxpayer for the SCF debacle.
     • tsmithfield 6.1.2

       28 January 2012 at 12:10 pm

       “Yes. It’s been quietly going on for quite some time; it’s now something in the order of 10% of our really valuable productive farmland.”

       So, even by your own figures, 90% of productive land is owned by NZers, correct?

       “1. John Key himself campaigned on his opposition to these sales and came out with the ‘tenants in our own land’ line. His actions are completely the opposite.”

       I think if you go back and look at the full quote you will find that it was made in the context that a decision to sell to overseas parties needs to be made very carefully for that reason. He certainly didn’t say that “therefore we shouldn’t sell land to Chinese”. I think the deal is actually bloody good for NZ. The processing will be through NZ owned plants which will be good to jobs, and our dairy industry as a whole will be finding it much easier to get access to the Chinese market. If you think we should be closing the gap with Australia, then this will help.

       I am genuinely disappointed with the Labour Party over this. It seems to me that they are sinking into the same grubby mould as Winston Peters so far as fanning up the underbelly of prejudice and negativity towards Asians that seems to exist in many quarters in this country.

       Perhaps you should check out your own motivations to make sure you’re outrage isn’t actually due to similar motivations you might subconciously hold.
       • dave brownz 6.1.2.1

         28 January 2012 at 1:58 pm

         I think youll find that quite a lot of that 90% (that sounds too high) that is supposedly owned onshore is actually owned by Aussie banks. Just as when the Pakeha stole it from Maori one way or the other, it was the the Bank of England that actually owned it. Over the years good prices and huge subsidies from the taxpayer has allowed the best land to be freeholded and aggregated in the hands of a rural capitalist ‘gentry’ who are every bit as venal and money grubbing as any foreign owner.

         In fact the BOE has a much longer history of using imperialist armed forces to police its investments than the BOC. And as for China being some standout dictatorship, it has a long way to go before it catches up with the US and the European powers who used gunboats and stealth bombers to rule the world. So called democracy at home was always paid for by dictatorships in the colonies and the ‘developing’ world. In all of these countries it is the dictatorship of capital.

         The real issue here is that farming could never have made it in this country without huge state aid. There never was a free market in farming. There never will be. So the obvious solution here is that when farmers on welfare go broke the land should revert to the state and be farmed by Land Corp – not as an SOE but as as a Land Bank owned and managed by those with the knowledge and skill to do so, and producing returns that reflect the level of social investment in both money and knowledge to the industry.
         • tsmithfield 6.1.2.1.1

           28 January 2012 at 2:46 pm

           “I think youll find that quite a lot of that 90% (that sounds too high) that is supposedly owned onshore is actually owned by Aussie banks.”

           On that basis, so are most of the houses and businesses in NZ.
           • Colonial Viper 6.1.2.1.1.1

             28 January 2012 at 2:52 pm

             clap clap tsmithfield.

             Now you’re getting it.
             • tsmithfield …

               28 January 2012 at 2:56 pm

               So we limit raising capital to NZ only sources so we can all be poor serfs.
               • Matt …

                 28 January 2012 at 3:35 pm

                 You’re already poor serfs.
                 • Jackal …

                   28 January 2012 at 5:31 pm

                   The question is how do we fix the system so we’re not “poor serfs”.

                   1. Don’t put a banker like JK in charge.
                   2. Ensure that people are worth more than money.
                   3. Create clear boundaries where they naturally occur.
                   4. Remunerate people properly for their work.
                   5. Fix historic wrongdoing.
                   6. Invest in the constructive and not destructive.
                   7. etc

                   The difficulty is that the Capitalist system is now so broken that we will probably have to start from scratch.
                   • muzza …

                     28 January 2012 at 7:18 pm

                     I think the real trick would be to unravel the interweaving legislations as they could show us how we have arrived at this position in the first place!

                     Very difficult to know where the try fix a problem, if it is unclear exactly where the problem lies!
                   • Jagg …

                     30 January 2012 at 12:45 pm

                     Great example of how to appear to propose solutions without proposing anything at all.

                     Looks like the minutes from a talk-fest that occurs daily within public sector quangos.
                   • Richard Clark …

                     30 January 2012 at 9:17 pm

                     How do we fix the system?
                     I would suggest for starters that we rid ourselves of the Crown.
                     Costa Bote’s Film regarding the legal spat over the Taranaki Bridge shenanigans was a classic example of a system out of whack. Rob Moody did such a great job of taking on the Crown.
                     We need a fully legal and binding Constitution and Bill of Rights, these have been languishing for years and are still not Law. Mind you they need a complete rewrite to get rid of any link to ‘the old country’. Time for a Republic? Possibly. We need a system a checks and balances, an Upper House and Lower House or some sort of Senate arrangement. A new Flag, actually my pick would be the one that was agreed to by both maori and pakeha in 1840 but denied by Downing Street. It’s all there, it simply needs a clear, concise commitment to change.
                   • Jackal …

                     30 January 2012 at 10:10 pm

                     Why don’t you propose some solutions then Jagg?
           • mik e 6.1.2.1.1.2

             28 January 2012 at 8:15 pm

             BS tsm 70% of NZ houses are freehold.
         • Populuxe1 6.1.2.1.2

           28 January 2012 at 7:14 pm

           And as for China being some standout dictatorship, it has a long way to go before it catches up with the US and the European powers who used gunboats and stealth bombers to rule the world.

           So basically what pre-Invasion Iwi were doing to each other, just with better tech. And which European powers exactly, unless we’re talking time travel? I’ll concede the US up to a point, though their innate isolationism means that they don’t “rule the world”, they just ignore it 90% of the time and meddle with it the other 10%.
       • Akldnut 6.1.2.2

         28 January 2012 at 2:17 pm

         So, even by your own figures, 90% of productive land is owned by NZers, correct?

         The analogy I like to use is “I used to have 100% now I only have 90%
         or I used to have $10.00 now I only have $9.00.”
         Doesn’t sound so good now does it?

         I think the deal is actually bloody good for NZ. The processing will be through NZ owned plants which will be good to jobs, and our dairy industry as a whole will be finding it much easier to get access to the Chinese market. If you think we should be closing the gap with Australia, then this will help.

         If you think that helping anyone to set up a business and take profits out of our country is good for us then you’re an Idiot, the comparison I make is with Japanese tourism in Australia where they found that by making it easy to buy and own businesses in Oz, tourists would book travel and buy only through businesses that where Japanese owned – and tour owners would only deal with Japanese owned businesses. Therefore all the money being bought into the country was kept solely in the hands of the owners and moved back to Japan.
         The only ones making any real money out of it were the Japanese.

         BTW I’m not rascist, I believe that we should welcome all new immigrants as long as they want to be Kiwis and have NZs best interest at heart. But this is the initial setup for an oncoming rort.

         The only outrage here is that our legacy is being sold to a company with strong poltical ties to a foreign goverment. Where was that New Immigrants Party launch held again?
   • One Anonymous Bloke 6.2

     28 January 2012 at 11:19 am

     Hmm. Perhaps you are right, ts. However, these other land deals you refer to have generally not been reported to the extent that the Crafar farms deal has.

     I am sure that a lot of the coverage is aimed at xenophobes, but that does not mean that all opposition is on the grounds of xenophobia.

     My personal unease at the deal stems from the fact that Chinese business interests and the Chinese government are inextricably linked, and the Chinese government is a criminal gang.
   • ghostwhowalksnz 6.3

     28 January 2012 at 11:19 am

     How much land can Kiwis buy in China ?

     0.

     Thats right any foreigners cant buy land in China. Full stop.

     Xenophobia in China ? Who would guess
   • Hami Shearlie 6.4

     28 January 2012 at 5:08 pm

     The Chinese are unlike other buyers in that they come from a totalitarian state which is supporting this company’s bid – not a democracy like ours! It’s not the race that is the worry, it is the way China is run!
7. Colonial Viper 7

   28 January 2012 at 10:56 am

   Are all of you townies?

   For those who are, let me clue you in. China is setting up dairy farms on it’s mainland which are 20,000 ha., 30,000 ha., 40,000 ha. in size. I have even heard of a dairy farm under one operator which is planned to be almost 100,000 ha.

   The problem is China’s dairy farming, herd and farm systems know how is 30 years behind NZ. Per ha. they can keep far fewer head on the land and each cow produces far less milk. The cows are less productive, less healthy and die earlier than their NZ counterparts.

   Given that China has these huge farms why would they even bother with 7000 ha. of Crafar farms? Thats like a rounding error to them.

   Well of course it’s easy: the Chinese are here for the access to our IP. They will find the best NZ on farm talent, best NZ dairy cows, best NZ milk processors to work with and learn from. And they are taking that knowledge, and no doubt the sperm* as well, back to China with them, back to use on their real farms.

   In the final analysis, the Chinese involved with approving this deal are just smarter than the NZers involved with approving this deal.

   *Sperm from the bulls, not the share milkers.
   • Hami Shearlie 7.1

     28 January 2012 at 5:13 pm

     And remember when Chinese nationals were found at the airport attempting to smuggle out cuttings of our apple varieties? Why aren’t our farmers screaming about this sale at the top of their lungs?? Wakey-Wakey Yokels!!!
   • SHG 7.2

     29 January 2012 at 1:01 pm

     the Chinese are here for the access to our IP. They will find the best NZ on farm talent, best NZ dairy cows, best NZ milk processors to work with and learn from. And they are taking that knowledge, and no doubt the sperm* as well, back to China with them

     Yeah, and what knowledge have those slinty-eyed yellow f*ckers ever shared with us? Apart from the compass, paper, printing, gunpowder, the oar, the plough, and the other stuff I mean.

     Knowledge! It ain’t for sharing! Especially not with gooks!
   • Spratwax 7.3

     29 January 2012 at 1:39 pm

     +1. I vaguely recall several years ago a party of Chinese agricultural officials invited by the Government of the day to look at our Kiwifruit (?) industry and were caught by MAF/Customs on departure with stolen cuttings they intended to bring back with them.
8. Fran O'Sullivan 8

   28 January 2012 at 11:01 am

   Voice of Reason – No I do not write the Herald editorials.
   I write under my own name – always have.

   [Fixed the misattribution..RL]

   [lprent: replying to 3.1. I need to write a tool to fix replies. ]
   • Jum 8.1

     28 January 2012 at 11:10 am

     Fran,

     Perhaps you can tell me who writes the Herald and Listener editorials? In each case is it the same person every time or different people?

     Jum
   • The Voice of Reason 8.2

     28 January 2012 at 11:14 am

     Cheers, Fran, I figured that you might be senior enough to occasionally write the editorials, and I thought it was possible you got the short straw today because it was related to your article. More importantly, though, do you agree with the comment?
   • Salsy 8.3

     28 January 2012 at 12:09 pm

     Key is clearly excited about the opportunities for New Zealand from the successful Chinese bid for the Crafar farms. So he should be. The Shanghai Pengxin bid has obviously been carefully constructed to ensure significant economic upside for New Zealand.

     The OIO states it will bring 2 jobs, and Shanghai Pengxin invest a futher 14 million in their own company to significantly increase their production. The 200 odd million will go to Westpac Australia, an on-farm training facility for dairy farm workers will also be established apparently, but presumably this will not be the Chinese teaching New Zealanders how to farm, in fact, lets be real its the more likely the opposite. So perhaps Fran, while you are here, you could clarify by telling us precisely what exactly is the significant economic upside for New Zealand?
9. johnm 9

   28 January 2012 at 11:07 am

   !00% Right ! There are many well paid spielers of the neoliberal money is God racket meaning the free market- a social and environmental disastrous ideology. They do it because the 1% and 10% hold the purse strings and make it very lucrative that they spout their rubbish.
   As poorer EU countries are being invaded by bankers using weapons of mass indebtedness aided and abetted by incompetent and criminal Governments, we are being invaded by the selling off of our Strategic assets and vital land resources. No wonder so many Kiwis can’t wait to leave for Australia.
10. Fran O'Sullivan 10

    28 January 2012 at 11:12 am

    Colonel Viper – You are 15 years too late. Chinese companies came down here in 1990s/2000s and studied NZ dairy industry at Lincoln/Massey. “Sperm” and cattle was acquired from round world: NZ and Canada and Australia in particular. Their best factories are state of the art already.
    Was surprised myself when went up in Inner Mongolia in 2004 to see how extensive this was. Australia had a model farm up there which was demonstrating farming methods/IP on that score.
    But their model is still feedlot farming – something Fonterra is doing on its own Chinese farms where milks 3X daily cf NZ pasture model of 2X. Be interesting to see if pasture farming does emerge – understand there are still water issues.
    It’s a balancing act. Wen Jiabao has pushed Chinese to drink a “cup of milk” a day – hence expansion of dairying. As they get richer they are also buying more value add products – cheese, yoghurt, etc.
    But infant formula is still the big opportunity right now – Chinese are paying a huge premium for food safety. This is why NZ has 60% of the imported dairy market in China. That huge expansion of the Chinese market is one factor why more NZ farmers are not under water and why Fonterra has been able to post big returns when other parts of the world take less of their product.
    There is a general assumption China is still a backwater. It’s a land of contrasts – even the Economist has a current article on how it may surpass the US on technology/innovation/science in years to come.
    • Colonial Viper 10.1

      28 January 2012 at 11:20 am

      Thanks for the additional detail Fran.
    • RedLogix 10.2

      28 January 2012 at 11:30 am

      This is why NZ has 60% of the imported dairy market in China.

      And when Fonterra have to compete with Shanghai Pengxin this will improve how?

      When Fonterra made it’s entry into the Chinese market it was compelled to do so in JV with Chinese partners. Essentially Fonterra… like any other non-Chinese entity.. was not able to own Chinese land or assets. And we all know how well that worked out. Fonterral lost huge value and opportunity over that. That was our real opportunity to benefit from developing better added value into the Chinese market… and the Chinese partners criminally sabotaged it. That’s not something to readily forgive and forget.

      If Shanghai Pengxin really want to invest in this country, then let them do it in JV with Fonterra… with us controlling the New Zealand assets.
      • Wayne 10.2.1

        28 January 2012 at 11:43 am

        That was our real opportunity to benefit from developing better added value into the Chinese market… and the Chinese partners criminally sabotaged it. That’s not something to readily forgive and forget.

        In fact Fonterra benefitted massively from the melamine scandal, if that is what you are referring to. Profits the following year and subsequent years went through the roof.

        Most Chinese, as with most New Zealanders, would not even know that Sanlu was in JV with Fonterra.

        The melamine scandal did not diminish Fonterra’s corporate image in China one bit.
        • Colonial Viper 10.2.1.1

          28 January 2012 at 11:46 am

          Fonterra’s response to that scandal was unethical IMO. A very US corporate “nothing to do with us, we only own the shares” keeping at arms length the issue of thousands of damaged babies.
    • foreign waka 10.3

      28 January 2012 at 1:03 pm

      Good afternoon Mrs O’Sullivan
      I like to know why we are selling the land and not leasing it to foreign interests? Would this not be the prudent thing to do? Any water taken from bores or streams need to be regulated and this would have been more practicable under lease conditions too.
      Yes, there are many nations who have bought NZ land and it is an emotive issue, naturally. Any parts seen sold to foreign interests, especially if there are politically chasms as with China, is essentially understood as selling ones sovereign rights. Many people are asking what the agenda is behind all that and I feel rightfully so. I doubt however, that we will ever hear an honest answer for whatever reasons we may hear. One should not underestimate the past and feelings of the descendent of the people who colonized this country just 200 years ago. It was defended in wars against countries who are now buying vast sections. It needs to be remembered when doing these deals. As for Maori rights – when these lands are sold the effectively have lost the right to claim to.We expect that we will have to foot the bill for that one as well via increased taxes. And so, I hope you can see from this side of the fence, what the issue means to the average person. Not only has the land underfoot been sold, their forefathers have died in vain, and now they will be asked to pay for this loss to settle Maori rights as well. Any person young enough and educated will leave for a better outcome for themselves as they do not want to be burdened with this barrage of guild and financial loss passed along. Selling the country also implies of having no home which makes leaving so much easier.
    • mik e 10.4

      28 January 2012 at 8:19 pm

      Fran while NZ no plan is falling further behind.
    • LyallD 10.5

      30 January 2012 at 10:13 pm

      Fran, My apologies for getting off topic here but your comment “There is a general assumption China is still a backwater. It’s a land of contrasts – even the Economist has a current article on how it may surpass the US on technology/innovation/science in years to come.” is raises an issue that has been troubling me for some time now.
      If China is so well developed, is it not about time the were not alloowed to hide behind their “Developing Nation status” when it comes to such things as greenhouse gas emissions and other matters of ecological importance.
11. Wayne 11

    28 January 2012 at 11:22 am

    Wildly beside the point, but I thought most Chinese were lactose intolerant (as with most non-Caucasians).

    As well Chinese have traditionally not had dairy products in their diet.

    This BBC article is interesting.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/6934709.stm

    But I wonder how long the dairy boom will last for Western countries when the Chinese start seeing, like Westerners, the health downsides of dairy products.
    • Colonial Viper 11.1

      28 January 2012 at 11:29 am

      Yes most Chinese are lactose intolerant to some degree, for many however the problem is mild and may not be that noticed (or not be attributed to milk). Mild gut, skin and immune system problems are the most common.
    • Hami Shearlie 11.2

      28 January 2012 at 5:15 pm

      And we are totalitarian-intolerant – aren’t we?
    • mik e 11.3

      29 January 2012 at 11:53 am

      The commodity bubble is predicted to be the next to burst. with Europe being in long term recession
      ie depression.
12. Wayne 12

    28 January 2012 at 11:27 am

    Additionally the West over the past three decades now understands the health benefits to mother and child of breast feeding. Yet we encourage Chinese mothers to feed their kids cows milk, for our own massive profit?
    • Matt 12.1

      28 January 2012 at 3:41 pm

      Huh, I’m not sure how “we” (who, exactly?) have or could have encouraged Chinese mothers to do anything about anything.
13. Wayne 13

    28 January 2012 at 11:33 am

    How much land can Kiwis buy in China ?

    0.

    Thats right any foreigners cant buy land in China. Full stop.

    Xenophobia in China ? Who would guess

    ghostwhowalksnz:

    It can’t be xenophobia, because Chinese also can’t buy land in China. It all belongs to the government, and is leased.

    They had a communist revolution 60 years ago where a whole bunch of landowners were taken out and shot. You not heard of that?

    But foreigners certainly can and do invest in real estate in China (the land is leased, but you buy the rights to the land).

    http://www.propertywire.com/news/asia/china-foreign-property-investment-201104015071.html
    • Colonial Viper 13.1

      28 January 2012 at 11:48 am

      And leaseholds are the most access we should be giving to foreigners here in NZ.
    • ghostwhowalksnz 13.2

      28 January 2012 at 12:19 pm

      Wayne you are out of date. There is provision to have private ownership. the 2002 law on land Contracts in Rural areas.

      What you are referring to locals having leases is not strictly correct as there is a collective ownership in rural areas much like Maori land in NZ. This is not the same as government ownership which would apply in the cities.
      • Wayne 13.2.1

        28 January 2012 at 1:42 pm

        Wayne you are out of date. There is provision to have private ownership. the 2002 law on land Contracts in Rural areas

        That is not ownership. That law was about firming up the rights of peasants to have use of the land and provide them with a measure of security. It is ownership of land usage rights, for at least 30 years. Basically then it is a guaranteed right to lease the land for agricultural purposes.
    • LyallD 13.3

      30 January 2012 at 10:21 pm

      “But foreigners certainly can and do invest in real estate in China (the land is leased, but you buy the rights to the land).”

      Which is what we should be doing with the Crafar farms. The Government orIwi should take ownership of the property and put the leases up for tender.
      Furthermore, with all primary producers, the income assessment of the produce sold, should be based on wholesale prices in the ultimate market of the produce. This should circumvent the situation where the owner sells, at marginal profit, to an affiliated company in a tax haven who then marks up to little less than retail price in the target market where a third affilated entity also make minmal profit. By this simple method everything is virually tax free.
14. randal 14

    28 January 2012 at 11:42 am

    1) where in the world is there a free market?
    2) why are there dairy farms in mongolia?
    will these [people never be satisfied until the whole planet is crawling with human beings all equipped with insatiable wants?
    • gorj 14.1

      28 January 2012 at 6:24 pm

      ‘Inner Mongolia’ is actually in North China
15. Wayne 15

    28 January 2012 at 12:09 pm

    I certainly don’t subscribe to the notion that posters on this board are xenophobic or racist.

    After all it was Labour who, in the 1980s, first abolished the whites only immigration policy. And Labour opposed the 1981 Springbok tour, and it was Lange who sent the South African ambassador packing. And from other posts on this board on a wide range of topics, the people here are anything but racist.

    In fact, historically, the left has always led when it came to the rights of women, racial minorities, and gays.

    But Fran does have a point. I think that a significant part of the public opposition to this one particular land sale is driven by xenophobia, because the buyers are, unusually, non-white.

    But that does not of course mean that opposing foreign land sales is racist. It is just one that many racists also happen to support – at least when the buyers are Chinese.
    • Salsy 15.1

      28 January 2012 at 12:11 pm

      As Bomber points out :

      It is not ‘racist’ to be concerned about a country that arrests bloggers, artists and Christians celebrating Easter having more economic power in our country
      • Wayne 15.1.1

        28 January 2012 at 1:06 pm

        What about a country which bombs the shit out of other countries and carried out illegal invasions under false pretences? You equally concerned about the increasing economic power of such a country?
        • Salsy 15.1.1.1

          28 January 2012 at 1:22 pm

          Hell yes, which is why many of us also strongly oppose the TPPA. Without a doubt laws surrounding foreign ownership of land should revised. Green Party Co-leader Russel Norman introduced a Member’s Bill in 2010 which rules out overseas ownership of farmland over 5 hectares… Interestingly the the Crafar purchase was described by the OIO as the start of Pengxin’s planned dairy operations in New Zealand – Jiang already has real estate awaiting OIO approval.
    • Populuxe1 15.2

      28 January 2012 at 7:29 pm

      It would be interesting to see what the tone of comments would be like if it was India (perhaps less threatening and, for want of a more politically correct term, “inscrutable”) buying up farms?
16. randal 16

    28 January 2012 at 12:15 pm

    I wouldnt so much describe the objections as racist but just a natural fear of a huge country buying up our resources and then presuming down the track to interfere in local politics.
    and that fear is justified.
    • Wayne 16.1

      28 January 2012 at 1:02 pm

      I wouldnt so much describe the objections as racist but just a natural fear of a huge country buying up our resources and then presuming down the track to interfere in local politics.
      and that fear is justified.

      And you don’t fear another even more powerful country which has a penchant of throwing its weight around the world, with a ruling class which is responsible for the extinction of more innocent human beings these past several decades than any other. Sounds like racism to me.

      And where do you get this and then presuming down the track to interfere in local politics.
      and that fear is justified

      Please point to similar fears expressed by yourself when it was largely Americans and Europeans buying agricultural land.
      • Frank Macskasy 16.1.1

        28 January 2012 at 1:18 pm

        Please point to similar fears expressed by yourself when it was largely Americans and Europeans buying agricultural land.

        I can’t spreak for others, but I’ve certainly blogged about the German buy-up of the South Island,

        http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/09/23/how-to-lose-5-3-billion-dollars-without-any-effort-at-all/

        And I seem to recall quite a controversy kicked up over the American purchase: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/overseas-investment-commission/news/article.cfm?o_id=500493&objectid=10336614

        It occurs to me that National has played the “Race Card” over the Crafar Farm purchase – conveniently ignoring the fact that other sales to foreigners has also created controversy and criticism.

        As for your points about other countries; invasions; bombings; etc; – deflection.
        • Observer 16.1.1.1

          28 January 2012 at 3:08 pm

          Frank.  I enjoyed reading your informative blogs. It is so important that we have access to good research  – free of rank financial and political spin. Retaining New Zealand soil for New Zealanders (of whatever ethnic origin) is straight common sense.
          Likewise retaining as much wealth as we can in New Zealand should be the common sense goal of any Parliament worthy of the name.
          Our Parliament would do well to block the Crayfar and any other land sales until the people of New Zealand have taken part in a referendum on the issues.
          Also, New Zealanders should have a high percentage of ownership in any Business in New Zealand that is owned by foreign nationals.
          I am aware that this is not current thinking, but it is clear that letting staggering wealth leak from the country is already stupid policy.
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
          Thanks for placing your links on this forum.
17. millsy 17

    28 January 2012 at 12:25 pm

    Quisling, Laval, Petain and the other collaborators were rewarded for their treachery with a one way trip to the gallows.

    In time, the likes of O’Sullivan, Key, Williamson and Coleman, will find themselves heading there too.
    • Wayne 17.1

      28 January 2012 at 12:58 pm

      Quisling, Laval, Petain and the other collaborators were rewarded for their treachery with a one way trip to the gallows.

      What about Clark, Goff, and others who signed the FTA with China.

      And what about the vast tracts of agricultural land sold off to foreigners under their watch?

      Or does changing one’s mind at the last minute grant one a reprieve?
      • Colonial Viper 17.1.1

        28 January 2012 at 1:33 pm

        Or does changing one’s mind at the last minute grant one a reprieve?

        Labour learnt. National hasn’t.
      • Frank Macskasy 17.1.2

        28 January 2012 at 2:38 pm

        What about Clark, Goff, and others who signed the FTA with China.

        What about them?

        Does National’s policy have to be predicated on what Labour has done?

        Is National not a separate Party that can do things differently or better?

        Anyway,Labour paid for those policies in 2008. I guess National will pay in 2014 (if not earlier).
        • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel 17.1.2.1

          28 January 2012 at 5:42 pm

          In time, the likes of O’Sullivan, Key, Williamson and Coleman, will find themselves heading [to the gallows] too.

          Fuck you are a nasty little shit, Millsy.

          [Agreed it was marginal. He only got away with it because he skated around making it a personal threat with the words “the likes off”. But of course in general millsy is correct; it was after all JFK who said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”…RL]
          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel 17.1.2.1.1

            28 January 2012 at 5:50 pm

            Colour me gobsmacked.
            • Colonial Viper 17.1.2.1.1.1

              28 January 2012 at 5:56 pm

              The Gobsmacked Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel?
              • The Gormless and Gobsmacked Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel …

                28 January 2012 at 6:04 pm

                Yes.
          • millsy 17.1.2.1.2

            29 January 2012 at 9:39 am

            Look whos talking. I dont express a desire to throw wharfies and single mothers into hardship so I can get a tax cut.
            • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrel 17.1.2.1.2.1

              29 January 2012 at 5:18 pm

              Well, kudos to you for that, I guess. But I stand by my distaste for you wishing to put to death people who disagree with you.

              Oh, and none of the people cited by you above were hanged.
            • Blue 17.1.2.1.2.2

              30 January 2012 at 9:58 am

              Nobody does, you moron. Just as no-one with a normal emotional maturity wants to spit in peoples faces for their opinions. $91,000 p.a. is not a “hardship”. Asking someone to work is also not a hardship, but from your view of the world from your mummy’s basement I’m sure you feel it is.
              • Colonial Viper …

                30 January 2012 at 10:06 am

                Go you, ignore the last months’ worth of discussion of the facts of the case and go back to repeating the CEO’s lies.
                • Blue …

                  30 January 2012 at 12:08 pm

                  CV – Can’t be lies if they are backed by audited accounts. The union on the other hand deals in emotion, much like yourself, rather than facts. They are clearly having trouble justifying their stand to the general public. Nice deflection from moronic millsy’s statements , by the way, its clear that the infantile practice of spitting in peoples faces who hold a different view to yours, is something you support. I doubt you’d ever do it, you’d have to leave the basement for that. Cowardly stuff.
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    3 February 2012 at 3:25 pm

                    CV – Can’t be lies if they are backed by audited accounts.

                    Sheeeesh tell that to Enron investors.
    • higherstandard 17.2

      29 January 2012 at 9:27 am

      Is this Millsy person unwell ?

      Most of her/his comments tend to devolve into threatening violence against one or more persons who he/she disagrees with.

      [He’s been moderated in the past when he steps over the line. This time he skated close to it. While he expresses himself in extremely emotive terms, often as not stripped of the noise the point he is making is a valid one…RL]
      • higherstandard 17.2.1

        29 January 2012 at 11:29 am

        “……….the point he is making is a valid one.”

        Bullshit. He/she is effectively saying that those he doesn’t politically agree with should be executed.

        Much the same as his/her previous comments about force to be used on others of an opposite political view such as bloggers he/she disagrees with and Peter Leitch for daring to favour Key.
        • RedLogix 17.2.1.1

          29 January 2012 at 11:39 am

          The point he is making is that historically people have tended to deal very harshly with those who are branded traitors and collaborators. It’s often brutal and always ugly.

          That is why a robust, open and participatory political process is essential; it’s how we try and run The Standard as our small contribution to it. People need the opportunity to protest what they see as unjust, to persuade others that they have a case… and the chance to hold those whom they disagree with accountable in some meaningful, constructive manner.

          Yet increasingly when I talk to people I find they have lost faith in that process. They intuitively understand that their chance of making any difference has been somehow stolen off them. That’s why they are so very cynical about politicians, and increasingly don’t even bother to vote. It’s a dangerous trend.

          Because when the non-violent process fails, inevitably a violent one takes it’s place. It’s only a matter of time and accident.
          • higherstandard 17.2.1.1.1

            29 January 2012 at 11:45 am

            So the site is in part being run for the wellbeing of the disenfranchised so they may wail here rather than become violent in the real world.

            Perhaps you should apply to the MOH for funding.

            I always thought it was more a site for baiting each other and NKDS.
          • higherstandard 17.2.1.1.2

            29 January 2012 at 11:49 am

            Oh and did you see this from Tim Watkin is he an ‘enemy of the people and a traitor to this country.’

            http://pundit.co.nz/content/crafar-farms-deal-ticks-the-boxes-–-but-where-does-it-end
            • RedLogix 17.2.1.1.2.1

              29 January 2012 at 11:56 am

              Fran’s article was gloating and insulting. She dished it out, she got it served back.

              As for Tim Watkins argument it really boils down to, “we have already sold a whole lot of land to overseas owners…why stop now?”

              Is that it?

              Actually on reading the whole thing… Tim asks pretty much the same questions I have.
18. DH 18

    28 January 2012 at 12:36 pm

    Redlogix. Take it easy mate. O’Sullivan does have that effect on people, I agree entirely that her article was gloating and insulting & she deserves condemnation for it. I’ve always thought of her as dangerously naive rather than treasonous however, hasn’t got a clue what the real world is about IMHO.

    For what it’s worth I think the Crafar deal had to go through, although perhaps not in the manner that transpired. It could probably have been rejected by using the provisions of the Commerce Act; the non-commercial cheap loans from the Chinese Govt amount to anti-competitive behaviour & a few other provisions of the Act are also breached in principle, but diplomatically there really was little choice. The media blew it up & made it into a ‘Chinese’ issue and we had to show good faith in letting it proceed else we would have been perceived as prejudiced. The Chinese are a proud lot & we just had to honour the deal in my view. We can’t always get the result we want.

    You & a couple of the other regular contributors are interesting characters. You don’t behave like typical Labour party supporters, I’ve been a bit surprised at the quality of debate here. I’m not being pejorative when I say that left leaning publications are usually full of emotion & lacking reasoned discussion. Plenty of emotive claptrap here but also some well rounded debate.

    You could be flattered in one respect, whoever wrote the Herald editorial has been reading the thread on being tenants in our own land and I’d say you got through to him or her. It wasn’t a bad editorial. For the Herald.
    • Shona 18.1

      28 January 2012 at 12:56 pm

      Pompous patronising git.!
      Shock horror the ‘lefties” have a handle on our loss of sovereignty . They are even discussing all aspects of the issue in an informed way. Perish the thought! Who’d a thunk it.
      This is not a Labour party site!
      This is a site that debates all the issues where everyone with an informed view is welcome to post.
      And unlike you the majority of us here auctually do know what is going on.
      • DH 18.1.1

        28 January 2012 at 1:33 pm

        Aaah, that’s more like it! Let it all out & tell me what you really think. If I came across as patronising it wasn’t intended, I was being complimentary. One of the nastier tricks of the right is to needle the left; they bait & taunt. Many react to it & get angry which is just what they want, they pick up on a few indiscreet comments & start sneering. I’ve been mildly surprised, in a good way, at the number of contributors who don’t rise to the baiting & maintain a reasoned debate. If that’s being patronising, well so be it.

        And I’ll make the point that the left have sold far more of our sovereignty off than the right have, lets not pretend one side is pure here.
        • Colonial Viper 18.1.1.1

          28 January 2012 at 2:41 pm

          DH don’t pretend that in NZ the left has not had a history of being Right Wing. It has.
    • blue leopard 18.2

      28 January 2012 at 1:39 pm

      I posted this in the wrong place so posting it again here

      DH

      “Dangerously naive” and “treasonous” can be seen as synonyms in this context.

      I draw an analogy with way New Zealanders voted in the worst possible approach toward dealing with a recession; I consider both dangerously naive and treasonous in effect.

      This is not the time to be selling off assets, nor our land to foreign interests, it is not the time to be giving tax cuts to the wealthy, nor applying austerity. These approaches have been followed in other countries and proven/ing to fail each nation that they have be applied in. This is well documented. There are even articles on such subjects in mainstream media. Look at the wealth gap issue if you want to enlighten yourself.

      In the last few months of viewing blogsites/comments pages and putting my two cents worth in, I have found rightwing arguments to be entirely lacking reason, the comments expressed being so full of media-manipulated half truths and ad hominem attacks, they fall down at the slightest reasoned debate. I therefore completely disagree with you on your point re ‘left leaning publications.’ I conclude that the type of poorly thought our argument right wing adherents offer is all they can do, because their views are entirely delusional in reality, this can be proven by the results when they are put into practice.
      • seeker 18.2.1

        28 January 2012 at 8:18 pm

        +1+1 B.L.
19. lefty 19

    28 January 2012 at 12:40 pm

    This what comes ineveitably with the private ownership of land. If some people are allowed to buy and sell it then why not others?

    Notwithstanding this I count myself among the many thousands of New Zealanders who has been opposed to the sale of land and other strategic assets to foreigners. It is a simple matter of wanting to keep control of our own economy and to determine our own future.

    Labour and National have both ignored popular opinion on this for many years and only the Greens have a credible record on it (they have never had the power to be tested of course).

    Given its track record, Labour is begging to be labelled xenophobic by suddenly appearing to have changed its mind over this just when the purchaser happens to be Chinese rather than British, Australian, Indonesian, American, Italian or just about any other dodgy bugger who chose to flash a few dollars around.

    Conveniently they happen to be in opposition when they have this change of heart so won’t be called on to act on it.

    I will believe they have really changed their ways when I see one of their MPs put up a private members bill to halt all foreign sales, and have that bill backed by their leadership. I know it would still have to be drawn from the ballot but it is the only way they will convince me they really understand the situation and have resiled from their previous position.

    Otherwise its just another of those things they say in opposition, like becoming interested in poverty or wanting to improve employment law.

    And what about the way we happily go off to Uraguay and buy land to dairy on? Is it OK for us to swoop on cheap land in poor countries when we don’t want others to buy our land? I don’t notice any politicians opposing that.

    You are either a free market capitalist who believes everything is up for sale or you are not. At least the Fran O’Sullivans of this world are consistent in their destructive and simplistic economic beliefs.

    The key thing for those who have consistently opposed sales is that opposition is not based on the suppposed good character or otherwise of the purchaser. The Chinese government is not too wonderful, but some pretty awful individuals and organisations from other countries have been allowed to make purchases of our assets.

    Come to think of it I think I prefer the Chinese to Michael Fay who is about as dodgy as you can get.

    It is good to see this issue finally be taken up widely but the hypocrisy and xenophobia that accompanies it is pretty disgusting and recent converts among our politicians need to prove they are genuine or risk wearing those very nasty labels.
    • Matt 19.1

      28 January 2012 at 3:47 pm

      Enough with the Uruguay. Kiwis have to get their domestic shit together and the Uruguayans are responsible for themselves.
    • Jackal 19.2

      28 January 2012 at 6:07 pm

      @ Lefty

      This what comes ineveitably with the private ownership of land. If some people are allowed to buy and sell it then why not others?

      Another righty masquerading as a lefty I presume. To answer your question, which seems at the core of John Keys argument, some people should be allowed to buy land and other’s not irrespective of their wealth because some wealth is attained through unscrupulous means. That is to say that the bank robber or corrupt investment banker should not be able to out price somebody who has worked their entire lives just to be able to afford some land, which they will assuredly respect more than somebody who has ill gotten gains.

      Given its track record, Labour is begging to be labelled xenophobic by suddenly appearing to have changed its mind over this just when the purchaser happens to be Chinese rather than British, Australian, Indonesian, American, Italian or just about any other dodgy bugger who chose to flash a few dollars around.

      I don’t think the Labour party has changed its mind because of the nationality of the company, as there are many reasons why the crafar farms should not be sold to Milk New Zealand Holdings.

      Conveniently they happen to be in opposition when they have this change of heart so won’t be called on to act on it.

      Is it convenient that National won the last election? I don’t think so.

      Otherwise its just another of those things they say in opposition, like becoming interested in poverty or wanting to improve employment law.

      Is that really how you view politics? That politicians only say things in reaction to the opposing party and that they don’t actually believe what they say? I think you’re judging Labour by National’s standards.

      And what about the way we happily go off to Uraguay and buy land to dairy on? Is it OK for us to swoop on cheap land in poor countries when we don’t want others to buy our land? I don’t notice any politicians opposing that.

      Hurray! Let’s all move to Uruguay then because our country has been sold to private businesses backed by economic powerhouses.

      You are either a free market capitalist who believes everything is up for sale or you are not. At least the Fran O’Sullivans of this world are consistent in their destructive and simplistic economic beliefs.

      Most people understand that there should be limitations to what can and cannot be sold. It’s a pity John Key et al has decided to not represent the majority.

      Come to think of it I think I prefer the Chinese to Michael Fay who is about as dodgy as you can get.

      That’s like saying… oh well! I’ve been fucked over before, why even bother trying to fight it this time, which is such a defeatist attitude.

      It is good to see this issue finally be taken up widely but the hypocrisy and xenophobia that accompanies it is pretty disgusting and recent converts among our politicians need to prove they are genuine or risk wearing those very nasty labels.

      You know, the only people I’ve seen who’ve been saying it’s a racial issue are those promoting the sale. There has been no xenophobia otherwise. So perhaps you might like to enlighten us as to why the right has accused the left of being racist just to promote the sale?
20. Colonial Viper 20

    28 January 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Given its track record, Labour is begging to be labelled xenophobic by suddenly appearing to have changed its mind over this just when the purchaser happens to be Chinese rather than British, Australian, Indonesian, American, Italian or just about any other dodgy bugger who chose to flash a few dollars around.

    Conveniently they happen to be in opposition when they have this change of heart so won’t be called on to act on it.

    You’re fraking full of cow manure.

    Labour’s policy, announced months ahead of the November election, was that all land sales over 5ha. would be turned down as the default decision.

    It suits the Right Wing like yourself to position this as an issue of race, when in fact it is an issue of economic sovereignty. Don’t be so transparent with your astroturfing next time.
    • Colonial Viper 20.1

      28 January 2012 at 12:57 pm

      This what comes ineveitably with the private ownership of land. If some people are allowed to buy and sell it then why not others?

      Uh, because they don’t meet the terms and conditions that you set, or the transaction is not in your own best interest? Duh.
    • lefty 20.2

      28 January 2012 at 5:29 pm

      Labour’s policy, announced months ahead of the November election, was that all land sales over 5ha. would be turned down as the default decision.

      I will rephrase to make myself clear.

      I would prefer we didn’t have private ownership of land because these sorts of issues will always arise as long as we do.

      Despite having been a farm owner on two occassions I simply don’t think we can ever be more than custodians of the land and huge amount of time, effort and resource is wasted in the pursuit of freehold that indebts the country to foreign banks, does nothing to improve productivity and helps keep us poor as a nation.

      Foreign ownership has been an issue for the left since as long as I can remember (at least half a century) but Labour has ignored it.

      The Crafar farms were already a large public issue when Labour changed its mind and decided it was in favour of regulating foreign ownership. It was in opposition at the time and running up to an election it was pretty much sure not to win so was unlikely to have to implement its new found enthusiasm for not selling off the family silver.

      They need to do more before I would trust them on the issue. Putting up a private members bill would be a good start.

      Labour are laying themselve wide open to charges of xenophobia because of the timing of the opposition and because they have been on the other side up until Crafur became an issue. Note I didn’t say Labour is xenophobic – after all they are big on free trade agreements – what I was trying to say is they have made themselves vulnerable to such claims and this is not helped by the very clear racism and xenophobia by many who are taking part in this debate.

      Being such strong proponents of free trade agreements is not consistent with being defenders of our economic sovereignty so Labour can’t push that argument with any credibility unless they change their mind on them as well. I wish they would.

      I support keeping our land and other key assets out of foreign ownership as a matter of principle, not personality or race and believe the only way of demonstrating that is to be consistent on it including opposing our citiszens and companies snapping up cheap land in poor countries.
      • Jackal 20.2.1

        28 January 2012 at 6:14 pm

        Lather, rinse and repeat.
      • Colonial Viper 20.2.2

        28 January 2012 at 6:22 pm

        Foreign ownership has been an issue for the left since as long as I can remember (at least half a century) but Labour has ignored it.

        Yo poo-for-brains, Labour’s expressed policy released in the first half of last year is that all land sales over 5 ha. would be turned down as the default decision.

        Not really “ignoring” the issue now, is it?
21. Wayne 21

    28 January 2012 at 1:04 pm

    Uh, because they don’t meet the terms and conditions that you set, or the transaction is not in your own best interest?

    The Chinese did meet the conditions, in fact exceeded them.

    And if you think overseas investment laws are not in the countrys best interests, lobby to change them.

    But you can’t blame the Chinese or the government over the Crafar affair. The Chinese saw an investment opportunity, the government was bound by the rules.

    You start playing some sort of Jim Crow thing with the Chinese and this country is economically screwed.
    • Matt 21.1

      28 January 2012 at 3:51 pm

      Jim Crow? Please. I am confident that any law limiting foreign ownership would not single out Chinese. It could, I suppose, include some sort of reciprocity test (i.e. can Kiwi nationals own land there) though I can’t see the point.
22. blue leopard 22

    28 January 2012 at 1:06 pm

    DH

    “Dangerously naive” and “treasonous” can be seen as synonyms in this context.

    I draw an analogy with way New Zealanders voted in the worst possible approach toward dealing with a recession; I consider both dangerously naive and treasonous in effect.

    This is not the time to be selling off assets, nor our land to foreign interests, it is not the time to be giving tax cuts to the wealthy, nor applying austerity. These approaches have been followed in other countries and proven/ing to fail each nation that they have be applied in. This is well documented. There are even articles on such subjects in mainstream media. Look at the wealth gap issue if you want to enlighten yourself.

    In the last few months of viewing blogsites/comments pages and putting my two cents worth in, I have found rightwing arguments to be entirely lacking reason, the comments expressed being so full of media-manipulated half truths and ad hominem attacks, they fall down at the slightest reasoned debate. I therefore completely disagree with you on your point re ‘left leaning publications.’ I conclude that the type of poorly thought our argument right wing adherents offer is all they can do, because their views are entirely delusional in reality, this can be proven by the results when they are put into practice.
    • DH 22.1

      28 January 2012 at 1:54 pm

      Yes I didn’t exactly write a prize winning epistle there did I. We’ve all got our flaws & one of mine is my writing doesn’t always come out they way I intend it to. Trying to explain my way out usually just ends up me digging a bigger hole so I’ll spare people the agony of that.

      I agree with your comments on the right but they still do seem to be winning the propaganda war, which is a concern. They are very well organised.
      • blue leopard 22.1.1

        28 January 2012 at 2:02 pm

        Oh! Cheers 🙂 That’s cleared up then!

        Yes I like your observation re “seem to be winning the propaganda war”, Its a real worry. I think a lot of NZers are furious though. Maybe, hopefully, its a case of ‘they may have won the battle, yet not the war’? (How very sad to use martial terms)
23. muzza 23

    28 January 2012 at 1:40 pm

    “The Crafar decision is a victory for economic rationalism over blind xenophobic nationalism. Long may the former reign.”

    Fran you are quite simply a disgrace – This is clearly a strategy which is being used, as you echo Maurice Willamsons racist slur on the NZ public from yesterday…Key then tried to distance himself from it!

    Your articles have been becoming increasingly bias over the past year or two, mysteriously since you went on that junket to China – Perhaps you are not telling us something Fran?

    Using racism as the cover and to disrespect people who care about the fact that ANY foreigners who own our productive farm land, when global recources are becoming more scarce, is beyond awful Fran, and you have shown your position for all to see!

    DISGRACE
24. Paul 24

    28 January 2012 at 1:47 pm

    Have just read Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer. It looks at how countries with crises of food production are buying up land in Africa and Asia. See page 101-102. “It is estimated that 20 million hectares have been bought up in Africa in the past 2 years.”
    Looks like we are falling into the same trap.
    • McFlock 24.1

      28 January 2012 at 2:04 pm

      Yeah – our brighter future.
      We’re the Mexico of Australasia for manufacturing, and the Africa of the Pacific for land grabs. 
      Fuck.
      • Matt 24.1.1

        28 January 2012 at 3:52 pm

        No, people actually move production to Mexico, not away from it.
        • McFlock 24.1.1.1

          28 January 2012 at 5:12 pm

          We get Australian fruit canneries because our minimum pay is more shite than the dollar is high.
           
          As soon as you go above minimum wage into competitive skillsets (like electronics), we get hit by the dollar.
             
           
          • Colonial Viper 24.1.1.1.1

            28 January 2012 at 8:34 pm

            0.05% FFT on NZD transactions not associated with NZ exporters would be a perfect way to sink the dollar.

            That and start printing $700M extra dollar notes per annum ($150 for every man woman and child), which are then pushed out into the Main St economy.
        • mik e 24.1.1.2

          28 January 2012 at 8:25 pm

          Mexican land will be needed for cemeteries
          • Colonial Viper 24.1.1.2.1

            28 January 2012 at 8:35 pm

            Charnal grounds.
    • Anne 24.2

      28 January 2012 at 8:24 pm

      Hear, hear and bloody hear!!

      Fran Sullivan must know that Climate Change is the long game! Buy up as much foreign land as possible and when the heat kicks in, ship the resources back to China – or where-ever. Who are the losers? The local folk who tilled and toiled the land for centuries and turned it into productive pastures. Key, of course, will have long skipped the country – presumably back to his real home HAWAII where he can enjoy the fruits of his labours on behalf of the global marketeers.
      • Anne 24.2.1

        28 January 2012 at 8:30 pm

        Edit function gone. I was referring to Paul’s comment.
        • Anne 24.2.1.1

          28 January 2012 at 8:40 pm

          Shit: Fran O’Sullivan of course.

          Where’s the edit function?
      • Oscar 24.2.2

        30 January 2012 at 11:30 pm

        What heat? We’re heading into a cooling period where cycle 25 is expected to be as weak, if not moreso, as the Maunder Minimum which caused the Thames to freeze.

        New data coming out shows that while 1997 was the hottest year on record, the mean temperature of Gaia has cooled by 0.3 degrees in the preceding 15 years.

        Sooner or later, you’ll understand why we carbonites are pushing for more trees to be planted and treated as a renewable fuel source on a wider level, to renew the CO into the atmosphere as plants, people and the biosphere all benefit from CO. It helps to extract the maximum value from plants especially with the predicted shorter growing seasons under a cooling cycle.

        Want to save the world? Start putting out more carbon. You’ve just breathed out 2L while you’ve been reading this.
        • Colonial Viper 24.2.2.1

          30 January 2012 at 11:35 pm

          Random nonsense
        • ropata 24.2.2.2

          30 January 2012 at 11:46 pm

          Stupidly wrong.

          According to NASA, 2011 was the 9th hottest year on record, dating back to 1880.

          That’s in line with a disturbing trend: the space agency said 9 out of the 10 hottest years in the modern meteorological record have occurred since the year 2000. The other year in the top 10 was 1998.
          • Oscar 24.2.2.2.1

            31 January 2012 at 7:53 pm

            Unfortunately Ropata, NBC recycling a press release with their own wording isn’t a fundamental truth. 10 years out of millions of years of rising and falling temperatures, and with southern glaciers growing and new northern glaciers forming in the Rockies, a new Ice Age is on the way. As for that bollocks about it taking upwards of 1000 years. Take a look at those snap frozen Mammoths in Northern Siberia found with food in their mouths. Hardly indicative of a long term cooling cycle.

            Never mind the fact that there’s a cycle to this and even the most die hard warmists are slowly, starting to admit that mayhaps, they might just possibly be wrong. Unfortunately, James Hansen needs to die before his line of pedagogeury will end.

            After all, Carl Sagan did say “The most accepted truths in the history of science often turn out to be fundamentally wrong”
            • McFlock 24.2.2.2.1.1

              1 February 2012 at 12:38 pm

              Let’s see – about seven testable claims, not one link/citation. 
               
              Makes me wonder if you know fuck-all about science. Which makes me doubt your assertions. which is a pity, because you haven’t bothered to link to source documents. So into the rubbish oscar goes . . .
              • lprent …

                1 February 2012 at 12:41 pm

                Makes me wonder if you know fuck-all about science.

                No need to wonder. You are correct.
        • McFlock 24.2.2.3

          30 January 2012 at 11:51 pm

          If a tory breathes, check their numbers. “Start putting out more carbon. You’ve just breathed out 2L while you’ve been reading this.”
           
          Let’s see – a check of wikipedia, font of all immediate knowledge, suggests that at best I exhaled 2L of expiration in total. The subject of Oscar’s parting shot was carbon. At a rate of 5% CO2 and trace elements of other carbon compounds, that’s 100mL of carbon exhaled reading Oscar’s bullshit, not two litres. But then I didn’t need to know that to realise Oscar might not be entirely comfortable with math beyone single digits. ‘Twas merely an entertaining exercise – everyone is good for something, even if only amusement.
           
25. Observer 25

    28 January 2012 at 1:49 pm

    It is serious if anybody calls another person a racist. Even if the Prime Minister calls you a racist for discussing what is good for New Zealand, you should call the Police and lodge a complaint against the slanderer.

    There is recent precedent for calling the Police in on political matters in New Zealand, and we have been officially told that the Police will relish it, because they do not have enough to do.

    I also think that it is silly to expect a balanced editorial or column, or even simple reportage, in the New Zealnd newspapers. They are owned by foreigners who have a comitment understandably, to another Land. They cannot be expected to have the interests of our land at heart.

    Their local employees are hired on the basis that they will support the financial and political aspirations of the newspaper’s Owner. If they failed to do that, they would lose their jobs. So, self interest is the beginning, the middle and the end of any writing they do.

    New Zealand journalists have so little freedom compared to the rest of us. They distort, contort and sweat daily in the livery of their Masters. Pity them.
26. randal 26

    28 January 2012 at 2:07 pm

    I dont fear America.
    Whatever its faults it aspieres to adhere to the rule of law and they are part of the western intellectual tradition for all its faults.
    • JohnC 26.1

      28 January 2012 at 2:27 pm

      In other words you do not fear America because they are by and large white people.

      You probably would fear America if they had killed half a million of your countrymen.
      • Colonial Viper 26.1.1

        28 January 2012 at 8:40 pm

        America is the richest, most technolgically country in the world where 46M live on food stamps and a 100M are in or near poverty levels. They have passed laws allowing them to incarcerate their own citizens indefinitely without trial, or even if a jury trial has found the person innocent, and the police use Predator drones which can be armed with tank busting missiles to monitor routine civilian and crime activity.

        This is a country known to have set up major wars for economic and political expediency and to bring down governments they don’t like and install puppet ones they do like, even if they brutally oppress their own people.

        Whats there not to fear.
    • Frank Macskasy 26.2

      28 January 2012 at 2:41 pm

      Whatever its faults it aspieres to adhere to the rule of law and they are part of the western intellectual tradition for all its faults.

      *cough, cough, splutter!!!*

      You’re taking the piss, right?

      (Sorry, hard to make out if you’re being serious or not, as I can’t see your cheeky smile and eye-rolling.)
    • foreign waka 26.3

      29 January 2012 at 4:01 pm

      Randal – we all should fear anyone who promises freedom and preaches sacrifice. Throughout history these calls have caused despair, poverty, torture and death. The only sacrifice anyone should do is of one owns choosing with no consequence to anyone but him/her self. Only then can we claim to be above the animal kingdom and civilized.
27. Fortran 27

    28 January 2012 at 2:07 pm

    Can somebody please show me where Shearer & Co have said that they would not have approved the Overseas Investment Commision’s recommendation.
    And under what part of the legislation they declined this, without the plaintiff purchaser going to the Courts.
    It would appear that the purchaser fulfilled every part of the legislation.
    I believe they could only go against the OIC by changing the Law in Parliament.
    • ghostwhowalksnz 27.1

      28 January 2012 at 2:18 pm

      If you read the OIC report you will find they didnt approve every part. Its an example of reverse engineering as well with a few titbits thrown in to bulk up the application but it falls down in having no benefit for NZ.

      My reading of the blanked out bits leads to the assumption the Chinese will just borrow the money to pay for it as is common for most businesses sold overseas and use the system to get around paying tax. This means they can pay more than local based farmers
28. Wayne 28

    28 January 2012 at 2:39 pm

    While it is true that various private individuals and corporates have already purchased land; this transaction is heavily backed by the Chinese goverment

    Well where the fuck do you get this information Redlogix? Please provide your sources. Or is it just stuff you pulled out of your asshole.

    As for governments backing their multinationals, I hardly think Western governments are whiter than snow on this either.

    In fact the West has a penchant of going to war to protect its overseas interests.

    One infamous case is of course the Opium Wars – fought by Britain and then Britain and France to prise open the Chinese market so they could sell opium to the Chinese in exchange for tea, silks, and silver.

    And of course it happens today. Iran, Iraq, South America etc.

    If we looked to history, I would say the Chinese have far more to fear from the West than the West from China.
    • Colonial Viper 28.1

      28 January 2012 at 2:49 pm

      If we looked to history, I would say the Chinese have far more to fear from the West than the West from China.

      LOLwut

      That must be why China has somehow managed to aggregate within itself tens of millions of jobs gifted from the west, trillions in investment capital and assets gifted from the west, tens of thousands of formerly western based factories, and much technology and manufacturing know-how which originated in the west.

      Yes China are “afraid” of us. As their GDP per capita rockets upwards, median US incomes collapse. Much to fear there.

      Notwithstanding the fact that China also have the hydrogen bomb and have stolen many modern US nuclear warhead designs. They really are “afraid” of the west then.

      Which is not to say that China isn’t facing some horrendous internal challenges itself, of course.
      • Wayne 28.1.1

        28 January 2012 at 3:05 pm

        In the 1820s China’s share was about 1/3 of world GDP. China was richer than all of Europe.

        Between 1840 and 1949 (when China was basically ruled by Europeans and Japanese), her share of world GDP fell to about 5% of world GDP. Now it has recovered somewhat to about 12% of world GDP.

        So when China was richer than Europe, and relative to the rest of the world far richer than she is now, she was a magnet for European interlopers. But she did not go abroad to conquer and seek new lands.

        Europeans did. In fact it could be argued that the whole impetus for the ‘Age of Discovery’ was Europeans striking out to get to the wealth of India and China. Which they did get to in the end.

        Interestingly Britain ran the Chinese Maritime Customs Service from its founding in 1854, until 1950 when the last foreign Inspector-General resigned. Of course this was hardly run for the interests of the Chinese.

        And of course it is a well known fact of history that Westerners were immune from Chinese laws right up until 1946 (as part of a package of trading privileges wrested from China by the Western powers).

        As for the hydrogen bomb, that was the Soviet Union who helped China with that. And the stealing of military technology, if true, is something everyone does.
      • Wayne 28.1.2

        28 January 2012 at 3:11 pm

        When the Chinese were not interested in trade with Britain, what did the British do?

        They declared war, and flooded the Chinese with narcotics. Opium was illegal in China. So the British forced the Chinese government to legalize it. In this way a balance of trade hitherto in China’s favour was reversed and a huge amount of silver flowed from China to Britain, and then to other eight other European countries who followed Britain.

        Whereas if the Crafar farms deal was rejected, I hardly think China would go to war over the matter.

        The Chinese are not quite as acquisitive or aggressive as Anglo Saxons.
        • Colonial Viper 28.1.2.1

          28 January 2012 at 3:18 pm

          My point is that China doesn’t fear the west as you claimed, and even though it doesn’t want to set up hundreds of foreign military bases as the US has, you can see how the acquisition of strategic land and energy resources has been a Chinese priority for several years now.

          The west flooded China with opium once; now China is flooding the west with job destroying cheap manufactured goods. The bullied has learnt from the bully, wouldn’t you say?
          • Wayne 28.1.2.1.1

            28 January 2012 at 3:25 pm

            you can see how the acquisition of strategic land and energy resources has been a Chinese priority for several years now.

            Is it not a priority for every single country in the world? Especially Western ones.

            Why is it a crime when Chinese wish to acquire land and resources, but not when Western countries do same.

            You saying the US (which you ardently defend) is not in the same game? Or Russia? Or the UK? Or Japan?
            • Colonial Viper 28.1.2.1.1.1

              28 January 2012 at 8:53 pm

              Why is it a crime when Chinese wish to acquire land and resources, but not when Western countries do same.

              Dude are you thick? You know, one of the highly educated but thick tribe?

              Its a crime when you’re the fucking native Indians that the interlopers who are rolling in are dispossessing and occasionally massacring. It’s a crime when it’s your tribe who is on the wrong side of history here. And its a crime when members of your own tribe encourage the massacre in the name of good globalised economics benefitting everyone else but you.
          • Wayne 28.1.2.1.2

            28 January 2012 at 3:35 pm

            The west flooded China with opium once; now China is flooding the west with job destroying cheap manufactured goods. The bullied has learnt from the bully, wouldn’t you say?

            That’s absolutely laughable. Going in with guns to force a country to trade with you is different from enticing people to trade with you. Everyone does that. Have you ever been to Asia. Western multinationals abound. American banks, HSBC, Coca Cola, Macdonalds, etc…you think they are not there for a profit?

            In fact for the first thirty years of the Peoples Republic of China, she shunned contact with the Western world. It was the Western corporations, Western governments who ‘opened’ up China, which begged China to be allowed in to enjoy the vast Chinese market.

            The Chinese finally agreed, took the bull by the horns and have since done rather well out of it. And if part of the reason for this is those in the West living over their means, that can hardly be China’s fault.

            If I blow my money on a 50,000 car, I can’t then turn around and blame the person who sold me the car.
            • Colonial Viper 28.1.2.1.2.1

              28 January 2012 at 8:58 pm

              Don’t be a fucking moron, of course western corporations begged China to open up, they did it to benefit their own shareholders by shipping jobs, factories and know-how over to China and out of the west. BTW Deng Xiao Peng opened China up and he used western corporate greed to catapult China ahead.

              That’s absolutely laughable. Going in with guns to force a country to trade with you is different from enticing people to trade with you. Everyone does that.

              Let me see…you;re right of course, threatening to cut off supplies of banker credit to sovereign nations while bribing their politicians to work against their own countrymen while installing your own puppets inside the governmental bureacracy does seem more “enticing” and subtle than using guns.

              Of course western powers enjoy using both approaches, still.
        • RedLogix 28.1.2.2

          28 January 2012 at 3:25 pm

          The Chinese are not quite as acquisitive or aggressive as Anglo Saxons.

          And we are supposed to take some comfort from that how? Unless of course you are arguing that the CCP controlled, totalitarian, non-democratic state of China is somehow morally and ethically superior to the Western model. Surely not.

          Shanghai Pengxin are being subsidised with very cheap capital from the CCP controlled banking system because the CCP clearly values this country’s farmland as a strategic asset. In exactly the same way they’ve been buying up land in Africa…. much to the exactly the same consternation of local people there as well.

          Shanghai Pengxin would have easily outbid ANY other local bidder. And now they have been given permission to do so this time, and with essentially unlimited capital at their disposal there are no barriers to them continuing to do so. As O’Sullivan points out they regard this purchase as a mere ‘toehold’…

          So while amount of land already sold is deplorable; there is every reason to see this particular transaction as qualitatively more dangerous still.
          • Colonial Viper 28.1.2.2.1

            28 January 2012 at 3:29 pm

            The Chinese have about US$2T in US Treasuries they want to sell off. Exchanging that failing over-printed USD denominated “asset” for irreplaceable real productive farm land is a great deal for the Chinese.
            • RedLogix 28.1.2.2.1.1

              28 January 2012 at 3:41 pm

              Besides the $210m cash simply goes to the receiver and then the Australian banks who hold the mortgage.

              New Zealand gets nothing…zip…nada.
              • Colonial Viper …

                28 January 2012 at 5:19 pm

                Ah well. Seems to be the way of the future. The ts’s and Gossies of the world seem all for it.
        • mik e 28.1.2.3

          28 January 2012 at 8:50 pm

          Taiwan south China sea.The fastest expanding military in the world with access to more advanced technology and industrial capability than any other country.
          The US military buy a lot of their technology from china.
        • happynz 28.1.2.4

          28 January 2012 at 10:29 pm

          The Chinese are not quite as acquisitive or aggressive as Anglo Saxons.

          That’s one of the most patently ridiculous generalisations I’ve ever had read.
          • Colonial Viper 28.1.2.4.1

            28 January 2012 at 10:41 pm

            that quote comes from the standpoint of what Anglo Saxons regard as being “aggressive”.

            What the Chinese regard as being aggressive…well, thats a whole other thing that many westerners would not even recognise.

            The Chinese don’t execute the largest number of prisoners per year, Texas not withstanding, for the sake of being meek.
29. rob the dog 29

    28 January 2012 at 2:40 pm

    woof woof
    • blue leopard 29.1

      28 January 2012 at 4:59 pm

      Rob the Dog,

      Good point!
30. Blue 30

    28 January 2012 at 2:46 pm

    This is the way it’s all going now, RL. Soon the NZ dairy industry as we know it won’t exist. It will all be megafarms owned by large overseas corporations.

    The smaller farms will go the way of small retailers when supermarkets and malls moved in.

    It will be worrying for NZ when that does happen, because the dairy industry is sort of the only thing we have left, after all the manufacturing went offshore.
31. ropata 31

    28 January 2012 at 3:05 pm

    financial wiz johnny boy “keys”
    is jolly good mates with the Chinese
    he gave them some land
    for a nice pat on the hand
    and some sparkly trinkets and beads
    • blue leopard 31.1

      28 January 2012 at 3:35 pm

      Yes Ropata,

      we seem to have missed out on the muskets this time round. Inflation?
      • Colonial Viper 31.1.1

        28 January 2012 at 5:16 pm

        China will sell us AK 74’s if we want them. Quite good rifles, actually.
        • blue leopard 31.1.1.1

          28 January 2012 at 7:59 pm

          LOL!
        • Peter Marshall 31.1.1.2

          28 January 2012 at 8:16 pm

          The AK47 is even better.
          • chris73 31.1.1.2.1

            28 January 2012 at 11:05 pm

            Reliable, damn-near industructable, cheap to make but not that accurate and reasonably heavy
          • Colonial Viper 31.1.1.2.2

            29 January 2012 at 10:05 am

            The AK 74 is a well established update to the AK 47. There are newer versions but this one is very solid and in widespread use.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AK-74
    • One Anonymous Bloke 31.2

      28 January 2012 at 7:10 pm

      ..but that weren’t enough for our John,
      As he said when he moved right long,
      The shares and the equity,
      Rabid speculatory,
      Futures market’s for me son.
      • ropata 31.2.1

        30 January 2012 at 5:33 am

        property prices in kiwiland boomed
        johnny’s bank account ballooned
        and the wage earning punters
        keep voting for munters
        no cake for you, just a wooden spoon
32. Observer 32

    28 January 2012 at 3:30 pm

    Does any one familiar with our Parliament know whether by a suitable motion, all land sales to foreign nationals, including the Crayfar sale, could be put under a moratorium until New Zealanders gave their opinion in a Referendum?

    We all know that both National and Labour agree with flogging off land and assets when it suits them.

    But we do not know what direction New Zealanders would like to give Parliament on these issues.
    • Inventory2 32.1

      28 January 2012 at 4:04 pm

      There’s a fairly large and none-too-subtle difference between selling assets which are in public ownership, and selling land which is privately owned.
    • ianmac 32.2

      28 January 2012 at 4:18 pm

      A Herald online poll had a 70% vote against the Crafar sale.
      A Campbell Live text poll had a 95% vote against the sale.

      Mr Key says it doesn’t matter what the people think. It is a legal obligation to accept the offer.
      Well change the Act dear John, dear John! Change the Act!
      • chris73 32.2.1

        28 January 2012 at 5:04 pm

        I dunno, maybe this (and other rules/laws) should not be allowed to be changed.

        Open to abuse of whatever party is in power at any given time?
        • Colonial Viper 32.2.1.1

          28 January 2012 at 5:15 pm

          WTF

          You are talking about stripping the Government of its sovereign powers.

          Which co-incidentally happens to be what various FTAs and WTO agreements do to us.

          And which the corporates and money makers love.
          • chris73 32.2.1.1.1

            28 January 2012 at 5:20 pm

            My thoughts on this is that when National are in Power they’ll do things lonney lefties don’t like and when Labours in power they’ll do things that are completely bat-shit crazy and who knows what would happen if the Greens got in…

            So maybe some things can be set in stone and not mucked around with no matter whos in power (deciding what would be covered is another story)
      • blue leopard 32.2.2

        28 January 2012 at 5:05 pm

        It just seems to be getting really bizarre; what about the obligation the NZ government has toward conscientious application of democracy? (I have a horrible feeling that politicians in NZ have more duty toward the ‘Crown’ than the People. Unsure about this). But what about our human rights? This is just start to feel like we are turning into a banana republic. How could any politician really believe that selling off this land is in the NZ people’s best interests?
        • LyallD 32.2.2.1

          30 January 2012 at 10:56 pm

          blue leopard,
          The greater concern is that they have more duty towards “the economy” than the people. We have a situation in New Zealand, as there is in many countries, where the people are continuously sacrificed to the economy. Banks bailouts worldwide, car maker bailouts in the US, Ports of Auckland against the workers.
          • Colonial Viper 32.2.2.1.1

            30 January 2012 at 11:02 pm

            Does society exist to serve the needs of the economy? Or does the economy exist to serve the needs of society?
            • LyallD 32.2.2.1.1.1

              30 January 2012 at 11:40 pm

              It would be nice if the economy served the people, but in most current models, the economy serves itself and the wealthy.
      • Observer 32.2.3

        28 January 2012 at 6:34 pm

        Thanks Ianmac. Parliament has gone far enough in selling off New Zealand to foreign interests.

        Parliament is effectively dispossessing its own people. Ministers of the Crown are offering our country to anyone in the world. The international media will publicise this and create a significant trickle into an unstoppable rush from eager buyers.

        Who on earth gave John Key or David Shearer the legal right to sell our country off?

        God defend New Zealand – from its own rat rotten Parliament!
    • Fortran 32.3

      29 January 2012 at 1:11 pm

      We have a Referendum on everything every three years.
      • ropata 32.3.1

        30 January 2012 at 11:06 pm

        Ahh no. Since at least 1984 we have had a revolving door of neoliberal economists, each more extreme than the last. (Possible exception Michael Cullen but he merely applied the brakes on a runaway train, Key/English are full steam ahead once more). I and many others tried to express our anger at Rogernomics and Ruthanasia but we got the same shit in a different package each time.
33. Portsmouth 33

    28 January 2012 at 6:31 pm

    I wonder how long it will be before the Chinese start to demand ‘extraterritoriality’, that is the right to try their own citizens according to Chinese law instead of NZ law, as Europeans once had in China (up to the 1940s I believe):

    http://regentsprep.org/Regents/global/themes/imperialism/china.cfm
34. Robert Atack 34

    28 January 2012 at 6:38 pm

    One thing about Fran, she isn’t anonymous.
    • Hami Shearlie 34.1

      29 January 2012 at 10:17 pm

      No, agreed, Fran isn’t a “non”-y mouse, shes a “oui” kind of mouse! Show her the cheese from down on the farm and she’s anybody’s!! LOL
35. Thomas 35

    28 January 2012 at 6:42 pm

    “Treachery”, “an enemy of the people”, “a traitor to this country”, “disgusting sell-out”, “There is no coming back from this.”, “spit in your face”

    Good grief. This “article” is too full of anger, bile, and just plain nasty for me to read past the first few paragraphs. RedLogix comes accross as an enraged rabid animal foaming at the mouth with visceral hatred.

    I don’t know how you expect to make an intelligent point like that. And I don’t know how this blog expects to be taken seriously as a vehicle for political discourse when this is the lead article.
    • McFlock 35.1

      28 January 2012 at 7:00 pm

      Oh noes, someone became too emotional.
       
      Why would anyone take your comments seriously?
    • RedLogix 35.2

      28 January 2012 at 7:02 pm

      I’ll concede one point. My partner had some dealings with Fran O’Sullivan years ago; she recalls her as a gracious and decent person. I’ll accept her intentions aren’t bad…just dangerously naive. And as blue leopard said above; ““Dangerously naive” and “treasonous” can be seen as synonyms in this context.”

      I’ve just had two days of John Key and Maurice Williamson telling me I’m a racist for challenging this sale, and I’m angry about that. Fran’s gloating and insulting article with it’s transparent self-serving justifications made me even more pissed.

      Yet what I wrote was a polite version of what one local dairy farmer said to me on this topic last week.
36. randal 36

    28 January 2012 at 7:14 pm

    fran sullivan is just another stupid tart in love with money with no real idea how much anything costs.
    she is just another ‘getter and spender’ and brown noser to the rich who love people like her because she accepts them with no questions asked.
    • mik e 36.1

      28 January 2012 at 8:28 pm

      Randal And gets paid plenty to stir.
37. RedBaron 37

    28 January 2012 at 7:34 pm

    Well I hope the farmer Nats are doing some serious headcounting of their numbers and planning how to roll the Key – Joyce “Lets sell it all overseas” mob and regain control of the party.

    Actually Key would probably vote with them, as he’s sick of it all and wants to go but with only the one seat majority he can’t so without a decent excuse.

    We need a palace coup!!
38. Richard Christie 38

    28 January 2012 at 8:02 pm

    Do enough people still read the Herald to warrant getting upset about any opinion piece written in it?

    The publication became so full of op-ed “columns” and so devoid of real news and analysis we
    didn’t renew our sub. a long while ago.
39. Carol 39

    28 January 2012 at 8:29 pm

    The 21st century NZ version of comprador classes are doing very well out of the inaccurately labelled economic rationalism that is part of economic and financial globalisation. So the naive ones are probably living in a bubble where they think everyone else is getting similar benefits from it. And when confronted with evidence of a significant number of Kiwi battlers (working and unemployed poor) slip into a form of denial by blaming the victims for their oppression.
40. randal 40

    28 January 2012 at 8:40 pm

    I just want to say that some cows dont mind who is pulling their tits.
    • Colonial Viper 40.1

      28 January 2012 at 8:47 pm

      Yeah I know cows like that.
      • mik e 40.1.1

        28 January 2012 at 8:51 pm

        enough cheesy jokes
        • The Voice of Reason 40.1.1.1

          28 January 2012 at 9:48 pm

          Agreed, they’re starting to grate.
          • chris73 40.1.1.1.1

            28 January 2012 at 11:08 pm

            I find them udderly rediculous
            • ropata 40.1.1.1.1.1

              30 January 2012 at 11:09 pm

              please stop milking these puns
              • McFlock …

                30 January 2012 at 11:13 pm

                Agreed. People have taken it whey too far.
41. Simon 41

    29 January 2012 at 8:25 am

    Question for Fran.

    Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of China?
    • ropata 41.1

      30 January 2012 at 5:36 am

      LOL !
42. queenstfarmer 42

    29 January 2012 at 10:07 am

    The Shanghai Pengxin Group is paying at least 15% more than any other bidder thinks the farms are worth

    Yes, 15% more than the low-ball bid by none other than infamous asset-strippers Sir Michael Fay. A low-ball, asset-stripping offer backed by Labour. Funny that.

    Where the hell was the precious ‘free market’ when all these magically efficient the private sector business’ collapsed the world economy in this last three years

    When has anyone described Crafar’s failed empire as “efficient”? You are resorting to straw-man argument (not for the first time).

    And then dumped the costs onto taxpayers all over the world at metaphorical gunpoint?

    What Crafar cost has been dumped on the taxpayer?

    So far the ONLY visible economic strategy from John Key’s government is to sell off assets

    Visible only perhaps to you. However, what has the Govt “selling off assets” got to do with the Crafar farms? You do realise they are not a state asset, don’t you?

    This continued loss of economic sovereignty is madness…yet Key’s government chooses to accelerate this process…

    Accelerate from what? There has been a deceleration of foreign land sales since Labour lost power. There is a long, long way to go before the current Govt even remotely catches up to the amount of foreign land sales made under Labour.
    • Colonial Viper 42.1

      29 January 2012 at 10:19 am

      Accelerate from what? There has been a deceleration of foreign land sales since Labour lost power.

      The acceleration occurs with $5B to $7B of our power assets being flogged off. That’s equal to the value of several thousand dairy farms and further screws our economic sovereignty just so the 1% can score themselves a good deal off the rest of us.
    • RedLogix 42.2

      29 January 2012 at 10:29 am

      15% more than the low-ball bid by none other than infamous asset-strippers Sir Michael Fay.

      I also happen to know what Landcorp bid. I’m not going to repeat it because I was told in a private conversation… but it doesn’t change the argument.

      When has anyone described Crafar’s failed empire as “efficient”?

      You missed the point utterly. I wasn’t referring to Crafar at all… the Herald editorial was banging on about:

      The day is past when state ownership is thought capable of finding their most efficient use. These days a free market is considered better at ensuring resources pass into the hands of those who will extract most value from them. The question that must be asked about the Crafar farms sale is whether the purchaser is a state agency or a market participant.

      And then went on to argue that because Pengxin was a ‘private market participant” that therefore there was something inherently good about the transaction. My response is that given how poorly ‘free markets’ have performed in the last decade or so.. that this assertion is risible nonsense.

      What Crafar cost has been dumped on the taxpayer?

      Again you miss the point utterly. I was referring obviously to how taxpayers around the world have been lumped with enormous costs bailing out banks and failed ‘free markets’ … nothing to do with Crafar specifically.

      There is a long, long way to go before the current Govt even remotely catches up to the amount of foreign land sales made under Labour.

      So far about 10% of our best productive farmland has been sold under both Labour and National… are you going to argue that National should only stop this process when it matches what was sold under the prior Labour govt? At around 20%?

      The ‘two wrongs make a right’ argument is a fail at primary school…what makes you think you can use it here?
      • queenstfarmer 42.2.1

        29 January 2012 at 11:13 pm

        but it doesn’t change the argument

        That’s right – a low-ball offer is a low-ball offer.

        You missed the point utterly. I wasn’t referring to Crafar at all … … nothing to do with Crafar specifically.

        Which was my point. You had attempted to link irrelevant issues to the Crafar issue, and a columnist’s alleged “treachery” and “disgusting sell-out” behaviour. I agree that your points have nothing to do with the Crafar situation.

        The ‘two wrongs make a right’ argument is a fail at primary school…

        Ah, now this is the issue. First of all, I didn’t argue that Labour committed a “wrong” by allowing (vastly more) foreign land sales. Funnily enough, Labour thought it was all good & well too, until it suddenly became politically expedient to reverse tack and attack their opponents for doing exactly what they had done in spade-loads.

        So, you will see that I didn’t use the “two wrongs make a right” argument.

        However, it is telling because you have clearly equated Labour’s land sale approvals with National’s (albeit that far fewer foreign land sales have occured under Nats).

        So if in your view a columnist is guilty of being an unforgivable “traitor” for simply writing an opinion piece endorsing the sale of land to foreigners, what does that make a Government who actually allows the sale process to go ahead guilty of? Treason? Capital crimes?
        • RedLogix 42.2.1.1

          29 January 2012 at 11:31 pm

          You had attempted to link irrelevant issues to the Crafar issue,

          It was the Herald “Editor” (whoever they are) who was telling us how market sector players always make better value decisions.. and then using that to justify this sale. I simply responded to an argument I believe is demonstrably false on the facts.

          Tough if you think that irrelevant.

          First of all, I didn’t argue that Labour committed a “wrong” by allowing (vastly more) foreign land sales.

          So you are happy then that Labour sold so much land. Great now it’s clear what you were trying to say.

          But it was still wrong. The Greens always said it was wrong and Labour under rather dramatically new management (in case you hadn’t noticed) has quite firmly changed it’s mind as well.

          Poltically expedient or not .. I don’t care. Not my party. All I care is that there is now a coherent political opposition to continued land sales to absentee overseas owners.
          • queenstfarmer 42.2.1.1.1

            30 January 2012 at 12:00 am

            So you are happy then that Labour sold so much land. Great now it’s clear what you were trying to say.

            Didn’t say that either. It’s not a simplistic case of being either happy or sad that Labour [did not intervene to block the sale of] so much land. Such a simplistic approach – to be unhappy – is the position of the Greens and NZ First, and for the time being Labour (though goodness knows where they will flip-flop on this next). All other things being equal, I would prefer to have no foreign land sales. However, all other things are not equal.

            All I care is that there is now a coherent political opposition to continued land sales to absentee overseas owners.

            Absentee? That adds a gloss to it. So if a Chinese national bought the Crafar farms and also paid $500k for a house for himself to live in half the year, all would be well and Fran O’Sullivan would no longer be an unforgivable traitor?
            • Colonial Viper 42.2.1.1.1.1

              30 January 2012 at 12:26 am

              Its amazing that you continue to advocate for the expatriation of NZ resources, control and capital to foreign owners.
    • Frank Macskasy 42.3

      29 January 2012 at 4:02 pm

      Accelerate from what? There has been a deceleration of foreign land sales since Labour lost power. There is a long, long way to go before the current Govt even remotely catches up to the amount of foreign land sales made under Labour.

      And do you think the 2008 Recession has something to do with the lower number of foreign land sales?!?!

      Considering that even Key remarked, about the privation of our SOEs,

      The fresh bout of financial market mayhem, which has wiped billions of dollars from the value of companies in New Zealand and overseas, may delay the Government’s asset sales plan, but by only a few months Prime Minister John Key says.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10743882

      So maybe threre’s a correlation, you think???

      However, you raise one valid point: Labour needs to sort out Labour’s own policies on selling farms to overseas investors. Otherwise Shearer’s credibility will go down the proverbial toilet.
      • queenstfarmer 42.3.1

        29 January 2012 at 11:15 pm

        So maybe threre’s a correlation, you think???

        No, there’s not. The Govt’s asset sale plan does not involve selling any land to foreign interests. Why you would think there is some correlation is a mystery.
43. MichaelC 43

    29 January 2012 at 10:15 am

    Redlogix concern is undoubtedly genuine. But has he/she thought through the logic. Never sell land to foreigners if applied consistently would mean an Aotearoa still in the control of the tangata whenua.
    Not a bad idea, perhaps.
    • RedLogix 43.1

      29 January 2012 at 10:48 am

      Yes I have. Try this comment here Now while it was written in a different context, I’m fully aware of the ironies around Pakeha New Zealand waking up and find ourselves on the wrong end of a neo-colonisation process.

      Only this time we’d find ourselves firmly in the same waka as our brown cuzzies.
      • Frank Macskasy 43.1.1

        29 January 2012 at 4:12 pm

        100% spot on, RedLogix.

        And I concur 100% with your posting here; http://thestandard.org.nz/congratulations-hone-harawira-mp-for-te-tai-tokerau/#comment-345336

        As someoneone of Eastern European descent; with parents who fought in 1956; who had to flee the Red Army advance or end up hanging from the gallows like their less-fortunate comrades… yes, I get the colonialism thing. Mum and dad shared their stories with me and one doesn’t forget the images they conveyed.

        Most of my fellow kiwi cuzzies wouldn’t have a clue.

        Which is why I despair that New Zealanders sell their heritage so cheaply to Americans, Chinese, Germans, et al.
        • Populuxe1 43.1.1.1

          29 January 2012 at 4:26 pm

          Admittedly it’s a fairly Pakeha viewpoint, but I don’t particularly regard a farm I’ve never seen to be my “heritage” – it’s a piece of land. Heritage is culture and history, and thus largely intangible and inviolate. Though given Hungary’s role in WW2, it’s not really a good starting point for a jibe about New Zealanders selling out…
          • Frank Macskasy 43.1.1.1.1

            29 January 2012 at 5:46 pm

            Populuxe1… Ok, I guess it’s hard to understand until you’re in that position yourself. Until then, it’s someone elses’ history…
            • Populuxe1 43.1.1.1.1.1

              29 January 2012 at 6:42 pm

              Ok, I guess it’s hard to understand until you’re in that position yourself. Until then, it’s someone elses’ history…

              That is quite possibly one of the hoariest, tritest and most patronising of cliches for dismissing criticism for what was already a bizarre and patronising comparison.
              If you are referring to the first part of the statement, I would reiterate that land is just dirt, it doesn’t become heritage unless someone does something notable with it or is otherwise associated with it. I can not find one shred of evidence of this in relation to the Crafar farms. This is about the rights and wrongs of land ownership, not an erosion of our cultural identity as New Zealanders. For you to suggest otherwise is to try and inflame passions that have nothing to do with the case at hand.
              If your are referring to my snark about idealising heritage, I’d remind you that feeling a personal ownership doesn’t give you any such exclusive privilege. Igen, értem! You have no more magical understanding of Hungary leading up to 1956-os felkelés than I do – you weren’t even alive then, you weren’t born there. They were part of the Axis, suck it up. The Germans have to every day. I am well aware of what the Soviets did in Europe – quite a lot of it from the mouths of people who were actually there too. I am also well aware of the preceding 500 years of culture and geopolitics.

              Which is why I despair that New Zealanders sell their heritage so cheaply to Americans, Chinese, Germans, et al.

              My family have been in NZ for around 150 years and I don’t get all romantic about it because Settler culture tried to obliterate Maori culture, stealing land with actual spiritual meaning for Maori, denying them their language and culture. Don’t try to define for me a heritage actually mapped out in my genealogy. Just accept that your analogy is shit.
              • Frank Macskasy …

                29 January 2012 at 9:36 pm

                I am well aware of what the Soviets did in Europe – quite a lot of it from the mouths of people who were actually there too.

                What a coincidence…

                I also lived there for a while. Very educational. And it certainly opened my eyes and mind to the ways of the world which I’d never understood before.

                One of the lessons I learnt was that extremist economic/social ideology – whether marxist/leninist or capitalism – are both deeply flawed. And for greatly similar reasons; they do not meet the needs of the people they profess to work for.

                That is why the Scandinavian models work so well by comparison. Even with their flaws, the Scandinavians have economies and social outcomes that we can only envy. Check this out: http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/01/28/richard-wilkinson-how-economic-inequality-harms-societies/

                Notice where NZ is, in comparison to our Swedish, Finnish, Norwegian, etc, cuzzies?

                As for the rest of your comments, Populuxe1, they’re fairly subjective interpretations which I don’t particularly share. Eg; referencing Hungary to it’s membership in the Axis is an irrelevant deflection. It’s also been a member of the Warsaw Pact. It’s currently a NATO member.

                Hungarians – we get around.

                The point is, that until you’ve seen armed, foreign, troops patrolling the streets of Wellington or Auckland or wherever, you don’t understand the experience. It’s too alien to comprehend the feeling.

                Ok, I’m exagerating the issue, perhaps…

                Back on topic. I have zero issue with our Chinese, German, American (or even Aussie) cuzzies migrating to New Zealand; taking up migrating to NZ: taking up citizenship; and participating in our society/economy to the best of their aspirations. More power to their elbows, I say.

                What I have a deep-seated reservation about is the wholesale alienation of our best, productive farmland to overseas investors. (And I care not a whit about their nationality.)

                The sale of productive farmland to overseas investors results in the following outcomes;

                1. Profits going overseas, instead of flowing into local farmers’ pockets; to be spent here. This does not help out economy. It means we lose export income and that will create havoc with our Balance of Payments, interest rates, etc.

                2. Agricultural product going offshore in a way that does not profit us (see #1), and may actually be deletarious to local supply pricing.

                3. Losing our ability to monitor quality-control of product once they have left our shores and possible contamination at end-use locations. The melamine poisonings in China and the e.coli out break in Germany should serve as a clear warning if our exported product (bearing the lengend “Made in New Zealand”) is interfered with at end-destination processing plants.

                That’s our reputation at stake. What is that worth, I wonder? Priceless, I would suggest.

                4. Pricing land out of reach of our own aspiring farmers. Eg; “Overseas investment would compete with young farmers”, http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10639700

                Consider, if you will, that when one of our wealthiest men (Michael Fay) cannot out-bid a well-resourced buy-out of local farms – then what hope does a young New Zealander with modest resources have, to compete with offshore investors?

                Imperialism doesn’t have to involve brute force of invading armis. The most pernicious is that which we cannot see and is hard to define.

                Neo-imperialism’s armies will consist of lawyers, bankers, public relations experts, economists, managers, etc.

                And we won’t even know it’s happening, because as our Dear Leader has stated, it’s “only” 1%”. Next year or the year after, it’ll be another 1%. And then another, and another.

                The frog in the pot of steadily heating water…

                Koszonom, es jo estet kivanok.
        • prism 43.1.1.2

          29 January 2012 at 5:21 pm

          @ Frank Macskasy I have wondered if we understand our heritage in this country n the deep down way that European nations do. NZs are so milk-soppy easy-peasy, our motto is “everything will turn out for the best. Don’t stir ourselves. The top people know what they are doing and they’ll look after important people like us/me”. It’s quite a way from the James Michener novel based on the facts of the Hungarian uprising by the students way back which I will read when I’ve got time.
          • Frank Macskasy 43.1.1.2.1

            29 January 2012 at 5:53 pm

            Prism… Instead. Our pakeha history is only a couple of hundred years old. There are houses, churches, etc, in Eastern Europe that are two, three, four times that age.

            RedLogix, in his posts above, has described it from the Maori p.o.v. in a way I can relate. I guess that’s why I have considerable sympathy for Maori aspirations. (My mother was the first to point out to me certain aspects of occupation; colonialism; foreign soldiers on your streets; being forced to learn another language… Maori, Hungarian, Poles, Czechs… yup, all share commonalities in their history.

            Hmmmm, I seem to be in an introspective mood today… Probably written too much on this.
            • Anne 43.1.1.2.1.1

              29 January 2012 at 6:48 pm

              May you long remain in an introspective mood Frank Macskasy. I am learning a lot from your pearls of wisdom.
            • Populuxe1 43.1.1.2.1.2

              29 January 2012 at 7:04 pm

              Maori, Hungarian, Poles, Czechs… yup, all share commonalities in their history.

              They most certainly do not. Hungary, Poland, the Czechs, had been part of the Habsburg Empire for centuries even before the Germans and Russians got to work in WW2 – their vassal status was more or less part of the culture. The Austrians had thoroughly germanised the intellectual culture, but they also had their own extensive literatures. Central and Eastern Europe had infinitely more in common with the Russians (who, excepting the Hungarians, speak related Slavic languages that are relatively mutually comprehensible), abetted by local Communist parties, than Maori ever had with the British. Any commonalities are general at best – you might as well say the same of Roman or Norman Britain. The comparison is completely misleading. Maori didn’t even really KNOW who their invaders were.
              • prism …

                30 January 2012 at 12:46 pm

                @Populuxe1
                “Maori, Hungarian, Poles, Czechs… yup, all share commonalities in their history.
                They most certainly do not.”

                Don’t be so quick to reveal the shallowness of your understanding when you are commenting on the input of someone who has particular and special knowledge which you do not have. If you don’t agree try asking for the reason for the conclusion, just don’t assert your own immediate reaction.
                • Populuxe1 …

                  30 January 2012 at 7:27 pm

                  Don’t be so quick to reveal the shallowness of your understanding when you are commenting on the input of someone who has particular and special knowledge which you do not have. If you don’t agree try asking for the reason for the conclusion, just don’t assert your own immediate reaction.

                  Prism, unless you have some privileged access to my university transcripts, global movements and associations over the last 20 years, every movie watched, every book read, every picture looked at, or indeed can assess my knowledge of the Polish, Czech and Russian languages, I suggest you STFU.
                  • Galeandra …

                    30 January 2012 at 11:08 pm

                    Through your posting you appear to be well informed, arrogant, and conceited. Congratulations. Perhaps now you might care to address the thrust of the post and the comments which come therewith?
            • RedLogix 43.1.1.2.1.3

              29 January 2012 at 7:50 pm

              It’s a Sunday Frank… I’m prone to it myself. The left is at it’s finest when it articulates it’s values and where they came from. Thanks.
              • Frank Macskasy …

                29 January 2012 at 9:39 pm

                Thanks, Prism, RedLogix, and Anne…
            • SHG 43.1.1.2.1.4

              30 January 2012 at 2:49 am

              I find your Europeanisation of the Maori experience fascinating. Please, tell me more about the commonalities shared by Maori and the Hungarians, Poles, and Czechs. Hell, those Maoris aren’t really that different after all – they’re just like real people from Europe!
    • Frank Macskasy 43.2

      29 January 2012 at 4:04 pm

      The Treaty of Waitangi addresses that, to a degree, Michael.
44. randal 44

    29 January 2012 at 11:18 am

    its the free market dood.
    the faceless bean counters and the money men feel free to take whatever they want.
    • blue leopard 44.1

      29 January 2012 at 4:01 pm

      Randal
      +1
45. the pink postman 45

    29 January 2012 at 3:42 pm

    So where does Shipley come into this land sale business.I am sure her name has come up,a few times regarding the farms sale. anyone any one have any information ?
    • prism 45.1

      29 January 2012 at 5:54 pm

      @the pink postman
      I was interested in Jenny Shipley as well – have had a look and put some links on my comment around 17.50 below.
      • prism 45.1.1

        29 January 2012 at 5:57 pm

        The pink postman
        Well I tried to put in some links but the site and my computer don’t seem to be working together well. I’ve run out of time to try to fix.
46. Roy 46

    29 January 2012 at 4:13 pm

    Coming from a farming background I find it hard to believe that corporate farms work as well as owner-operator farms. If you’re an owner-operator, you are motivated to stay up til midnight to bring the hay in if rain is threatening, you are motivated to stay up all night to look after sick but valuable livestock, etc etc. I’ve done those things and more. Most owner-operator farmers are prepared to work extraordinary hours in some seasons and some circumstances, because it’s their livelihood and they own the animals. Farming simply is not an 8-to-5 job, especially not in some seasons. I don’t find it credible that a salaried farm worker would be prepared to do the same. For this reason I have my doubts about corporate farms, whether owned by New Zealanders or foreigners. I don’t believe they are the most efficient use of land.
    • Colonial Viper 46.1

      29 January 2012 at 6:47 pm

      Sadly a lot of modern day “farmers” don’t have the same emotional connection to the land and their stock as was once quite common.

      Its not hard to get to know the peculiarities and mannerisms of every cow in a 200 head herd. But when you have 10,000 on a farm? Its just not possible, and these days the owner of the farm, the “farmer”, might be some head office type based in downtown Auckland.
      • Roy 46.1.1

        30 January 2012 at 9:27 am

        A 10,000 cow herd is stressful on the animals, because they can’t form the normal social heirarchy that is possible in a 120-200 cow herd. As a result, there is more aggressive and threatening behaviour as cows keeping other cows that they don’t recognize and don’t have an established rank with.

        I remember as a varsity student milking a 120-cow herd. It was possible to predict which row each cow would be in, and which side of the herringbone she would be on, and if she was out of place, it was often a sign of early mastitis or foot infection, or sometimes a sign that she was in season. It made early diagnosis a cinch, and helped oestrus detection a lot too. In a later summer holiday I milked a 400-cow herd and that order and predictability was largely missing. As a result, health issues were harder to pick up early when they are easiest and cheapest to treat. There was a lot more threatening behaviour between cows in the yard, because the social heirarchy was so poorly formed. The cows were harder to handle.

        I hope I don’t sound like a raving animal-rights nutter, becasue I’m certainly not one, but IMHO healthy happy cows are likely to produce more milk, and for the health and happiness of the cow, smaller herds are better.
        • Colonial Viper 46.1.1.1

          30 January 2012 at 12:57 pm

          +1

          Thanks for sharing your personal experience.
          • Tazirev 46.1.1.1.1

            30 January 2012 at 10:29 pm

            I Agree
47. prism 47

    29 January 2012 at 5:49 pm

    The Crafar decision is a victory for economic rationalism over blind xenophobic nationalism. Long may the former reign.

    I can’t believe that this woman has turned out to be just a little greaser to the free market jocks.
    With all the time she has spent writing and thinking about politics and she comes out with in simplistic admiration for this purchase with all its ramifications. And the NZ Herald is helping to set us up for a future that will make us look like Jamaica, the Bahamas, just another location for the wealthy to be able to play their games of monopoly with loaded dice and permanent results as well.

    Concerning Jenny Shipley’s interest in China –
    Jenny is now an Independent director of China Construction Bank, in 2009 the second largest Bank in the world by market cap. She is Chairman of Senior Money International. She also chairs Mainzeal Construction and is a Director of its parent, Richina Pacific which owns the China based SLC and SRL, a major property and leather cluster of businesses in Shanghai. She is a Director of the HR company, Momentum.

    She is a very regular visitor to China in her role as a director, a keynote speaker and in association with her consultancy. She has served on a number of advisory boards including the International Economic Advisory Board of the City of Rotterdam. She is an Initiator of the Education Forum for East Asia and a Director of the International Financial Forum, supporting both organizations when they hold events in Beijing annually.

    Jenny Shipley links –
    Since stepping out of politics in 2001, Jenny has been involved in many areas of commerce and public life including starting up her own consultancy company, Jenny Shipley New Zealand Limited. business and politics

    NZHerald Shipley and Wikileaks
48. Jum 48

    29 January 2012 at 5:53 pm

    The Pink Postman

    previous:
    http://xtranewscommunity2.smfforfree.com/index.php?topic=8172.25

    2011

    http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/interview-dame-jenny-shipley-transcript-4126348
    ‘DAME SHIPLEY Look, I think that’s very unlikely because the OIO process is very thorough, but remember the Chinese don’t want the land. The Chinese want the resources and protein.’
    • Jum 48.1

      29 January 2012 at 5:57 pm

      P.S. to previous post to The Pink Postman, because the edit function won’t work:

      http://tvnz.co.nz/q-and-a-news/interview-dame-jenny-shipley-transcript-4126348

      ‘DAME SHIPLEY Look, I think that’s very unlikely because the OIO process is very thorough, but remember the Chinese don’t want the land. The Chinese want the resources and protein.’

      Fascinating, I thought.

      So, why, why, have we sold it to them then?
    • eljaydee 48.2

      31 January 2012 at 12:21 am

      The Chinese do want the land. Ignoring the fact that land is the ultimate resource, they want the land as a means of guaranteed access to the protein production.
49. randal 49

    29 January 2012 at 7:14 pm

    they just like any other infatilised reader of cowboy books.
    they want to leave their mark.
50. Fisiani 50

    29 January 2012 at 7:34 pm

    Is it really treachery to want and receive top dollar? No
    is it really treachery to follow the law of NZ? No
    Is it really treachery to have investment in NZ? No
    Is it really treachery to have derelict land made productive? No
    Is it really treachery to do what is right for NZ? No

    It is a shame that some Chinese bashing posters here lower themself to the level of Winston. The only reason for opposing this sale of a few acres of land is sheer unabashed racism.

    [Misusing the racism card to shutdown a legitimate discussion is demeaning of the concept and wrong. Last warning. Next offence like this will see you permanently banned. ..RL]
    • Colonial Viper 50.1

      29 January 2012 at 7:42 pm

      A great read. Fisiani’s philosophy on accepting 7 pieces of silver.
    • felix 50.2

      29 January 2012 at 7:57 pm

      “The only reason for opposing this sale of a few acres of land is sheer unabashed racism.”

      Nah, just the only reason you can conceive of and the first conclusion you jump to. Says more about you than anyone else.
    • Fisiani 50.3

      29 January 2012 at 9:51 pm

      The Crafar farms have an area of 7,893 hectares. In the last two years, consent was granted for overseas persons to acquire 357,056 hectares of agricultural land. The Chinese own 0.02% of all foreign owned land owned in NZ.

      Where was the nationalistic socialist uproar when the other 349,163 hectares were sold to non-Chinese?
      • felix 50.3.1

        29 January 2012 at 9:57 pm

        Don’t care where they’re from Fisi. Don’t like it.
        • Fisiani 50.3.1.1

          29 January 2012 at 10:16 pm

          So Felix can you point to a prior posting of yours stating your dislike before the Crafar  sale?
          • felix 50.3.1.1.1

            29 January 2012 at 10:27 pm

            I don’t know. If you search my handle and this site you’ll probably find plenty opinions on the subject of economic nationalism, trade protectionism, foreign ownership of strategic assets and all sorts of other related matters.

            It’d be interesting to see how many of said comments were followed by you and others accusing me of being “anti-american” given the current meme.
    • prism 50.4

      30 January 2012 at 12:51 pm

      @Fisiani
      I think your fizz has sunk without a trace. My best advice for you is to stop trying to think about events and others opinions, you will remain confused until you die at your level of cogitation.
51. MrSmith 51

    29 January 2012 at 7:48 pm

    Forget about it people, what we should be concerning ourselves with and we aren’t is the details!! ownership means little without control, if you think the Chinese/Germans/whoever are going to invade because we change the rules on taxing these overseas owned farms your dreaming, the game is Control, sell the lot! but make it very CLEAR that the people of this country Aotearoa will charge you rent (tax) at whatever rate they feel fit and of course the people that live/reside in this land may expect not to pay any tax or whatever tax they the people of this land decide is fair to them as it’s there land and always will be, but hang on now we signed a free trade agreement with china remember….
     
    The reason our land is for-sale is because the greedy (us) have allowed our past governments to make laws that allow easy foreign ownership of our land, the land arguably stolen from the Maori, who stole it from the Moriori who stole it from ! and we all are probably richer in a sense because of it, I have no problems with this foreign ownership argument but I would expect these people (and they won’t be people, just faceless hollow corporations) to be made aware that if they are just here for the money then they may have to pay for that privilege if we the owners of the land so decide. This can be done with water tight rules and regulation not the good old Kiwi (National) way of less regulation less education………
52. Monique Watson 52

    29 January 2012 at 8:40 pm

    Get a grip.
    She’s a columnist.
    And you want to spit in her face for expressing her opinion.
    Fucking coward.
    • RedLogix 52.1

      29 January 2012 at 8:50 pm

      She’s a well paid columnist with a very powerful media platform. She used it to gloat and insult every New Zealander who has an objection to this apparently unstoppable sell-off of our land … as racist.

      And her opinion is a treacherous disgrace.

      Fran dished it out; she got it served back to her.
      • higherstandard 52.1.1

        29 January 2012 at 9:38 pm

        “She used it to gloat and insult every New Zealander who has an objection to this apparently unstoppable sell-off of our land … as racist.

        And her opinion is a treacherous disgrace.”

        Not even close, you have just got overly worked up about a fairly mild opinion piece and went over the top in your vitriol and our now refusing to back down.

        You have lost perspective to the extent that you are excusing the call to violence of some of the more radical and disturbed commenters. I would suggest you take a week off from this blog and smell the roses.
        • RedLogix 52.1.1.1

          29 January 2012 at 10:06 pm

          And I suggest you wake up and understand what will happen when we keep selling this country out. That is the definition of treachery.

          If that is not worth getting worked up about.. what is? Perspective…pffft!!!
          • Colonial Viper 52.1.1.1.1

            29 January 2012 at 10:15 pm

            I do believe the charge is that of treason.
      • getwiththeprogram 52.1.2

        29 January 2012 at 9:43 pm

        You really are a bunch of hopeless good for nothing fuckwits, Fran understands that something of value should be sold to the top bidder in this case its not a kiwi doing the buying. So what? Who cares at least we will be realising the best price possible.
        • eljaydee 52.1.2.1

          31 January 2012 at 12:27 am

          Sometimes the best price is not the best option. Would you sell someone a gun “at the best price” so they can shoot you?
    • Colonial Viper 52.2

      29 January 2012 at 9:15 pm

      And you want to spit in her face for expressing her opinion.
      Fucking coward.

      Ahem.

      Spitting on someone’s face, literally or figuratively, is also merely an expression of opinion, severe disdain in this instance. Do you have a problem with that?
    • queenstfarmer 52.3

      29 January 2012 at 11:21 pm

      And you want to spit in her face for expressing her opinion

      Spitting in one’s face is probably the least of what a socialist regime would do to someone in their jurisdiction whom they deem a “traitor to [the] country”.
      • felix 52.3.1

        29 January 2012 at 11:23 pm

        I think you mean a totalitarian one. Like the Chinese regime for example.
    • ropata 52.4

      30 January 2012 at 5:38 am

      Hey Monique you’re a property speculator so you would say that. Ever earned an honest crust? Ya know the average kiwi doesn’t even earn enough for a house deposit these days?
53. randal 53

    29 January 2012 at 8:49 pm

    she is more than “just” a columnist.
    she is a stupid woman in love with money and an agent of the ruling classes.
    she gets paid to write that stuff and all she can see is cheap goods and free trips to hong kong or somewhere so she can go shopping on her ill gotten gains.
    it aint rocket science.
54. Fran O'Sullivan 54

    29 January 2012 at 9:39 pm

    Should I be surprised that it takes a woman to finally challenge you cowards? Take a bow Monique.
    As for White Logic – if you are going to slag me off as an “enemy of the people”, have the courage to write under your own name. Don’t hide behind anonymity.
    Same for “Millsy” – aka [deleted – please don’t speculate on people’s identity here. r0b] – who did at least put his name when he emailed a version of his comments to me. Randal – simply ill-informed and sexist to boot.
    Frankly you seem a bit too much like the internet version of the Ku Klux Klan. Full of bravado while you hide behind web guises stringing up those whose views you don’t like.
    • felix 54.1

      29 January 2012 at 9:53 pm

      aaaaand there goes any remaining credibility you might have been clinging to.
      • Colonial Viper 54.1.1

        29 January 2012 at 10:01 pm

        Hmmm a mod should probably take Millsy’s name down from Fran’s post.

        Stalin!

        [Thanks CV. r0b]
    • Blue 54.2

      30 January 2012 at 9:52 am

      Well done Fran, the lunatic fringe are hysterical today, must be the “occupy” evictions, they have nowhere to live now. The thought from the asylum seems to be “you disagree with me” = traitor. “you still disagree with me?” I will spit in your face. Charming stuff and sure to turn pubic opinion their way. Internet cowards the lot.
      • ropata 54.2.1

        30 January 2012 at 9:44 pm

        Hey “Blue”, are you planning to round up the revolting peasants? Why don’t you go and express your bravery to the wharfies I am sure they would be very interested in the power of your logic.
55. McFlock 55

    29 January 2012 at 9:57 pm

    Interesting how everyone gets worked up when words like “xenophobic nationalism” and “enemy of the people” are used.
      
     
56. RedLogix 56

    29 January 2012 at 10:00 pm

    This site has a long standing policy of protecting commenters pseudonyms. It doesn’t matter who you are here… and you get no extra status for using your real name. Your argument about being challenged by ‘cowards’ carries no weight.

    On the other hand you were the one who labelled anyone who challenged the legitimacy of this apparently unstopable sell-off of New Zealand as ‘xenophobic nationalists’.

    Now John Key and Maurice Williamson had just spent the last two days calling us ‘racists’. That really pisses me off.. it’s a grossly offensive misuse of the concept of racism. And I have very good grounds on which to reject it.

    And then you use your very powerful media platform, one that the rest of us ordinary people have no access to, to carry on the bullying in an insulting, gloating fashion.

    Yes I was angry… and you got it served back to you. With spades on. Most regulars here will probably testify that it’s not my usual style at all… but on this I’m not resiling from what I said.

    As I said earlier, my partner happened to have some dealings with you years ago and recalls you as a gracious and decent person. I’ll accept that your intentions are not so much venal or malicious, but dangerously naive.

    In my adult life I’ve seen this nation repeatedly sold out to the great god of money… and in the process what it meant to be a New Zealander has been steadily debased to the point of being some gross banal joke…. nothing much more than advertising fodder in prime time. The opinions you expressed in your column speak to me as if you are sneeringly spitting on a dying corpse of what we where once proud to be as a nation. It was never perfect, it was always flawed… but we knew who we were as a people and what it was we valued.

    Now we are just hocking it off to feed our addiction to debt, while you stand by and clap. Gutting wrenching.
    • DH 56.1

      30 January 2012 at 2:55 pm

      Nicely put.

      A lot of right wing commentary has an undertone to it that I find offensive. It’s not the words or views they express, I’m more aligned to the right and I don’t get offended by left wing commentary. There’s a visceral nastiness, a desire to inflict hurt on people, that you can feel in your gut but can’t quite put into words. I feel revulsion & a little anger after reading it but can’t pin down exactly why. Even Farrar from Kiwiblog bugs me. His own writing is cautious & mostly non-inflammatory but he lets the camp guards run riot in the comments section, others do the dirty work for him.

      IIRC Fran O’Sullivan was the business editor of the Herald way back in the late ’80s, she was highly opinionated in her editorials back then too. I wish she’d go away & stop bothering us, but that’s just my opinion. I think you have every right to be angry with her latest commentary, the tone was provocative, insulting and totally uncalled for. Just, be careful. You write well & I’d hate to see you gagged.
57. Fran O'Sullivan 57

    29 January 2012 at 10:05 pm

    Felix – just saying it is a simple thing to ladle out the vitriol when you are not publicly accountable. This site needs to harden up. Get some more commenters who don’t hide behind pseudonyms.
    What is the problem with you all that you can’t do that?
    • Colonial Viper 57.1

      29 January 2012 at 10:10 pm

      Would be nice to have such a secure position or role in NZ society where one can simply reveal their political colours and criticisms ad hoc without risking professional, financial or political blowback.
      • Monique Watson 57.1.1

        30 January 2012 at 9:55 pm

        Oh man up CV. Honestly. What’s the worst that could happen if you were honest and commented under your real name? You’d get your bottom spanked?
        I don’t think so Chicken Meringo.
        If your ideals are so lofty and high, you’d willingly be honest about who you are.
        Big brass balls, that Fran. Most of the rest of you are chicken shit and happy to piss and moan without offering any constructive solutions. Oh, yes and proffer disrespect and violence towards women.
        Some of you seem to think Fran is abusing some kind of position of power for openly writing a paid column. Well journalism pays a fuckin’ pittance last time I investigated and even if it doesn’t, you do your time on a dime before your career takes off.
        An abuse of power to me is cowering behind a keyboard writing under a pseudonym during paid work time as a public servant.
        After all, if you fessed up and blogged as the real you, it would be pretty obvious when you were blogging during work time.
        And that is about the only danger in removing the hoods, that I can see.
        As far as the Crafar sell-down – It is racist to object to new owners of a house or business because they are a different nationality. What’s the alternative if there is no other viable plan? The smurfs sure as shit aren’t going to turn up with some decent coin to buy the holdings – why should it lie fallow or go for less than it is worth to the receivers?
        That’s business sunshine – nothing personal. Just think of them as kiwis waiting to happen instead of scaremongering bout yellow fever.
        PS when you volunteer all your spare time, raise five kids like I do, sponsor kids like I do, and build yourself up from nothing like me and my husband have then you’ll have an opinion worth having on my morals or lack thereof (To the numbnuts making the personal comments)
        • Colonial Viper 57.1.1.1

          30 January 2012 at 10:09 pm

          I suppose you’re right, it’s easy to be full of Tory shit when you’re backed up by your daddy’s trust fund and his business mates offering you roles in comfy positions.
        • Colonial Viper 57.1.1.2

          30 January 2012 at 10:11 pm

          Father in law’s trust fund, sorry.
        • fender 57.1.1.3

          30 January 2012 at 10:11 pm

          Hate speech dribble full of the personal insulting accusations you condemn.
        • vto 57.1.1.4

          30 January 2012 at 10:12 pm

          Monique Watsn and Fran O’Sullivan, it is no wonder you cannot get your head around an issue like foreign ownership with more than one determinant if you get all upset about people discussing things anonymously.

          Grow up yourselves.
          • ropata 57.1.1.4.1

            30 January 2012 at 10:22 pm

            Monique is a chaming specimen, refers to her tenants as vermin, rats, cockroaches and oxygen thieves.
        • McFlock 57.1.1.5

          30 January 2012 at 10:25 pm

          Actually, the worst that could happen is some tory fuck takes something I said out of context, then google-stalks me and emails my boss with a bullshit complaint that I’m bringing my employer into disrepute and threatening a boycott. I believe at least one commenter here has been the victim of that.
           
          Sure, I’d be able to get it kicked, but it’s a headache that I can do without. I like a pseudonym because it means that when I log out, I’m done with it for the rest of the day. Go spin.
        • fender 57.1.1.6

          30 January 2012 at 10:40 pm

          Checked out your blog site, got as far as this:

          Incorrect. The couple have five children between them, from previous marriages. That is, unless Hosking’s twins came out of Hawkesby’s vagina. Or her caesarian scar. Anything is possible these days but I don’t believe that’s the case.

          I wont bother wasting time on that garbage.
        • felix 57.1.1.7

          30 January 2012 at 10:46 pm

          Monique.

          Everything in your comment had already been addressed, mostly last night.

          That means you either came here tonight and left your graffiti on the page without bothering to read what others had already said on those topics, or you did read but it was beyond your ability to comprehend any of it.

          A quick scan of your linked blog suggests that either scenario is equally likely IMO.
    • The Voice of Reason 57.2

      29 January 2012 at 10:15 pm

      It’s not your place to out people, Fran. That’s a cheap shot and totally unnecessary. Posters here have many and varied reasons for their anonymity and as they don’t get paid for their opinions, nobody has a right to call for ‘public accountability’ from them.
       
      Now how about justifying your article?.
    • felix 57.3

      29 January 2012 at 10:16 pm

      1. I don’t hide behind a pseudonym.

      2. I might find it easier to accept your sentiment as genuine if you expressed it as strongly about “the editor” at the Herald, whoever he/she/they might be.
    • ropata 57.4

      29 January 2012 at 10:27 pm

      Blogs represent truly free speech … if you don’t like it, why don’t you get your Tory mates to shut down the internet. Message control is what you really want isn’t it?
      • Colonial Viper 57.4.1

        30 January 2012 at 7:37 pm

        SOPA / PIPA
    • Jum 57.5

      29 January 2012 at 10:52 pm

      Fran O’Sullivan,

      Yes, you could call yourself John Key (I think that’s his real name) and lie about everything. Using your real name doesn’t mean you are telling the truth, Fran O’Sullivan.

      Knowing the vindictiveness of employers around New Zealand, not least of those on POA and NAct employers, why would anyone risk giving their real names to speak out about inequalities and financial rorts; even a scientist has been sacked for speaking out in the past.

      We’ve seen the spin from your chums Cameron Slater and David Farrar and their vicious attacks on Labour and anyone calling them to account.
    • One Anonymous Bloke 57.6

      30 January 2012 at 9:42 am

      I think we can see the problem very clearly: the debate has become personal, and it always does when personal opinions are involved.
      I argue under my own name in other fora, but here I prefer anonymity because I think decreases the likelihood of personal attack (the futility of abusing an anonymity and all that), which after all only ever serves to start flame wars.

      Fran O’Sullivan, your own example shows how hard it is to resist the temptation to put down someone who is all but calling for you to be executed. One of the reasons I oppose this deal is because the other partner’s criminal associates practice quasi-legal sanction against the self-expression you so loudly defend.
58. RedLogix 58

    29 January 2012 at 10:14 pm

    We have had this discussion here many times. Blogging is a different world to professional journalism. You get paid to have your opinions and you have the backing of media organisations.

    We don’t. We are just very ordinary people who have no protection whatsoever. We can’t even afford lawyers. Many of us have employers who would likely cause us difficulties if they knew who we were.

    And in some instances we’ve had some more unhinged and unsavory characters stalk us and try to disrupt our lives in other ways. For this reason the site policy is very clear:

    Privacy

    We do not disclose any information to third parties. This includes what you add to your profile that is not public on the blog. In particular your real name and e-mail. Similarly if you are not logged in and enter a comment, we do not disclose the e-mail you enter on your message.

    E-mail addresses are only used by the sysop or moderators if they need to contact you. This will usually be because of your behavior or other peoples behavior to you on the blog. Sometimes it will be used if we’re really interested in something you wrote.

    IP’s are only used when looking at moderation and banning. We will often look to see other pseudonyms have been used by the same person on this site. Very useful when dealing with repeat offenders.

    What you write in comments, your name/pseudonym and website is public and will be visible to anyone who reads the site. That is far more than the number of people who comment. Don’t write something that you’d be ashamed of in 20 years because it will probably still be visible. Better yet, don’t use your real name – use a pseudonym.

    That is why we play by different rules here.
59. Fran O'Sullivan 59

    29 January 2012 at 10:25 pm

    Red logic Accept your concern – which would have had more strength if applied to the German buy up as well. Not simply the Chinese. Email me sometime and happy to carryout the debate offline.
    • RedLogix 59.1

      29 January 2012 at 10:43 pm

      No. This is my home on the internet. Everything I’ve said is here in the open; anyone can see, anyone can comment.

      When I look back on what I wrote Saturday morning I was so angry the entire post was almost incoherent. I even made a basic error in attribution. I rarely get that provoked.

      Yet my message is clear is it not? We have already sold off far too many assets and businesses. Some 8-9% of GDP is already exported overseas each and every year as ‘negative investment income’ as the Treasury website so dryly puts it.

      That is money WE earned as a nation. It’s a part of the reason why the Wages Share of GDP in this country is a miserable 42%… a good 10-15% lower than most comparable OECD nations.

      It’s why capital formation is so very weak in this country; it’s why there are so few good jobs being created; it’s why 450,000 New Zealanders live in Australia.. and a similar number scattered around the globe. Most will never come back.

      And already we have sold far too much irreplaceable farmland. And I’m sick of the 1% lie. The portion of actual productive farmland, and especially if you exclude the very large area of marginal hill country.. then what has already been sold overseas is much greater than that. Probably closer to 10% than 1%.

      Where do you stop this madness? If not here …where?
      • Colonial Viper 59.1.1

        29 January 2012 at 11:54 pm

        it’s why 450,000 New Zealanders live in Australia..

        As of June 2010 the number was estimated at 566,815.

        http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/17nz.htm

        And roughly 50,000 Kiwis left for Oz in the year to Nov 2011. So that number is well into 600K now, and increasing at somewhere between 500 to 1000 per week.
      • Frank Macskasy 59.1.2

        30 January 2012 at 12:12 am

        Spot on (as usual), RedLogix.

        Fran…

        Like Redlogix, I (and others) were pretty angry at at what many of us see as the gradual, bit-by-bit sell off of our country. There is a sense of powerlessness that despite whatever message we send to our elected reptresentatives – that they thumb their noses at us and go on their merry way.

        And then – THEN!– when we protest, those same elected leaders have the gall to accuse the New Zealand voter (who pays their salaries, perks, and uber general super scheme) of “racism” and “xenophobia”?!?!

        So let me see if I have the rules straight; if anyone criticises this government – then they’re automatically racist/xenophobic? Now let’s see who else this government (or it’s supporters) has maligned recently;

        * Natasha Fuller & Jennifer Johnston, solo-mothers
        * Jon Stephenson, journalist
        * Nicky Hager, writer, researcher
        * Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, broadcaster, blogger
        * Robyn Malcolm, actor
        * Bradley Ambrose, cameraman/journo

        – http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/one-law-for-all-except-mps/

        So why are we pissed off? Let me remind you about John Key: http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/land-sales-a-sorry-saga-of-sheer-stupidity/

        When you look at those two video clips, don’t you feel just a wee bit… miffed?!

        It’s not racism or xenophobia. Many of us are just as concerned at the German, Swiss, American, etc, buy-up of our country; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/09/07/the-great-nz-sell-off-continues/

        The reason that the Crafar farms attracted so much attention wasn’t because of the nationality of the purchasers. It was because of the sheer number and size: SIXTEEN farms in one job-lot – up for auction.

        Had it been Harvard University or Shania Twain, I think the public outcry would’ve been the same.

        And instead of racism/xenophobia, would Dear Leader have labelled New Zealand citizens as… “anti-American”?

        It’s fairly clear that the charges of racism/xenophobia have emanted from spin-advisors from the Ninth Floor of the Beehive. The frequequency of use from both Key and Williamson was rather telling, don’t you think? They’ve obviously both been ‘prepped’ by the same media advisory team.

        And the reason for the use of the racism/xenophobia charge? Answer: because Key and his cronies knew damn well that they have lost the economic argument. The economic consequences of land sales to offshore investors (regardless of nationality) is not good for this country. That’s basic Economics 101.

        So, if they can’t address the argument – what’s left? What do right wingers resort to when they can’t address the issue? Yup, that’s right; personal attack. Discredit your opponant as a person.

        That’s fairly common politics.

        The only thing radically different in this case is that they’ve attacked those 66% of the public who oppose land sales to overseas interests. They has to be an all time low, don’t you think?
        • Populuxe1 59.1.2.1

          30 January 2012 at 1:17 am

          Frank, as far as I’m aware, neither Natasha Fuller & Jennifer Johnston, Jon Stephenson, Nicky Hager, Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, Robyn Malcolm, nor Bradley Ambrose have used inflamatory and edging toward xenophobically charged language about the Chinese buyers instead of sticking to the real issue: that the New Zealand law is an ass, not the Chinese. This is possibly the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard from you, and it is totally beneath your intellect.
          • Frank Macskasy 59.1.2.1.1

            30 January 2012 at 8:43 am

            Frank, as far as I’m aware, neither Natasha Fuller & Jennifer Johnston, Jon Stephenson, Nicky Hager, Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury, Robyn Malcolm, nor Bradley Ambrose have used inflamatory and edging toward xenophobically charged language about the Chinese buyers instead of sticking to the real issue: that the New Zealand law is an ass, not the Chinese.

            Congratulations, Pop. You’re quite right.

            But if you re-read what I said, that wasn’t the point I was making. The assumption and “connection” you’ve made is yours, not mine.
            • Populuxe1 59.1.2.1.1.1

              30 January 2012 at 7:32 pm

              I read what you said, Frank, and was responding to the question as to why they weren’t being accused of xenophobia – the answer, is because they have absolutely nothing to do with the case at hand and therefore I fail to see your point. You are attempting to conflate issues in an attempt to argue ‘A’ is equivalent to ‘B’ and that’s a childish thing to do.
              • Frank Macskasy …

                1 February 2012 at 10:25 am

                I looked into where the first, original charges of racism/xenophobia emanted from, Populuxe, and relevent media reporting.

                What I found may answer your points; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/01/31/kiwis-cows-and-canadian-singers/

                One thing is for certain; until the debate was re-framed by one individual just after 7pm on 27 January, the media reports were focused on economic and sovereignty issues.
          • felix 59.1.2.1.2

            30 January 2012 at 9:15 am

            “…inflamatory and edging toward xenophobically charged language…”

            For example?
            • Populuxe1 59.1.2.1.2.1

              30 January 2012 at 7:41 pm

              Let’s see – the reflexive tendency to use military analogies. The constant comparisons being made to the invasion of the Maori and the British colonisation of Aotearoa-NZ. The tendency to attack China’s human rights record (yes, bad, but not the worst we’ve traded with by any means) in preference to actually looking at the more relevant legal and economic ramifications for NZ. “Selling our heritage – waaaahhh”. All the nationalistic posturing. The tired jingoistic slogans. And while there has been some debate in relation to other foreign buyers, I haven’t seen anywhere near the kind of vicious cultural snarks I’m reading here.
              Look, I’m big enough to acknowledge that like most people I have racist and xenophobic impulses that I try to remain vigilant about – all human beings do. But so much of what I am reading on here is beginning to sound like a bunch of Zionists having appoplexy because someone raised an ironic eyebrow about the Best Bank. You all need to just chill the fuck out, focus on the issues.
               
              • felix …

                30 January 2012 at 7:53 pm

                Perhaps you didn’t follow. By “example” I meant actual examples of actual things people have been saying as opposed to your general interpretation of the vibe, valid as that may be in a certain context.

                Perhaps you have an example in mind where, say, I might have said something that sounds “like a bunch of Zionists”. You say “You all need to just chill the fuck out, focus on the issues” so I assume you’re including me in that.

                Or maybe you’re not, I don’t know. But if you’re going to make accusations across the board of “inflamatory and edging toward xenophobically charged language” then you probably ought to be able to cite some of it.
                • Populuxe1 …

                  30 January 2012 at 8:10 pm

                  I have summarised what’s there and that should suffice. I want it nipped in the bud, hence I say “edging towards”. I wasn’t particularly including you, but we could all do with being aware of how we are phrasing things and whether it’s appropriate.
                  • felix …

                    30 January 2012 at 8:41 pm

                    Sorry Pop but you haven’t “summarised what’s there” at all, at best you’ve given a fairly emotive and not particularly precise summary of your feelings and impressions.

                    Terminology such as “vicious cultural snarks” actually has semantic meaning. You should be able to point to at least a couple of these snarks if you’re going to take the time to write about them.

                    I don’t think I’ve said anything remotely xenophobic on this topic and don’t particularly enjoy being lumped in with “a bunch of Zionists” or whatever other emotionally charged accusations you’re throwing around.

                    You really want it “nipped in the bud”? Goodo. To paraphrase Chomsky, stop participating in it.
        • seeker 59.1.2.2

          30 January 2012 at 8:52 pm

          Great comment Frank M. So glad that heinous episode with Natasha is not forgotten. What a brave,strong mother she is. Will be so glad when I hear a just outcome for her. And so you said
          (not that populuxe noticed),
          “Now let’s see who else this government (or it’s supporters) has maligned recently;” ? Answer:

          * Helen Kelly(another courageous, intelligent,woman ) as they tried to lay the Hobbit fraud at her door.
          —————————————————————————-

          And Key said at the tea table that ‘they’ are not nasty and don’t play the person. Another lie,oops sorry, delusion.

          Our children really do need a different government if they are going to grow ethically tall and strong; otherwise they could possibly end up shifty, unprincipled, wrinkled, dollar eyed, maligning, charlatans like this lot they have to look up to. Ugh.
          Take note Fran, your dollar wrinkles are beginning to show-along with Monique’s. And is Fisiani male? Some women really do let us down- call for the extreme makeover team!
60. Fran O'Sullivan 60

    29 January 2012 at 10:31 pm

    RedLogix and Voice of Reason . Again you raise valid points about public commentary but if more people used their names it would not be such an issue and a discipline on Millsy’s style of inciting personal violence against those whose views he doesn’t like. Safety in numbers and all that.

    [Millsy has been banned before for that kind of thing. He skated very close to another one this time, but by using the words “the likes of” I considered he had depersonalised the sentiment just enough. At the time I almost deleted it…one of those close calls. It’s worth noting that he’s not repeated it…RL]
    • felix 60.1

      29 January 2012 at 10:36 pm

      Come on Fran, let’s hear your strong opinions on the use of real names directed toward your boss at the Herald.
    • Frank Macskasy 60.2

      29 January 2012 at 11:43 pm

      I’m not surprised people don’t use their real names, Fran.

      Going by some of the vindictive comments I’ve received; the threats; and personalised attacks – using a pseudonym removes that option from siome very disturbed individuals.

      As naive as this may sound, Fora like this should be about ideas expressed. The name of the idea-holder should be irrelevant.
      • queenstfarmer 60.2.1

        30 January 2012 at 12:08 am

        Not naive at all – a very valid point.
61. Jum 61

    29 January 2012 at 10:33 pm

    Yet another lying columnist: Paul Holmes, corrupt toadie to the NActs.

    ‘By Paul Holmes
    Saturday Jan 28, 2012
    Tauranga has twice the productivity and half the wage bill. Go figure.

    • Helen Kelly ()
    02:30 PM Sunday, 29 Jan 2012
    Why does the Herald let two columnists repeat untrue facts about the Port? Is there no accountability? Tauranga wage bill is more than Auckland. You have to add the direct salaries and the cost of contracted labour together to compare with Auckland.

    Auckland and Tauranga productivity figures are similar with each outperforming the other on various measures. Come on Paul, every time workers simply want a fair go (employment security in this case) you have a go. Too predictable, too unfair, too powerful, too little accountability for what you say. Don’t imagine any of the self regulating standards bodies will seek improved standards either!’

    Wonder who the other lying columnist was?
    • Frank Macskasy 61.1

      30 January 2012 at 12:19 am

      The other point here is that Paul Holmes (who was himself on a very generous salary when he was fronting “Holmes” on TV1) is proud that Tauranga might (?) have a lower wages bill?

      Wasn’t the point of electing Key in 2008 that he intended to raise wages to match Australia?

      Oh, thilly me. John Key – misleading people again.
    • muzza 61.2

      30 January 2012 at 10:05 am

      Yes Jum, that one was clocked too, and responded on directly to PH email.

      What it shows is the NZH for the shit rag that it has been reduced to, is that either the columnists like PH are either deliberately lying, or deliberately ignorant, which says much for the editors!

      The question is why the deliberate attempts to misslead!
62. mac1 62

    29 January 2012 at 10:35 pm

    Fran, a former MP I know of was blacklisted from employment after losing his seat in his home town and by various merchants within the community simply because of the fact he was an MP for a certain party, and because he expressed opinions publicly within that community which the blacklisters and other assorted unhinged individuals did not like.

    You ask why some people require anonymity in order to be able to express opinions in this society of ours?

    The answer lies in stories like that one, in misuse of power, in the human condition. Not every person can afford the courage of their convictions. History tells us that.

    The main control over what we write as comments is to whether we write them honestly and can defend them honestly. Our readers do the rest. Personally, getting worked over intellectually or otherwise by felix et al. would be enough to keep me quiet, if I deserved the scorn, rebuttal or rebuke.

    Climb in by all means into the debate, but the use of pseudonyms can well be justified.
    • mac1 62.1

      29 January 2012 at 10:41 pm

      I couldn’t edit this addition into my comment above, but the description of Fran Sullivan as an ‘enemy of the people’ etc is way over the top, IMHO.
      • RedLogix 62.1.1

        29 January 2012 at 10:58 pm

        It probably is… but hell it was how I genuinely felt and I’ve said it now.
63. Fran O'Sullivan 63

    29 January 2012 at 10:59 pm

    Christ – Are you sure you are not all living in China? just joking but the paranoia over free speech is concerning, IMHO.
    • felix 63.1

      29 January 2012 at 11:10 pm

      How is anyone supposed to take your opinions on free speech, anonymity/pseudonyms etc seriously when you won’t raise the same concerns over the editorial anonymity of your boss at the Herald?

      And how is anyone supposed to take your concern about inflammatory language seriously when you describe people in this very thread as “White Logic”, as “the internet version of the Ku Klux Klan”?
      • felix 63.1.1

        29 January 2012 at 11:11 pm

        *edit not working here again, excuse the poor phrasing and misplaced punct.
    • RedLogix 63.2

      29 January 2012 at 11:11 pm

      Maybe Fran you really do live in a different New Zealand to the rest of us…. and I don’t mean that unkindly. Because the sentiment you express is not the same as the one we experience. I can tell there is a huge gulf of incomprehension going on here.

      But you do get credit for having the nuts to turn up here… sincerely. That’s what counts, not who you are … but the quality of your argument, your references and how well you put your case.

      This place is more like a noisy neighbourhood bar than anything refined or orderly.. and it’s certainly not privileged. I’ve been here at The Standard from within weeks of it starting in 2007… and with one exception (Lynn Prentice the System Admin).. I’ve absolutely no idea whom any of the psuedonyms are. Nor do I want to. I know them by what they have said, what they believe in and how they conduct themselves. That is all that matters.

      This is speech shorn of status and privilege. Sometimes the peasants are revolting… but it’s the people with a voice.
    • Colonial Viper 63.3

      29 January 2012 at 11:23 pm

      just joking but the paranoia over free speech is concerning, IMHO.

      Fran. Its only paranoia if the blowback is not real. I know plenty of people in rural NZ who support Labour – but they’re not going to say a damn thing about it because being ostracised at the cossie club or having the local Tory cockies give their contract work to someone else is no fun at all.
      • ropata 63.3.1

        30 January 2012 at 5:19 am

        Yep when you live on the North Shore and work in an Auckland corporate expressing this stuff pisses off Tory colleagues and moneyed Shoreites who feel that the grubby peasants ought to be fenced off in South Auckland
    • mac1 63.4

      30 January 2012 at 10:48 am

      Fran, I gave you an actual, genuine, straight up, unspun, true example of a situation of anti-free speech behaviour that took place in my little town in Godzone and you still ask these questions? Be like a journalist and investigate the claim rather than reject evidence. That’s a rebuke with a little scorn BTW.
    • Anne 63.5

      30 January 2012 at 10:51 am

      @ Fran O’Sullivan:
      As a well known ‘protected’ journalist of considerable knowledge and experience, I should have thought you would be well aware of the extent some malevolent employers (from both public and private sectors) will go to… in their endeavour to destroy someone if they feel sufficiently threatened by them.

      As a former public servant who had the temerity to express concerns about certain activities that were occurring in the Public Service unit where I worked, I was hounded and harassed out of my position. The harassment ended up taking a very bizzare turn and moved well beyond the work place. My previously good reputation ended up in tatters.

      Perhaps my experience (twenty years ago now) was a little more extreme than most, but those who comment here under pseudonyms more often than not do so for good reasons. They don’t have the protection and support that someone in your position enjoys. Many have young families too, which is an additional reason to remain anonymous.
      • Anne 63.5.1

        30 January 2012 at 2:14 pm

        Would appreciate the return of the edit function so that those of us who have spelling problems can correct our mistakes. 🙁
    • prism 63.6

      30 January 2012 at 1:11 pm

      @ Fran O’Sullivan
      Speech cannot be truly free as it is always used to convey some meaning and that leads to some result. So ‘speech’ or words are loaded. The only people who can get away with free speech have mental disorders or they are drunk or drugged. That is their excuse for their unconsidered thought.

      As your thoughts are not unconsidered, you will be judged by the content of your speech which indeed you are free to express, and other thinkers will consider in turn and are free to disagree with. That’s free speech as it works in a free society.
64. ak 64

    29 January 2012 at 11:21 pm

    Your anger is shared, Red, and justified. It’s the obscenity and breath-taking gall that rankles so much: the very same cheerleaders and architects of Orewa One and a million other racist dogwhistles down the decades now daring to label the left racist.

    Without a morsel of evidence and a lifetime of political and social experience to the absolute contrary. To follow that up by ignoring the argument and simply trying to “out” someone, knowing full well the repercussions and possible persecution that could result – and the utter irrelevance to the topic – is simply despicable.

    Grotesque, politically-motivated distortion and calumny followed by blatant bullying of any individual at hand. Disgusting from the least of us: from a so-called leading journalist inexcusable, but sadly quite representative of our entire, right-wing dominated media culture.

    The one bright light is the utter disdain and mistrust for our gutter-paparazi now growing in the community – as the circulations shrink, useful only as a laxative. Occupy the Web: and put the yellow press behind us.
    • RedLogix 64.1

      29 January 2012 at 11:39 pm

      It’s the obscenity and breath-taking gall that rankles so much: the very same cheerleaders and architects of Orewa One and a million other racist dogwhistles down the decades now daring to label the left racist.

      Got it. You’ve articulated precisely where I have failed. Thanks.
    • SHG 64.2

      30 January 2012 at 2:56 am

      the very same cheerleaders and architects of Orewa One and a million other racist dogwhistles down the decades (are) now daring to label the left racist

      That you find it galling makes it no less true.
      • felix 64.2.1

        30 January 2012 at 8:42 am

        Correct.

        What does make it less true, however, is the fact that none of you can point to a single racist statement to back up your hysteria.
        • Gosman 64.2.1.1

          30 January 2012 at 9:16 am

          Seems one of the bloggers at Tumeke thinks the opposition to the sale is dog whistling to a racist tendacy in NZ (see http://tumeke.blogspot.com/2012/01/crafar-farms-racism-or-economic.html). Do you disagree ?
          • felix 64.2.1.1.1

            30 January 2012 at 12:11 pm

            I can’t really can I Gosman, as to disagree with anything written at Tumeke would make me a hypocrite because…

            Oh hang on that’s moronic, there’s no reason that would apply to me at all.

            Why do you ask?
            • Gosman 64.2.1.1.1.1

              30 January 2012 at 1:55 pm

              You’re entitled to disagree. I am just interested in why you would disagree with that view. A person on the left thinks there is an element of dog whistling to underlying racist tendencies in the opposition to the Crafer farm decision. You obviously don’t think this is the case. I was curious why two lefties have different views on this subject and was trying to get to the bottom of which might be more accurate reflection of reality – your view or hers.
            • felix 64.2.1.1.1.2

              30 January 2012 at 2:03 pm

              Am I responsible for speaking on behalf of “the left” now Gosman?

              If that’s how it works there’s been a few things written at whaleoil and kiwiblog that I’m going to have to take you to task on.

              Ok?
              • Gosman …

                30 January 2012 at 2:31 pm

                I am not asking you to defend this article on Tumeke just why you disagree with the view that aspects of the Crafer farm opposition are dog whistling for racists. This is something you have argued against here. I am curious why one leftist thinks one thing and another such as yourself thinks that it isn’t. Simply stating it isn’t dog whistling because I say so isn’t really much of an argument.
                • felix …

                  30 January 2012 at 4:03 pm

                  And by exactly the same token I’m just as curious as to why you don’t agree with any number of articles written by other retarded right-wing urban cowboys.

                  So let’s start with your buddy Slater. You agree with everything he’s written today?

                  If not, why not?
                  • Gosman …

                    31 January 2012 at 5:55 am

                    Give me an article that he wrote yesterday and I’ll comment on whether I agree with it or not.
                    • felix …

                      31 January 2012 at 6:33 am

                      All of them.
                    • Gosman …

                      31 January 2012 at 7:57 am

                      One.
                    • felix …

                      31 January 2012 at 9:37 am

                      Oh ffs Gos do I really need to spell it out for you?

                      It doesn’t matter a jot whether you agree with anything Slater says because you_don’t_speak_for_the_entire_right_wing_of_the_nz_political_blogosphere.

                      It’s a wee bit alarming that you didn’t get to that on your own, mate. Might want to have a think about that when you get some time to yourself.
                  • vto …

                    31 January 2012 at 8:24 am

                    Let it go gosman. You have given it your best shot but alas you have convinced nobody (as far as I can see). However, in reverse, I think you will see that the public is cottoning onto all of those negative points about foreign ownership that you cannot get your head around. For evidence, see the various polls on the issue – all on the rise against foreign ownership.

                    But you strike me as the type who has to have the last word.

                    And at the moment it is moi – ha
                    • Gosman …

                      31 January 2012 at 10:12 am

                      No it’s not ;
      • One Anonymous Bloke 64.2.2

        30 January 2012 at 8:42 am

        “…no less true.”

        Anyone who thinks there are no racist individuals on “the left” is deluding themselves. We keep our house in order though: racist beliefs and values are under constant attack from the left, as are all forms of prejudice.

        On a personal level, I examine my ideas closely, for racism, misogyny, prejudice etc, because I’m far more interested in seeing things clearly than I am in confirming my biases.

        The opposition to Shanghai Pengxin has been articulated very clearly: it will create a vertical supply chain, it has links to organised crime (aka The Chinese Government).
        The opposition to land sale as opposed to lease has also been articulated clearly.

        None of these arguments rest on the ethnicity of the stakeholders at all.
65. vto 65

    30 January 2012 at 9:02 am

    So, through all of that, nobody explained how selling our land to foreigners is a net benefit to NZ. (but many have explained how it is a net negative to NZ).

    Not even useless Fran O’Sullivan.

    Fancy that.

    That’s very useless Fran.
    • Gosman 65.1

      30 January 2012 at 9:10 am

      If a farmer sells land to a foreigner then the country increases it’s wealth by the sale price. If the land is sold to a New Zealander then the country doesn’t increase it’s wealth at all. Therefore there is a net benefit from selling land to a foreigner. Simple really.
      • vto 65.1.1

        30 January 2012 at 9:14 am

        oh deary me, not again.

        so simple. that is not a net benefit, that is a singular benefit in a many multipled equation.

        In case it has escaped you gosman, ownership leads to wealth. That and hard work. Nothing else. Go ask the wealthy.
        • Gosman 65.1.1.1

          30 January 2012 at 9:28 am

          Please explain why it isn’t a net benefit to the country.Just by labelling it something else doesn’t mean it is what you say it is.

          Ownership doesn’t necessarily lead to wealth. It is what Zanu-PF made the mistake of when they had the election slogan ‘The economy is the land, and land is the econmoy’in 2000. They thought that simply taking ownership of the land and redistributing would ensure wealth for the majority of Zimbabweans. The opposite in fact happened.

          There is a large number of ways people can get wealthy without ownership of physical property.
          • vto 65.1.1.1.1

            30 January 2012 at 9:34 am

            You haven’t explained why it is a net benefit.
            • Gosman 65.1.1.1.1.1

              30 January 2012 at 9:44 am

              Well for one a NZ farm owner is not paying interest cost to an Australian based bank. Just because a NZ ‘owns’ a farm doesn’t mean a foreigner doesn’t benefit from it. Secondly there is the fact that if the foreign owner makes the farm profitable, (and surely that is what they are looking for despite people’s conspiracy theories), then it is contributing to the tax take of NZ. This is something that didn’t happen very often when the Crafer farms were owned by NZers. I have already mentioned the boost to the NZ economy from the intial investment. Increasesd activity on a farm can lead to more employment opportunities. All of these mean there is a high probability of a net benefit. Do you have ANY evidence that suggests Foreign investment doesn’t lead to and net benefit?
              • vto …

                30 January 2012 at 9:50 am

                “Well for one a NZ farm owner is not paying interest cost to an Australian based bank”

                ffs gosman, that is way off the planet.
              • vto …

                30 January 2012 at 9:53 am

                “Do you have ANY evidence that suggests Foreign investment doesn’t lead to and net benefit?”

                John Key gave us a goody a couple days ago. We are strapped for capital, according to Key. And we have been the subject of “foreign investment” since colonial times. Do you see any link? Look hard now.
                • Gosman …

                  30 January 2012 at 9:56 am

                  Actually those nations that have been the most open to foreign investment have generally been the ones with the greater economic growth. Thje Economist has a number of articles about this. I will attempt to locate them for you.
                  • vto …

                    30 January 2012 at 10:07 am

                    Wealth gosman wealth. Not growth. Better make sure you get your timeframes right.

                    A bit like claiming that a one-off sale is a net benefit. Doesn’t actually make sense.

                    You have never been in business have you. You are a studier of these things, not a doer. Not a dreamer, manufacturer and seller of things.
          • Frank Macskasy 65.1.1.1.2

            30 January 2012 at 9:41 am

            Ownership doesn’t necessarily lead to wealth.

            Really?

            In which case, pray tell why our Chinese cuzzies just spent $200+ million to buy the farms?

            Ditto for Germans, Swiss, Americans, and etr al?

            Why didn’t they just buy protein from Fonterra?
            • Gosman 65.1.1.1.2.1

              30 January 2012 at 9:54 am

              Did you have reading comprehension problems at school Frank because you seem to miss key words in sentences. Please note the capitalised word in the following statement “Ownership doesn’t NECESSARILY lead to wealth.”. Of course ownership of forms of Capital is the main source of wealth generation in our capitalised economy. But so what.
              • Frank Macskasy …

                30 January 2012 at 10:18 am

                Try answering the question instead of engaging in puerile personal jibes.
                • Gosman …

                  30 January 2012 at 11:20 am

                  I did answer it. I pointed out that your take on what I was stating was wrong, (yet again), and that who cares if ownership on ccassion leads to wealth. It is not the only way to wealth and also it is not guarranteed. It is only someone like yourself who is hung up on ownership of tangible assets that seem to have a problem with this. By the way you don’t seem to have addressed my question over whether you had a problem with TradeMe being sold to Fairfax media.
                  • Frank Macskasy …

                    31 January 2012 at 11:47 am

                    You didn’t answer. You deflected.

                    Try answering the simple question; In which case, pray tell why our Chinese cuzzies just spent $200+ million to buy the farms?

                    Ditto for Germans, Swiss, Americans, and etr al?

                    Why didn’t they just buy protein from Fonterra?
        • Gosman 65.1.1.2

          30 January 2012 at 9:38 am

          If we expand the equation out further, in the case of the Crafer farms they were unprofitable. The land was not producing enough return to cover the outgoing costs. They were therefore an economic drain on NZ. If theChinese investors increase the productivitiy of the land and/or produce a profit then there is another net benefit.
          • vto 65.1.1.2.1

            30 January 2012 at 9:42 am

            But the profit will go to China. Or did you miss that? Therefore a negative. Add it to the equation.

            Net benefit gosman, net benefit. Some very minor aspects are positive – like perhaps a one-off sale to the current owner (but you would then have to stop the clock because there would be no more such sales). A whole huge bunch of aspects are negative. You need to weigh them up to get the “net”. That is what net means.
            • Gosman 65.1.1.2.1.1

              30 January 2012 at 10:12 am

              The profits might go offshore but that applies to ALL foreign investment. If you have an objection to ALL foreign investment you are at least being consistent. However what you ignore is that the capital injected into the economy at the time of sale can be used to generate more income as well. So not only do you have the increased economic activity on the farm you have income from the capital to factor in as well.

              You have a simply wrong headed concept of profit around your wacky idea that the Crafer business was producing enough return prior to them going bankrupt. Interest costs are part of a buiness model. It would be like trying to argue that my business is profitable it is just that I can’t afford the rent. Totally nonsensical. No wonder you lefties have trouble getting your views taken seriously by the mainstream.
              • vto …

                30 January 2012 at 10:19 am

                Whe n you get an answer you don’t like you go off on a tangent and ignore it. That is why I give up on you. You stated that the profit will be a benefit, but it wont, it will go to China. For some reason you thought it would be staying in NZ.

                And as for business models, have you not heard of EBIT – earnings before interest and tax. Don’t count tax in a business model for the same reason you don’t count interest.
                • Gosman …

                  30 January 2012 at 10:40 am

                  Where did I state it would be taying in NZ? I never stated that. I did state that the capital injected into the economy at the sale can be used to generate more income and that stays in NZ, (unless the owner of it decides to do something else). Your model doesn’t take this into account.

                  By the way EBIT is but a component of a business model. Anybody who goes to their bank to get financing purely with a buiness plan based on EBIT would be laughed all the way out the door.
                  • vto …

                    30 January 2012 at 10:47 am

                    Where did you say that? Right here ” If theChinese investors increase the productivitiy of the land and/or produce a profit then there is another net benefit.”

                    As for business models, when you go to a bank you go with a “business ownership model”, of which the actual “business model” is part. See the difference? Two different things.

                    The Crafar Farms, had they not been saddled with high debt due to high land values, would no doubt have been highly profitable (evidence, see dairy sector farms without debt).

                    Interest payments turn on the particular cirumstances of the particular owner, not the actual business.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 10:51 am

                      It IS a net benefit. I didn’t state the profit would stay here but if they are paying taxes in NZ on their profits, (and I presume they will be unless we have some sort of reciprical tax arrangement with China), then a profit generated where there was none before increases the net benefit to NZ. Please tell me why it wouldn’t?
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 10:54 am

                      The Crafer farms were not profitable. End of story VTO. No amount of you trying to state that using some Accounting rules where we only include EBIT means that we should think of them as being viable at the time they went bust. The business model the Crafer’s were operating under meant they couldn’t fund their interest costs.
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:01 am

                      Gosman, the ownership structure of the Crafar farms was the problem, not the actual farms. End of story. It is all there in black and white. The banks called in the receivers not some other creditor. It was the debt that was the problem.

                      again, interest payments are to do with the circumstances of ownership of the busines, not the actual business. Hence EBIT is the appropriate measure.
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:04 am

                      “It IS a net benefit. I didn’t state the profit would stay here but if they are paying taxes in NZ on their profits”

                      Well you did say that. But I note that other people complain that you keep changing your tune as you get called on your incorrectnesses. And now you turn it from profit to tax on the profit being the benefit. I seem to recall that the farming sector pays a net tax rate of something lower than wage and salary earners. So about 80% flies out to China and 20% stays here. hmmmmmm – yes I see how 20% is better than 100%. lol.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:11 am

                      What you are stating is think that if a company didn’t have the same leveraging issues as the Crafers then the business would make a profit. Well Duh! It is like stating that if I diddn’t have to pay my rent if I bought the place where my business was I’d make a profit. That doesn’t detract from the fact that the Crafer farms, operating the way they were, were an unprofitable business. This meant they paid very little in the way of tax. I know because the business I part own is structured in such a way. The expenses include the servicing of the debt used to purchase the business.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:13 am

                      Where exactly did I state the profits would stay in NZ? Please quote the passage I made this rather bold claim. All you have done is try and link my claim that paying taxes on any profit where none existed before is a net benefit to NZ. You have yet to dispute this.
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:19 am

                      It is not like that at all gosman. And rent payments are not the same.

                      I have explaine time and time again now how “business ownership” is different from “business”.

                      Let’s see, and this is my last gasp, take two bakeries. They both have sales of $100,000 each year from selling bread which costs $50,000 to make. Therefore each business makes $50,000.

                      However, one owner owns it outright, has no debt and gets to keep the entire $50,000.

                      The other owner borrowed $200,000 at 10% to own it and so out of that $50,000 has to pay $20,000 to the lender. So the owners net position is $30,000.

                      Can you see the difference? Apply it to farms.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:24 am

                      Which business is paying the most in tax vto?

                      If I wanted to purchase the profitable business and went to my bank to fund the purchase with a plan would they simply take into account the level of profits the previous owner made or would they be interested in knowing how I would structure the business going forward including Interest costs?
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:36 am

                      So you can’t see the difference between a business and its ownership.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:50 am

                      Which business is likely to be paying the most in tax on their profits vto?
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:59 am

                      No gosman, don’t change the subject now that you don’t have an answer.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 2:19 pm

                      The issue of profit in relation to net benefit to NZ involves tax. If your interest payments are so high that you don’t make enough to cover them then you don’t pay the same level of tax that you do if you make more than your interest costs. That is what is being discussed here vto.
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 3:57 pm

                      I see you are still bashing away here gosman.

                      Have you managed to get your head around the difference between a business and the ownership of that business?

                      And the implications for the issue of the sale of land to foreigners? Because that is what is being discussed here.

                      And from your last post you have not.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:05 pm

                      We are talking about Net Benefits of foreign ownership and whether or not the Crafer farms were profitable in relation tp whether they paid tax on their profits. Clearly they are unlikely to have done so as they went belly up. You don’t pay much in the way of tax when your business is losing money having to service it’s debts. Hence if you have a business that doesn’t have such high interest cost you will likely pay higher tax to the Government. You would agree that this contributes to a net benefit position don’t you vto? That is what is being discussed after all.
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:11 pm

                      Up the top you said this ” If theChinese investors increase the productivitiy of the land and/or produce a profit then there is another net benefit.” But you missed the point that the profit actually will go to China.

                      Re any tax, you do know how little the farming sector pays in net tax don’t you.

                      Do you imagine the Chinese will have some structure in place, like you do for your own business, whereby they will reduce tax to a minimum? Or do you think they will benevolently pay tax and not do that sort of thing?

                      Further, if the bank lenders (to whom you reduce your tax bill by paying interest instead of tax) were NZ-owned then the interest payments would stay in NZ. Do you see that? “Foreign investment” just drags money out of NZ left, right and centre.
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:18 pm

                      And further, given that allowing a further 6 billion people to pbuy our land drives its price up (as Johnn Key admitted), how does higher and higher interest payments going to foreign banks benefit NZ?

                      You constantly argue against yourself and don’t even see it.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:25 pm

                      The point of me raisingthe profit was in relation to paying tax. I don’t care where the profit goes. If a NZer had made the profit they could reinvest it here or they could invest offshore. They might even decide to leave NZ and become dominciled in Australia. The Chinese could also choose to reinvest the profit here if they choose. The point is that they are paying a tax on a profit when previously there was no profit to pay tax on. Do you now understand how that is a net benfit?
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:29 pm

                      By the way the argument about higher costs of farm land essentially nets itself out. The prices paid are generally to other NZ who take the capital gain. The issue is if people over leverage themselves to buy a farm. Then that is their own stupid fault for buying a business they couldn’t afford. Who do you blame for the Crafer’s going bust – The banks or their own stupid decisions over their farm?
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:30 pm

                      For fucks sake. That, along with every other point, has been answered many times before.

                      You are taking the piss and have been for the last three or so days.

                      I am stopping.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:31 pm

                      They might even decide to leave NZ and become dominciled in Australia.

                      Or in Switzerland, as the case may be.

                      Bottom line is you are supporting the expatriation of NZ capital and the effects you describe are simply the result of the globalised free market for capital that the top 0.1% pushed for.

                      NZ becomes poorer day by day, something you seem to advocate for.
                    • RedLogix …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:33 pm

                      According to your logic Gosman if New Zealand sold every square metre of land, every single asset, every single business.. not to mention all our grandmothers…. the ‘net benefit’ would be so fabulous we’d be the richest country on earth.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:33 pm

                      The interest paid to the banks does sty here VTO. It is only dividends paid out on the profits of the banks that get repatriated. The banks might very well make higher profits as a result of the increased lending. They also expose themselves to greater risk from defaults as the debt servicing becomes to high. At which point they start to make massive lossses if too many farms go broke because they can no longer service their debts. They will therefore have to sell the land and that will depress the market driving costs down. It is how markets tend to self regulate.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:43 pm

                      Okay Red Logix let’s take your little scenario to the logical conclusion. What is we did sell all of our Farmland overseas. Every single farm sold to a foreigner. We would get a massive amount of capital injection into the economy and we would pay off a huge amount of our debt. On top of that the overseas owners would require somebody to actually farm their land for them as they can’t do it themselves. So they would need to pay somebody to manage their farms for them. I keep reading about the supposed loss of profits overseas but I also see people argue that most Nz farms are not profitable are farmers just do it for the Capital gains. Well if we are not really making much from farming then there won’t be much in the way of profits being repatriated. If we then took the billions of dollars we made from selling the farm land and then invested it productive industries that actually did make a good return how are we not better off as a nation?
                    • McFlock …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:54 pm

                      Problem with modern economic “thinking” #568: “Capital Gains” are not regarded as “profits”.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 5:49 pm

                      It would actually be incredibly beneficial to NZers if we sold the entire countries farm land. Not only would our Debt levels fall to virtually zero we would also have a highly priced dollar that we could exploit to take advantage of high performing assets in other countries. The high dollar would reduce the returns for the new owners oif the farms. While NZers were either being paid to manage the farms (at no risk to their capital) or using the massive capitalinjection to invest offshore the new owners would most likely be in a position where they wanted or needed to sell their underperforming assets. Hence there would be a fire sale of NZ farms and NZers could therefore them up again much cheaper than they sold them for. Of course it isn’t likely to happen this way but the concept is about as likely as anything someone from the left postulates and at least is consistent with standard economic thinking.
                    • McFlock …

                      30 January 2012 at 6:13 pm

                      Of course, the flaw in your cunning plan is that corporates and governments take exchange rate fluctuations into account when they consider investments.
                        
                      Then there’s the fact that it’s about as ethical as a “pump and dump” in the second–hand AK47 market. 
                       
                       
                      So your plan is both evil and stupid.
                       
                      Sounds like National policy to me.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 January 2012 at 6:25 pm

                      It would actually be incredibly beneficial to NZers if we sold the entire countries farm land. Not only would our Debt levels fall to virtually zero we would also have a highly priced dollar that we could exploit to take advantage of high performing assets in other countries.

                      This is really funny, its exactly what happens when you sell off a company and end trading as a going concern, shutting it down, netting off what is owed to creditors etc. And its what Gossie is suggesting for NZ haha. Selling off the entirety of NZ so we can go buy land in faraway countries. Brilliant! LOL

                      But this is the really funny part:

                      After we sell every single bit of NZ farm land and pay off all our foreign debt, we use a stroke of a pen and renationalise the whole lot back!!!

                      You really are a genius mate. (Please read my other post where I suggest that its time for you to grow out of this irrelevant financialised perspective).
                    • RedLogix …

                      30 January 2012 at 7:00 pm

                      It would actually be incredibly beneficial to NZers if we sold the entire countries farm land.

                      I kind of hoped Gosman would say something like that…..
          • vto 65.1.1.2.2

            30 January 2012 at 9:47 am

            Oh gosman, this too – “The land was not producing enough return to cover the outgoing costs.”

            Wrong. Again.

            Of course it produced it produced enough return. What it didn’t do was produce enough to pay the obscene debt levels interest payments – hence why it went bust.

            So, firstly, your point is completely wrong; and;

            secondly, your point reinforces one of the main huge negatives of selling our land to foreigners, namely high land values which mean huge and unserviceable debt levels. So you actually argue against yourself gosman. hee hee.
            • Gosman 65.1.1.2.2.1

              30 January 2012 at 10:19 am

              What simplistic nonsense. Tbusiness was not profitable and therefore went bust. Trying to argue it was all down to high bank interest is ridiculous and irrelevant. It is like trying to state that it was all down to the high cost of the price of oil. It may well have been but it still meant the business was unprofitable.
              • vto …

                30 January 2012 at 10:21 am

                you are 100% worong
              • vto …

                30 January 2012 at 10:24 am

                if you recall, it was the banks that called in the receivers. It was not some other creditor.

                Interest payments are not part of a business model, they are part of a model about owning a business. If Crafar farms had been debt free they would not be in this position. Simple. Again.

                Interest payments are to do with ownership, not the actual business. Sheesh.
                • Gosman …

                  30 January 2012 at 10:28 am

                  “Interest payments are not part of a business model”

                  WTF?!?

                  I’m sorry but if you don’t take into account your ongoing interest payments as part of your long term business strategy (i.e. will I receive enough from this business to pay all my outgoings including my interest expenses) then you are basically set up to fail.

                  Perhaps you were advising the Crafer’s then while they were persuing this ‘business model’ you think is something we should aspire to.
                  • vto …

                    30 January 2012 at 10:31 am

                    You are not in business are you.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 10:36 am

                      Yes I am actually.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 January 2012 at 10:39 am

                      Although your distinction is correct vto, IIRC under GAAP accounting rules you have to take into account interest costs when calculating the profitability of a business.

                      Of course, if you go by more relaxed non-GAAP measures, like EBITDA, you do not.

                      However overleveraging and under capitalisation resulting in an inability to service debts closes businesses down faster than just about anything else so it is relevant.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 10:48 am

                      Excellent! We are in agreement on something CV.
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 10:48 am

                      consultancy doesn’t count.
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 10:51 am

                      gosmand and CV, in the contexr we are discussing EBIt etc is relevant and the other is not. We are talking about ownership of a business and who that is, where they live and the implications of all of that. The entire discussion turns on ownership. That is why EBIT etc is the correct measure.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 10:58 am

                      Why is EBIT applicable here when we are talking about whether the Crafer farms were profitable or not? Clearly they were not profitable hance why they went bust. Obviously there is potential for the farm land to be made profitable if there is a different owner in place without the same sort of issues with leveraging. That would contribute to making the land profitable and hence paying more in taxes which contribute to the net benefit to NZ. Do you understand that vto?
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:07 am

                      No gosman, the farms were profitable.

                      It was the ownership structure that was not.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:15 am

                      My Accountant would disagree with you on that point. The business I co own is not profitable for pretty much the exact same reasons you mention. Hence it pays nothing in tax.
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:22 am

                      Your accountant wouldn’t disagree with me.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:27 am

                      My accountant doesn’t tell me that the business is profitable if we remove the interest and other cost of capital expenses.
          • Frank Macskasy 65.1.1.2.3

            30 January 2012 at 10:16 am

            If theChinese investors increase the productivitiy of the land and/or produce a profit then there is another net benefit.

            No, there is no benefit, net or otherwise, if we lose the profits. The end result is still the same; a drain on our economy.

            And worse still, the land suffers ongoing degradation for not discernible gain to NZ.

            By the way, the investors will now be eligible for shares in Fonterra;

            “Outline of the Investment

            23. The Applicant has agreed to pay NZD $[redacted] m for the land, chattels, machinery

            on the farms, and the approximately [redacted] Fonterra shares.”

            Source, OIO Decision, http://www.linz.govt.nz/sites/default/files/docs/overseas-investment/oio-recommendation-crafar-farms-20120127.pdf

            As I pointed out in my Blog, foreign ownership doesn’t just entail loss of profits overseas – it also means foreign ownership of shares in Fonterra.
            • Gosman 65.1.1.2.3.1

              30 January 2012 at 10:24 am

              Ummmmm…. Frank. In case you missed the story, (and with you it is highly probable), the Crafer farms WEREN’T profitable. That is why they went bust. Hence we are not losing any profits overseas because they weren’t making any.

              However if the Chinese make the farms a profitable business, (and I presume that is what they want to do), then the NZ Government benefits from the taxes that they pay on their profits or at the very least on the taxes against the increased economic activity that they have stimulated.

              I’m curious though Frank. Were you against the sale of TradeMe to Fairfax media? I think that TradeMe was at least profitable when it was sold. So your argument about profits going overseas apply more to that sale than the Crafer farms one.
              • Colonial Viper …

                30 January 2012 at 10:28 am

                However if the Chinese make the farms a profitable business

                Landcorp, who is operating the farms, are going to make the farms profitable.

                Landcorp could have done this WITHOUT Chinese investors.
                • Gosman …

                  30 January 2012 at 10:34 am

                  You read like a Zanu-PF apparatchik. They thought that the previously disadvantaged Zimbabweans could farm just as well as the previous owners. And they could have done if they actually had the large amount of capital that is required in modern farming. Landcorp might be running the farms but the Chinese are providing the investment required to get more productivity from these farms. I believe this is set out in the investment agreement.
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    30 January 2012 at 11:32 am

                    The Zimbabwe deflection? Pathetic.

                    As I said, Landcorp are running the farms, and they would run the farms just as profitably whether the Chinese owned the land outright or whether the Chinese simply had the land on a 50 year lease.

                    I prefer the Chinese to have the land on lease and for it to be owned by Landcorp.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:46 am

                      You have yet to show why the Chinese owning the land is less of a threat to our sovereignty than a lease arrangment. The New Territories were leased by the Brits from the Chinese. Guantanamo bay is leased by the US. That doesn’t detract from the fact that the effective sovereignty was from the people on the ground as opposed to the nominal owners.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:51 am

                      You have yet to show why the Chinese owning the land is less of a threat to our sovereignty than a lease arrangment.

                      Meh if you can’t figure out the difference between being the landlord and being the tennant, its not my job to teach you.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:52 am

                      Oh by the way your HK example is the perfect example of the long term advantages of China retaining ownership of the land.

                      China thinks long term you see, the Brits and yourself don’t. A wee lease of Chinese land, over in a flash, and back under Chinese control.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:59 am

                      What rot. The Chinese didn’t get much option in terms of the leasing of the New Territories. The fact of the matter is if the power relationship was different at the time of the lease renewal then the Brits could still be in charge just as the US is in Guantanamo bay. Leasing doesn’t necessarily mean squat in terms of sovereignty if their is a power imbalance between that parties. It is this power imbalance that you are really worried about with China. They could use this irrespective of the structure of the deal. If you don’t trust the Chinese just come out and state it rather than trying to hide behind this nonsense about leasing versus owning farmland.
                    • prism …

                      30 January 2012 at 12:58 pm

                      Godwins law is that in any discussion a reference will be made to Nazism. Godwins law+1 refers to mention of Zimbabwe.
                    • Wayne …

                      30 January 2012 at 3:29 pm

                      Oh by the way your HK example is the perfect example of the long term advantages of China retaining ownership of the land.

                      China thinks long term you see, the Brits and yourself don’t. A wee lease of Chinese land, over in a flash, and back under Chinese control.

                      No. You have it wrong. In fact the Hong Kong example proves a point – against the position you hold.

                      Hong Kong Island and Kowloon were ceded outright to the British at the point of a gun, to be used as a base for opium trading (legalized at the point of a gun).

                      It was only the New Territories which were leased in 1898.

                      The Chinese simply said they would have the whole package handed over lock stock and barrel. That Britain actually owned Hong Kong Island and Kowloon did not mean a shit. The Chinese simply said they would do things their way and marched in.

                      Similarly if the NZ govt ever wanted to nationalise foreign assets including the Crafar farms they could also do so. The Chinese would not militarily intervene. Although Western countries like the US and Great Britain do have a record of this sort of behaviour.

                      It is the West, not China, which has the worst record when it comes to invading foreign peoples to force commercial arrangements to suit themselves. When Nasser nationalised the Suez canal, the Brits and the French went in with guns blazing.

                      From the historical record, I would say one should be more wary of anglo-saxon investors.
              • Frank Macskasy …

                30 January 2012 at 11:16 am

                Ummmmm…. Frank. In case you missed the story, (and with you it is highly probable), the Crafer farms WEREN’T profitable. That is why they went bust. Hence we are not losing any profits overseas because they weren’t making any.

                Aside from your juvenile attempt at a put-down, I think we’re all aware that the farms weren’t sustainable. But only because they were leveraged to the max, and Crafar had no access to extra investment.

                Plus, as Mathew Hooton pointed out on “Nine to Noon” at this moment, some were very poor quality.

                However if the Chinese make the farms a profitable business, (and I presume that is what they want to do), then the NZ Government benefits from the taxes that they pay on their profits or at the very least on the taxes against the increased economic activity that they have stimulated.

                Any taxation gained will be less than profits earned from overseas. Simple arithmetic. Apply it yourself.

                I’m curious though Frank. Were you against the sale of TradeMe to Fairfax media? I think that TradeMe was at least profitable when it was sold. So your argument about profits going overseas apply more to that sale than the Crafer farms one.

                You’re comparing apples with pears. Attempting to employ an unrelated example to try to make a point fails when they are unrelated. Try again.

                someone elses text
                • Gosman …

                  30 January 2012 at 11:30 am

                  I am not comparing apples with pears. Your big issue is with profits disappearing offshore. This happens with ANY Foreign investment. TradeMe was bought by a foreign based company just as in the proposed Crafer sale. So tell me what your position on profits from TradeMe going overseas?
                  • Colonial Viper …

                    30 January 2012 at 11:34 am

                    Productive land is a strategic food producing resource, TradeMe is not.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:43 am

                      I’d suggest it is purely you who is making this distinction. I use Zimbabwe as an example because it serves to highlight why this sort of thinking is wrong headed. Instead of ensuring the ‘strategic’ assets (which ends up being anything the politicians in power deem valuable) of the country stay under the control of the nation and the profits benefiting the country as a whole what tends to happen is the economy stagnates and you have less economic activity than when the assets were ‘controlled’ by those nasty foreigners. This is exactly what happende in places like Zimbabwe which decided to reverse foreign investment and nationalise their farm land. Those countries which are friendliest to FDI tend to be the ones who have the best economic growth rates, Obviously I know this is something you are not in favour of because you have stated as much in a number of posts but others do care about this.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 January 2012 at 12:24 pm

                      Those countries which are friendliest to FDI tend to be the ones who have the best economic growth rates

                      Sigh

                      You missed out the part where the FDI needs to introduce new technologies and industrial capabilities which did not exist before. That’s how China, Japan and Singapore did it.

                      In comparison, selling stuff which is already here is a simple hollowing out of the economy.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 1:50 pm

                      FDI doesn’t need to anything of the sort. You might like it to do something along the lines of what you are stating but the benefits of FDI are not beholden to that.
                  • Frank Macskasy …

                    30 January 2012 at 12:16 pm

                    Gosman, you know as wel;l as I do that both farms and Trademe can lose profits overseas, through dividend remittances.

                    However, up till now, Trademe was a company that serviced predominantly New Zealand clientele. Foreign remittancres were not a problem.

                    Foreign ownership changes that, tro a degree.

                    Farming, on the other hand has predominantly been export based. They are the mechanism by which we earn our income. If we lose ownership of the means of prodiction, we lose our source of income.

                    Trademe was not an export earner. Farms are.

                    I trust that clarifies the matter for you? (I live in hope.)
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 1:48 pm

                      So given the fact that you are against foreign investment in export industries but not ones focused on the internal NZ market place does this mean you are happy with foreigners owning much of our banking industry and also investing in infrastructure such as Electricity companies?
                  • Frank Macskasy …

                    30 January 2012 at 12:18 pm

                    By the way, I notice you ignored the balance of my 11.16 post and (yet again) drifted of onto an unrelated tangent.

                    Struggling?
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 1:44 pm

                      The balance of your post of 11:16 seems to support my point that the farms were unprofitable under the Crafer’s and therefore I saw no reason to address any more of the points that you raised. You might like to argue, as vto does, that this is because of the leveraging the Crafer’s had however that is just explaining one of the reasons why they were unprofitable and doesn’t alter the fact that they were. Unprofitable businesses don’t contribute much in the way of taxes to the Government. Therefore if the Chinese make the farms profitable, (something you seem to confirm with your reference to Matthew Hooten’s views on the subject), then you have to acknowledge they are providing a benefit to the NZ economy.

                      You seem to try and make a distinction between the externalising of internal and external produced profits. I am unsure why you do this. It really makes not a blind bit of difference to the economy as a whole if 100 million dollars of profit are externalised from an export orientated business versus an internal one. In fact you could argue that if the investment by a Foreign company is increasing exports it is more beneficial than one which simply takes money from internal NZ transactions. The Banking sector is one area where I have seen leftists like yourself argue that foreigners are simply exploiting the NZ economy for their own gain without benefiting NZ as a whole.
                    • felix …

                      30 January 2012 at 1:59 pm

                      Interesting Gos. You seem to be saying that the Crafar farms as a business, because they were run unprofitably, are no great loss as land.

                      How far are you going to try to run with this particular line? Cos if it’s all the same to you I’ll just wait for you at the other end.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 2:13 pm

                      We don’t lose the land felix. It is no different to if a foreign owned bank provided an injection of capital into NZ and allowed a bunch of NZers to buy up residential property. Essentially the foreign owned bank has rights over the land. That is why the sales were forced in the first place because the bank wanted their money back. Do you object to that?
                    • felix …

                      30 January 2012 at 2:21 pm

                      I think you’d better inform the new owners that they’re not getting the land under the farms Gosman.

                      Don’t think they’re going to be too pleased about it.

                      You don’t seem to have anything to say that hasn’t already been addressed several times already so I’ll be waiting at the other end, as I said. See you there.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 2:26 pm

                      They get to use the land pretty much the same as if it was leased to them. Care to explain the major differences between a long term leased farm versus one which you own outright?
                    • felix …

                      30 January 2012 at 3:40 pm

                      Sure, I’ll do that as soon as you show where I’ve advocated long term leases of farmland to non-citizen/residents.

                      Or you could get back on topic. Up to you.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 3:44 pm

                      So if you are against lease arrangments for farm land does that mean you don’t want foreigners involved in farming land here full stop? On what basis are you against them being here?
                    • felix …

                      30 January 2012 at 3:50 pm

                      You haven’t read a damn thing I’ve written in the last two days if you don’t know the answer to that question, dickhead.

                      Go back and start at the start, and this time try to take note of who says what.
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:02 pm

                      Gosman, the Crafar farms were profitable. It was the way they were owned that caused the problems.

                      If the owners had had no debt there would have been no problem.

                      Do you understand that?
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:08 pm

                      Do you nderstand that they are highly unlikley to have paid any tax to the Government on their income because of their debt servicing costs vto? That is the crux of the matter. The Government got no direct benefit from the so called profitable nature of the farms because they made an accounting loss because they couldn’t service their debts. Why is this hard for you to understand?
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:14 pm

                      Let me put it another way. Following your warped logic Terry Serepisos empire was profitable if you excluded his interest costs. The point being his empire collapsed because it could no longer manage the smoke and mirrors exercise of continued expansion using excessive leveraging. I’m sure if someone bought his entire business without the same sort of leveraging then it would be viable but the point being it wasn’t at the time his unprofitable business empire collapsed in on itself.
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:24 pm

                      gosman, I am well aware that because of the ownership structure the owners pprobably paid no tax.

                      That is to do with the ownership structure, not the business.

                      If land values are lower there is less need for debt in NZ. Net benefit on a scale unimagineable. Land values can be lowered by restricting the sale of land to NZers.

                      Why should we compete with 6 billion other people in the world to pay for our own land? dumbarse.
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 4:50 pm

                      I think you should think of ROI rather than debt payments. If a ROI in farming is not high enough to cover debt payments then people shouldn’t borrow. Also it would be foolish for banks to lend to them based on the low ROI. Hence if a bunch of foreign investors wish to come in and drive up the prices of the farms here beyond a level which makes getting a ROI after borrowing cost too high then it is they who are making a foolish bet. The risk becomes theirs not ours. We get the money from them and they are likely to take the loss when the property bubble they created bursts.
    • felix 65.2

      30 January 2012 at 9:13 am

      Your tireless patience is to be admired, you’re right to keep pointing it out.

      After all, it’s only because none of them can answer that question that they’ve put so much effort into inventing a race angle.

      Including Fran, who blustered in here last night and called everyone cowards but neglected to address almost all of the salient points put to her.

      For shame, Fran.
      • vto 65.2.1

        30 January 2012 at 9:23 am

        “Including Fran, who blustered in here last night and called everyone cowards but neglected to address almost all of the salient points put to her.”

        Yes I see that mr felix. Read some of her other points too. If she was not a columnist type thingy then I would put her in the same box as Farrar’s fools given the quality of her points.

        Other commentators on here outstrip her by a Chinese country mile when it comes to quality comment. For evidence, see this entire thread. No wonder I don’t bother with mainstream “commentators” anymore.

        Her comments are useless.
66. randal 66

    30 January 2012 at 9:16 am

    according to the last logic book I looked at an argument is correct whether you use a pseudonym or not.
    all fran sullivans crap about ‘hardening up’ and klu lux klan is just garbage to divert peoples attention from the issue which is the sale of the crafar farms.
    (as I said bef0ore she is vain and stupid.)
    if there was a genuine free market then the sale process would have been open and transparent and there would have been no need for paid flunkies of the right to offer apolgies in the bought and paid for main stream media.
    • Wayne 66.1

      30 January 2012 at 12:11 pm

      The simple fact is this. New Zealand under the Labour government signed the Free Trade Agreement. Supported by most New Zealanders, and most Labour and National supporters. Exports to China in the three years before the FTA were about 5.7 billion. In the three year period immediately after the FTA was signed exports were 13.1 billion.

      The FTA also says that Chinese investment will be treated the same as any other form of investment – be it from Americans or Europeans.

      And that is why Mr Williamson signed off on the Crafar deal. He simply could not say, no we are not going to sign because we do not like the Chinese government or we think Chinese business practices are shady. Again, a Labour govt would have been forced to do the same.
67. Dennis from Accounts 67

    30 January 2012 at 11:55 am

    I will take the argument of this blog post to its logical conclusion. Let us have fun with the one eyed, selfish, and xenophobic/racist crowd with their absurd anti-free trade and foreign investment ideas.

    “I’m sick of ‘foreign’ Aucklanders buying up Taranaki farmland, turning us into tenants in ‘our’ own land and taking the profits across the Bombay Hills! I’m sick of this ‘rort’ of royalties from the Maui Oil and Gas field as well as other Taranaki oil and gas ventures being sucked out of Taranaki by the ‘New Zealand’ government in Wellington to be spent on foreign projects like Transmission Gully and Auckland’s proposed rail loop. Taranaki profits for Aucklands transport problems! Maddness!

    New Plymouth needs a new bridge across the Waiwhakaiho River for goodness sake! Yet all the profits are sucked out of Taranaki by a RORT committed by foreign Auckland and Wellington interests! What has ‘free trade’ and ‘foreign investment’ between the NZ provinces done for any of us! That’s right made us all poorer!

    We want self-determination here in Taranaki! You foreign New Zealanders can sod off! I’m sick of billions of oil and agricultural profits being sucked to Auckland and Wellington and god knows where else to the detriment of us. Free trade and foreign investment doesn’t work. Has free trade between the provinces worked in NZ? NO! Has free trade worked between the cities of NZ? NO! Has it worked amongst the suburbs and streets of NZ cities? NO!

    As you can see, I’m true to my principles. I take the anti -free trade / anti-foreigners argument to its logical conclusion. So should you!!!”

    *
    You see the same arguments against free trade and foreign investment among independent sovereign states should logically follow as arguments against free trade and foreign investment among New Zealand provinces, towns and cities, or individuals. It is simple logic.

    If these restrictions that so many want against foreigners are so good for NZ why don’t we try them on a regional level! Not allowing profits to leave Otago to Wellington must be a great idea! Not having Aucklanders buy and own Bay of Plenty holiday homes is a great idea – in fact those foreign Aucklanders must be pushing up BoP house prices! Why do people in Canterbury with the locally owned CBS Canterbury Bank available allow that ‘Kiwibank’ rort millions out of Canterbury and take the profits offshore to Wellington (literally offshore as Cook Strait separates the two islands)!

    Why is it that when you trade across a sub-national border like between NSW and Queensland, California and Oregon or Auckland and Northland free-trade is good, but when it crosses a border between the borders of states that are completely independent that it becomes the end of the world!

    If the South Island became independent tomorrow would all the free-trade and investment between the two islands become bad? Would the ownership of a Southland farm by someone in the Bay of Plenty become foreign investment – requiring stringent control’s before… “South Islanders become tenants in their own land!”

    If we had become a state of Australia in 1901, none of you would consider the purchase of Crafar farms by a Victorian as an issue, but because NZ is a state that gets to play with its own armed forces all of a sudden the trade between states becomes an issue.

    May I also point out that NZ citizenship didn’t exist until 1948. Before then you were a British subject. So were every Briton, Canadian, Australian, South African and millions of others across the British Empire and Commonwealth foreign. If they had the same citizenship then they’re good to go to invest here aren’t they? That is a criteria many people want as a requirement for investing here that has sprung up over the sale of these farms. Also, if every Briton, Canadian, Aussie, South African, Maltese, Jamaican and a whole lot of others could freely invest here why is it such a problem now? They had the right passport didn’t they?

    Why is it that when a good or service is traded or investment that comes from another part of the earth where the NZ government is not in control that the trade and or investment becomes bad? What would happen if the NZ government no longer controlled one of the provinces like my examples above – would that now be bad? The trade and investment between the provinces, cities, towns, suburbs and streets of New Zealand seems to be doing ‘us’ just fine. So if it works for us in NZ why don’t we carry out the same practice with others around the world?
    • felix 67.1

      30 January 2012 at 3:57 pm

      What a lot of time you spent repeating that tired old cliche, Dennis, when you could have simply stated in one sentence that you don’t understand the difference between a logical conclusion and an absurd reduction.

      Ah well, got to do something with your days I suppose.
      • Matt 67.1.1

        30 January 2012 at 11:35 pm

        Post of the day.
      • Dennis from Accounts 67.1.2

        31 January 2012 at 1:47 pm

        Quite true felix. A stupid error on my part. But I believe the argument concerning borders and nationality still stand. They have no real bearing on the economic outcome on trade between the parties involved.

        I find it ridiculous that a complete stranger who shares the same nationality as me can come up and tell me that I cannot sell land or shares in a company to someone just because they are of the ‘wrong’ nationality. The person I might be selling the land or shares in could be someone I know as a friend or as a close acquittance, should we not judge people on the content of their character and not some arbitrary qualification?

        I too have some issues with the close ties that this Chinese company has the Chinese state apparatus, but I am also well aware that the transfer of property ownership in the Crafar decision is extremely unlikely to have a PLAAF Airbase spring up in the NZ country side. The NZ government can regulate the property how it likes if it chose to do so (although I’m well aware of the China FTA).
        • Colonial Viper 67.1.2.1

          31 January 2012 at 1:51 pm

          They have no real bearing on the FINANCIAL outcome on trade between the parties involved.

          FIFY

          Is it me or do you not understand the difference between the financial implications of this deal and the economic implications of this deal (where the former is merely a subset of the latter)?
        • Colonial Viper 67.1.2.2

          31 January 2012 at 1:54 pm

          I find it ridiculous that a complete stranger who shares the same nationality as me can come up and tell me that I cannot sell land or shares in a company to someone just because they are of the ‘wrong’ nationality.

          get over your ridiculousness. Happens not just with land but with many other “sensitive products” in every advanced country of the world, buddy.
    • ropata 67.2

      30 January 2012 at 10:43 pm

      Why is it that when a good or service is traded or investment that comes from another part of the earth where the NZ government is not in control that the trade and or investment becomes bad?

      $10 billion per year sucked out of the economy by foreign banks/shareholders
      Farmers gambling on capital gains not long term sustainability
      Property price bubble exacerbated by foreign capital
      Law of supply and demand ruined by overseas land sales ie. unaffordable housing
      A huge percentage of Kiwis who will never have their own home
      Social dislocation and resentment from being shut out of the system
      Rich foreigners buying up prime beachfront land and closing camping grounds – no more kiwi holiday!

      Other cultures do not share NZ values of conservation and public assets, pillaging the earth is their aim…

      The democratic nation state (for all its faults) came into existence as a powerful repudiation of feudalism and class oppression, we are in an ‘interesting’ phase of history where the wealthy elites are challenging its foundation using all their economic power. They will lose because their wealth is gained by the consent of the people. When that social contract is treated like toilet paper the Occupy movement will seem like nothing. Think of Libya, Egypt, the French Revolution.
      • ropata 67.2.1

        30 January 2012 at 10:56 pm

        In other words, the NZ government is the only protection Kiwis have against the depredations of transnational capital.
        • Colonial Viper 67.2.1.1

          30 January 2012 at 11:04 pm

          Which is why the 0.1% seek to imprison the free will of the NZ Govt within the chains of FTA’s and other international trading (capitalist) agreements.
    • Frank Macskasy 67.3

      31 January 2012 at 12:15 am

      Dennis…

      Your metaphor collapses (and not just under extreme wordiness – which I’m occassionally guilty of myself) but because of a very simple point you forgot.

      Nations have Balance of Trade figures. This affects their credit rating, and the cost of capital they may borrow from Banks.

      Regions in NZ do not have Balance of Trade figures. The cost of capital is the same, generally, in Auckland as it is in Dunedin. If there is capital flight out of Christchurch, to say, Whangamata, it does not affect my mortgage in the former. Nor the value of my dollar.

      Thank you. Have a nice night.
      • Gosman 67.3.1

        31 January 2012 at 5:49 am

        Once again you show your extreme ignorance around some basic economic principles.

        The sale of the Crafer farms will have little effect on the Balance of Trade other than possibly making it better for us if they increase production on the farm

        What it might negatively affect is the Balance of Payments if large amounts of profits are repatriated. However the initial purchase mitigates this somewhat as it is a big boost to the BOP.
        • Frank Macskasy 67.3.1.1

          31 January 2012 at 10:59 am

          What rubbish.

          Do you mean to say with a straight face that losing export income is not going to impact on our Balance of Payments?!?!

          I suggest you have a look at out Balance of Payments hisytory obver the last 40 years or so. The more assets we’ve sold into foreign ownership, the worse our BoP is.

          Look at our Current Account:

          http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/current-account

          (Enter ‘1965’ as a value into the Date Selection on the left. The graph will show the new data automatically.)

          Then look at our exports:

          http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/exports

          Even our Balance of Trade isn’t that flash;

          http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/balance-of-trade

          From the mid 1980s onward, NZ Inc has sold billions of dollars worth of state assets; thousands of hectares of farmland; and allowed millions of dollars worth of ‘investment’ from offshore investors -and yet the BoP is still in deficit?

          And the GDP ppp for Scandinavian countries is still higher than ours?

          Albert Einstein once remarked that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again – and expecting a different result.

          I invite you, Gosman, to look at the data on the website above. Instead of asking gormless questions (which you really aren’t interested in having answered anyway), do a bit of research using the stats. They’re all from reputable left-wing organisationsuch such as NZ Treasury, Reserve Bank of NZ, IMF, OECD, and Worldbank – so all good.
          • Gosman 67.3.1.1.1

            31 January 2012 at 11:08 am

            Gawd Frank you are an embarrassment sometimes.

            Please note that I didn’t mention it wouldn’t impact on our Balance of Payments. I fact I stated the following “What it might negatively affect is the Balance of Payments if large amounts of profits are repatriated”. Did you see the bit where I stated it might have a negative effect on our BOP if large amounts of profits are repatriated?

            What you are continuing to misunderstand is that it doesn’t impact on our Balance of Trade much. This goes back to your lack of understanding over what constitutes Imports and Exports and the difference between these and Capital flows.

            I will repeat my request to you. If you are going to comment on economic issues then perhaps you should take the time to learn some basic economic concepts.
            • Frank Macskasy 67.3.1.1.1.1

              31 January 2012 at 11:13 am

              You haven’t addressed a single point I raised.

              By the way, re you comment,

              “What it might negatively affect is the Balance of Payments if large amounts of profits are repatriated. However the initial purchase mitigates this somewhat as it is a big boost to the BOP.”

              The “initial purchase” doesn’t “mitigate” the BoP issue at all.

              The money goes to Australian Banks to pay of debt.

              Balance of Payments therefore WILL be impacted negatively once profits start flowing out.

              Now, how about addressing the issues I raised above?
              • Gosman …

                31 January 2012 at 11:18 am

                The ponts you raise just serves to hihlight your lack of knowledge of basic economic terms.

                You seem to think we somehow lose Exports as a result of the sale of a farm.

                You seem to think our Balance of Trade, (you do acknowledge you used that term don’t you Frank?), is impacted negatively by a farm sale to overseas interests.

                That is patently absurd reasoning.

                I have already acknowledged that our Balance of Payments MAY be negatively impacted. This is dependent on a number of factors.
              • Gosman …

                31 January 2012 at 11:23 am

                The purchase does mitigate the BOP position even if the money went to an Australian owned bank. The money doesn’t go straight to Australia Frank. Only someone with a primary school understanding of Economics would think that. It goes into the NZ based banks accounts. Only if the NZ based bank makes a profit will SOME (not all) of these funds get repatriated as part of the dividends the NZ based bank pays it’s Australian parent. If you bank with an Australian based bank Frank and pay fees and interest then you two are contributing to this. Even if you bank with Kiwibank a large amount of money is finding it’s way to Australia.
          • Gosman 67.3.1.1.2

            31 January 2012 at 11:14 am

            By the way NZ doesn’t lose Export income when a Farm is sold overseas. It still is credited with the Exports from the farm. It MAY very well lose the profits from the business that is responsible for those exports though. In short read a text book Frank and educate yourself.
            • Frank Macskasy 67.3.1.1.2.1

              31 January 2012 at 11:23 am

              I notice that your none-too subtle put-downs are increasing with each post you make, Gosman.

              You do realise that it makes you look fairly childish?

              Have a look at some of the posts that address you. Folks are treating you like a fool.
              • Gosman …

                31 January 2012 at 11:29 am

                Frank, this is a left wing blog.I would expect nothing less. Just as I expect you to be pilloried if you bothered posting on Kiwiblog or Whaleoil. A bunch of left wing people disagreeing with my right wing opinion is not somehow shocking.

                What is embarrassing is for a lefty like you to so fundamentally misunderstand basic economic principles like the difference between the Balance of Trade and the Balance of Payments and get called out for it here. I mean you are bothering to comment on this and your own blog when you obviously don’t understand those terms. Why do you do it Frank? Why do you continue to comment when you don’t understand basic concepts of economics?
                • Frank Macskasy …

                  31 January 2012 at 11:58 am

                  “Frank, this is a left wing blog.I would expect nothing less. Just as I expect you to be pilloried if you bothered posting on Kiwiblog or Whaleoil.”

                  ???

                  Gosman, don’t blame “a left wing blog” for your own inability to address issues whilst resorting to personal jibes.

                  Your responses are YOUR personal responsibility. (Personal Responsibility – right wingers are supposedly Big on personal responsibility.)

                  Instead of deflecting from the points I raised by remarking on my knowledge of economics – how about you answer some fairly simply, straight forward questions and points I raised? If you’re so much more knowledgeable on the issues that I (and others) have raised – why aren’t you able to stick to the issues?

                  Show us YOUR knowledge of economic issues rather than skirting around points raised.

                  Why the need for personal jibes? Because you can’t play the issues, so you try put-downs to dismiss those same issues.

                  Saying that “what is embarrassing is for a lefty like you to so fundamentally misunderstand basic economic principles like the difference between the Balance of Trade and the Balance of Payments and get called out for it here” is not an answer.

                  Actually, it’s worse than not being an answer – you’re actually avoiding the issue.

                  In effect, Gosman, one of us is not playing the game.

                  And yes, I’m “calling you out” on your evasiveness.

                  Answer the questions, mate. It’s not rocket science. And if you don’t know the answers – use Google and look them up.
                  • Frank Macskasy …

                    31 January 2012 at 12:01 pm

                    So, let’s try it again, Gosman;

                    I suggest you have a look at out Balance of Payments hisytory obver the last 40 years or so. The more assets we’ve sold into foreign ownership, the worse our BoP is.

                    Look at our Current Account:

                    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/current-account

                    (Enter ’1965′ as a value into the Date Selection on the left. The graph will show the new data automatically.)

                    Then look at our exports:

                    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/exports

                    Even our Balance of Trade isn’t that flash;

                    http://www.tradingeconomics.com/new-zealand/balance-of-trade

                    From the mid 1980s onward, NZ Inc has sold billions of dollars worth of state assets; thousands of hectares of farmland; and allowed millions of dollars worth of ‘investment’ from offshore investors -and yet the BoP is still in deficit?

                    And the GDP ppp for Scandinavian countries is still higher than ours?

                    Albert Einstein once remarked that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again – and expecting a different result.
                  • Gosman …

                    31 January 2012 at 12:10 pm

                    So you acknowledge that your understanding of basic economic concepts is wrong do you?

                    Once we have established that fact I am more that happy to address your lack of knowledge in the subject.
                    • Frank Macskasy …

                      31 January 2012 at 12:19 pm

                      Evasion.

                      Again.

                      I think we understand now, Gosman; you are unable to address the points that people put to you.

                      And that, I’m afraid, is symptomatic of many right wingers whose understand of economics is superficial and based on ideology rather than economic and social realities.

                      When right wingers stridently maintain that the sale of farm land to offshore investors (regardless of nationality or zodiac sign); and then are tested on why it’s “good for the economy” – they are unable to reply with any rational, coherent explanation.

                      The recourse to “racism” and “xenophobia” is the Plan B of right wingers as they have lost the economic argument.

                      You’ve demonstrated that fact quite clearly.

                      Thank you. You have been more helpful than you realise. (And I’m saying that with a straight face, in all seriousness.)
                    • Gosman …

                      31 January 2012 at 12:21 pm

                      I am quite happy to help with your lack of knowledge of basic economic principles Frank. You just need to acknowledge that you need the help.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      31 January 2012 at 2:00 pm

                      I am quite happy to help with your lack of knowledge of basic economic principles Frank.

                      Basic economic principles are basically all completely wrong.

                      Chicago school assumptions around debt, shape of price/demand curves, rationality, utility maximising individual behaviour, efficiency and transparency of markets, relationship between savings and loans, etc. all completely wrong.

                      You offering to share these lies with others is not really a help.
                    • Gosman …

                      31 January 2012 at 2:15 pm

                      Really CV? The difference between the Balance of Trade and the Balance of Payments is all lies is it? Is up actually down and left is right in this version of reality of yours?

                      Please tell me why the difference between the balance of trade and balance of payments is a lie.
                    • insider …

                      31 January 2012 at 2:19 pm

                      Guys, I think you need to separate out economic concepts from economic philosophies otherwise you’ll be arguing about this all day and get nowhere…. 😉
      • Gosman 67.3.2

        31 January 2012 at 5:52 am

        Might I suggest that if you are going to use Economic concepts in your arguments Frank yuou spend some time actually learning about them. I already told you that your understanding between BOP and BOT was incorrect months ago.
        • Frank Macskasy 67.3.2.1

          31 January 2012 at 12:30 pm

          No.
          • Gosman 67.3.2.1.1

            31 January 2012 at 12:42 pm

            No what? No, you don’t want to take the time to actually understand the subject before your spout off about it or no, you don’t believe you were told the difference between the BOT and BOP months ago?
            • Colonial Viper 67.3.2.1.1.1

              31 January 2012 at 2:04 pm

              Economic concepts lolwut

              Have you noticed that the more bank economists they get together in a place, the worse that country does?

              But when the likes of Iceland, Malaysia and Argentina tell the bank economists to please fuck off before we shoot you, things suddenly look up and up?

              IMO this is not a co-incidence, since orthodox economists are faux experts in expensive suits. I call them faux experts because they cannot deliver what they promise, and actually usually deliver the opposite.
              • Gosman …

                31 January 2012 at 2:16 pm

                See above CV.

                Please explain wthe difference between BOT and BOP is lies.

                This should be good for a laugh.
                • McFlock …

                  31 January 2012 at 2:43 pm

                  Please explain wthe difference between BOT and BOP is lies.

                  Comprehension fail. CV said

                  “Basic economic principles are basically all completely wrong.
                  Chicago school assumptions around debt, shape of price/demand curves, rationality, utility maximising individual behaviour, efficiency and transparency of markets, relationship between savings and loans, etc. all completely wrong.
                  You offering to share these lies with others is not really a help.”

                  CV is not the first person to argue that modern economic theory, particularly the chicago-school acolytes, is a farce, at best a highly inaccurate pseudoscience and at worst a lie knowingly uttered to keep the have-nots from shooting the haves. 
                   
                  Easy demonstration: economic theories, even the contradictory ones, are all irrefutable.
                  The fact we are in a rec/depression is simply proof to each different faction that the world didn’t follow their particular belief exactly.
                    
                  Physics can refute the theory of gravity, or the theory of relativity. It is theoretically possible that a counter-example will be observed that shows them to be wrong. 
                    
                  No economic theory can make this claim.
                  It’s all bullshit. Any distinction between balance of trade and balance of payments is therefore a distinction between indicators that are gathered imperfectly  in order to indicate different things in different ways (the same fluctuation will “indicate” different outcomes based on one’s faction). It seems to me that this is what CV was calling you on – your obsession with economic “principles” that will be obselete arcania in a few hundred years, going the way of the humours, dragons and the chivalric code.
                   
68. randal 68

    30 January 2012 at 12:15 pm

    bollocks.
    he could have put them up for open tender and they could have been sold individually instead of the craven pandering way it was done in the way we have come to know about how tory politicians do things.
    • Wayne 68.1

      30 January 2012 at 12:28 pm

      he could have put them up for open tender and they could have been sold individually …..

      randal ….what is your IQ? It was the creditors who decided to sell them as a single batch. As is their right.

      Mr Williams has no more right telling the creditors how they should sell the farms, anymore than he has the right to tell you whether or not you should subdivide your property and sell it off in lots or as a single item.
      • ropata 68.1.1

        30 January 2012 at 11:21 pm

        Yes Wayne, NZers have no right to comment on the sale of large blocks of NZ by Aussie banks to Chinese consotiums.
      • Frank Macskasy 68.1.2

        31 January 2012 at 11:03 am

        Subdivision requires local body consent.
69. randal 69

    30 January 2012 at 12:16 pm

    onw more thing wayne.
    just who was doing the forcing?
70. Wayne 70

    30 January 2012 at 12:25 pm

    The simple fact is this.

    If Williamson had refused the Crafar deal, even though all the boxes were ticked by this Chinese group, this would undoubtedly have been a breech of the FTA.

    And it would have been percieved by the Chinese that the only reason they were refused the deal was because they are, well, Chinese. Especially after the fact that hundreds of thousands of hectares have already been sold to Western buyers.

    That of course would seriously harm New Zealands trading interests.

    Our relationship with China is basically the reason why New Zealand has the 12th lowest unemployment rate of the 34 OECD countries and is below the average OECD rate of 8.2%.

    Australia’s economy is similarly kept afloat by China trade, and her unemployment rate of 5.2% is even lower than that of New Zealand’s.

    It is because of Australia and New Zealand’s economic ties with China, that these two countries have had a relatively soft landing after the 2008 economic meltdown.

    You think Key and Williamson are going to jeopardize all this by rejecting this one deal? If the deal was rejected the Chinese would have perceived this as a racially based decision (rightly or wrongly). And of course a breach of the FTA.

    Economic relations with China means she is treated as an equal to the US and Western Europe.

    The Chinese are extremely sensitive to this, given their very recent history when they were treated as anything but equals by Europeans. They still remember it was little over 60 years ago when Europeans in China were not required to observe Chinese laws.

    Any perception by China that she is not being treated as an equal and they could chuck everything out. New Zealand has far more to lose than China.

    If you object to China’s political system, her way of doing business, you should not have supported the FTA three years ago. At least in this respect Mr Peters is consistent. He opposes the Crafar farms deal, and the FTA which made such a deal hard to reject.
    • felix 70.1

      30 January 2012 at 1:07 pm

      I didn’t support the FTA Wayne. Anything else?

      “And it would have been percieved by the Chinese that the only reason they were refused the deal was because they are, well, Chinese … If the deal was rejected the Chinese would have perceived this as a racially based decision…”

      You still don’t get how racist these statements make you appear, do you?
    • One Anonymous Bloke 70.2

      30 January 2012 at 1:39 pm

      “The Chinese are extremely sensitive to this, given their very recent history when they were treated as anything but equals by Europeans. They still remember it was little over 60 years ago when Europeans in China were not required to observe Chinese laws.”

      Whereas nowadays, foreigners have the right to have the shit kicked out of them with everyone else.

      China is ruled by organised crime. What “laws”?
71. Frank Macskasy 71

    30 January 2012 at 1:20 pm

    If Williamson had refused the Crafar deal, even though all the boxes were ticked by this Chinese group, this would undoubtedly have been a breech of the FTA.

    In which case we have a problem then, don’t we, Wayne?

    If we have lost control over who we sell our farmland to (and I make zero distrinction between our German, Swiss, Chinese, American, et al, cuzzies) – then we have lost control over our sovereignty.

    It means we are no longer a soveriegn nation.

    And it means we have become party to a regime we had no say in agreeing to. It’s akin to “taxation without representation”.

    Our relationship with China is basically the reason why New Zealand has the 12th lowest unemployment rate of the 34 OECD countries and is below the average OECD rate of 8.2%.

    Nonsense.

    Any position we have relates to the positive fiscal position that Labour left this country in, in 2008; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2011/11/16/labour-the-economic-record-2000-2008/

    Nett foreign debt was all but paid off.

    Australia’s economy is similarly kept afloat by China trade, and her unemployment rate of 5.2% is even lower than that of New Zealand’s

    Australia also has had compulsory super savings since 1992, and has a strong Union movemrent that has resisted down-ward pressures on local wages – unlike New Zealand, which has been driving down wage-rates.

    You think Key and Williamson are going to jeopardize all this by rejecting this one deal? If the deal was rejected the Chinese would have perceived this as a racially based decision (rightly or wrongly). And of course a breach of the FTA.

    So, tell us, Wayne – how do you feel about losing sovereignty to another nation?

    If we have lost control over who we will/won’t sell our land or assets to – where does that lreave us in terms of sovereignty?

    Because really, it make Parliament irrelevant and our elections a waste of time.

    Economic relations with China means she is treated as an equal to the US and Western Europe.

    I have no problem with that.

    In fact, I don’t want our farmland sold to the Germans or Americans either.
    • Gosman 71.1

      30 January 2012 at 2:10 pm

      By the way Frank it was the same Labour led Government you praise which essentially sold more of our precious farmland into overseas hands than the current Government. It is also the same Labour led Government that signed the free trade agreement with China that is a major stumbling block to discriminating against the Chinese buying the land.
    • Wayne 71.2

      30 January 2012 at 3:17 pm

      “If we have lost control over who we sell our farmland to (and I make zero distrinction between our German, Swiss, Chinese, American, et al, cuzzies) – then we have lost control over our sovereignty.”

      We have not lost control over it. The simple fact is this. If for this one particular sale had been refused after it met all the criteria, after hundreds of thousands of hectares had already been sold off to largely white foreign buyers, that would have been construed as racially motivated (for good reason). This of course could well have impacted on other areas of our relationship with China.

      The way to get around this of course, is to change the laws. And to avoid controversy perhaps do it while there is not a big Chinese offer on the horizon, or do it by rejecting the next American or European bid. Because Americans and Europeans have already bought up so much, that could hardly be seen as anti-American, or anti-European. Also course because Americans, Europeans, and New Zealanders are still largely populated by white people.

      And of course where you have the case of a non-white people involved, there will always be sensitivity over whether or not they are treated equally with white people. Especially in light of the recent history of colonisation and invasion.

      So I was the government I would be looking to change the laws, in light of the public outcry, and applying this law to the next big offer which comes through (although of course if the buyers were not Chinese there would be little public outcry).

      I guess that is what they will be looking at now.
      • Frank Macskasy 71.2.1

        31 January 2012 at 12:36 pm

        From me;

        “If we have lost control over who we sell our farmland to (and I make zero distrinction between our German, Swiss, Chinese, American, et al, cuzzies) – then we have lost control over our sovereignty.”

        Your response;

        “We have not lost control over it. The simple fact is this. If for this one particular sale had been refused after it met all the criteria, after hundreds of thousands of hectares had already been sold off to largely white foreign buyers, that would have been construed as racially motivated (for good reason). This of course could well have impacted on other areas of our relationship with China.”

        Wayne, you’ve actually confirmed that we’ve lost soverereignty by stating “If for this one particular sale had been refused after it met all the criteria, after hundreds of thousands of hectares had already been sold off to largely white foreign buyers, that would have been construed as racially motivated (for good reason). This of course could well have impacted on other areas of our relationship with China.”

        In effect, If we had done “A” then “B” would have happened, and “C” would have been the result.
72. randal 72

    30 January 2012 at 1:28 pm

    so would the chinese send a gunboat or an aircraft carrier down here just for a a few farms?
    • Wayne 72.1

      31 January 2012 at 2:09 am

      Gunboats? Unlikely.

      It is the UK, US, and their Canadian, Australian, and New Zealand lackeys (Christ Trotter’s Anglo Saxon ‘fist’) which does that type of stuff to non-white people.

      When the Egyptians nationalised the Suez canal, the British (and French) carried out an invasion.

      When the Kenyan people demanded independence, the British interred about 1/8th of the population, committing unspeakable atrocities against women and children.

      More recently of course the US and UK have killed at least a couple of hundred thousand civilians in Iraq. Madeleine Albright famously described the deaths of half a million Iraqi children as ‘worth it’.

      Of course an obviously dumb stupid cunt like Randal (who waxes lyrical about american ‘values’ and their supposed respect for the ‘rule of law’) has no ideas of such things.
      • Populuxe1 72.1.1

        31 January 2012 at 3:15 am

        Yes Wayne, the same people who protected stopped the Bosnian Serbs getting slaughtered, the Iraqi kurds getting slaughtered, the Lybian Rebels getting slaughtered… And it was also the US who told the UK to piss off out of Suez. Oh, what about the Springbok protests too, while we’re at it. You use the term Anglo-saxon in a very peculiar way – most curious. Actually while the Anglos did quite well, they were only amateurs compared to the Romans, the Greeks, the Spanish, the Portuguese, and were no more vicious in their expansions than Japan or Germany. As per usual, any thesis based on racial characteristics is nonsense.
        However, if you want to talk about atrocities, here’s a few names you might be familiar with: Tiananmen, the Uyghers of  Xinjiang, Tibet, one could go on – suffice to say no one has a monopoly on the moral high ground or inhuman behaviour. It has nothing to do with race. I have a chilly feeling your IP address would ping back to Beijing.
73. Gosman 73

    30 January 2012 at 2:07 pm

    There are a couple of additional questions that opposition to the sale of farm land raises.

    Firstly, does this mean people are opposed to the concept of Sharemilking and if so should this profession be discouraged?

    Secondly, this leftist concer with the agricultural sector seems to fly in the face of the political reality that Farmers generally vote National. Do you really think farmers are going to be itching to jump over to left leaning parties based on this issue?
    • felix 73.1

      30 January 2012 at 2:10 pm

      God you really have run out of steam.
    • The Voice of Reason 73.2

      30 January 2012 at 2:19 pm

      “Do you really think farmers are going to be itching to jump over to left leaning parties based on this issue?”
       
      If the conversation in the rural pub I was in on Friday night is anything to go by, the answer is “Yes”. Most of the cockies are already under pressure to sell their farms to giant aggregating companies and the old plan of passing the farm on to the kids is now a distant memory.
       
      When I pointed out to one grizzled old coot that Labour would have stopped this sale if they were the Government he was rather taken aback. He asked my why the policy wasn’t publicised, but I didn’t have all night to tell him how the NZ media works.
       
      Rationally, I don’t think the old boy really would vote Labour. But if he were to choose Winnie next time, that’s one less tick for the pricks in blue anyway.
      • Gosman 73.2.1

        30 January 2012 at 2:24 pm

        If this issue starts to hit the National party’s traditional support base then I’d expect them to look to change the rules. However Key and co currently don’t have a revolt on their hands large enough to make them rethink the policy. I very much doubt Farmers will care enough especially considering that many of them benefit from increased interest in their farmland meaning they get more when they sell up.
        • Matt 73.2.1.1

          30 January 2012 at 11:40 pm

          Sell “up”? I think you mean “out”
      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 73.2.2

        30 January 2012 at 2:29 pm

        …the old plan of passing the farm on to the kids is now a distant memory.

        My God! Have they made it compulsory to sell your land to the Chinese? When will this madness end?

        And what if your kid is Chinese? Are you able to pass it on to him or her then?
        • Gosman 73.2.2.1

          30 January 2012 at 2:34 pm

          What they are failing to address is whether or not it is a good thing that NZ farmers passed on their farms to their kids and why should they care.
        • The Voice of Reason 73.2.2.2

          30 January 2012 at 2:38 pm

          Settle down, Gormless. I didn’t mention race and while I guess the nearest you get to farmers is when the department store of the same name has a sale, if you were to talk to them, you would know that what I say is correct.
           
          A combination of the next generation not wanting to stay on the farm, changes in the leagl ability to pass on the farm as a complete entity, the conversion of sheep stations to dairy and the aggressive purchsing of farm land by big corporations has meant that the farming model that sustained us through last century no longer exists. These changes were all in train well before the Crafar farms went bust.
           
           
          • Gosman 73.2.2.2.1

            30 January 2012 at 2:53 pm

            Yeah, it is called change. It happens in economies all the time. It is in fact the strength of the Capitalist model. You might like to freeze things for all time but I prefer my economy to be a little more dynamic and responsive than that. a little over 100 years ago more people in NZ lived in rerual areas than urban. Now it is massively the other way around. We could try and turn back the clock like they did in Cambodia circa 1975 but I think it might mess with people’s human rights a tad.
            • The Voice of Reason 73.2.2.2.1.1

              30 January 2012 at 3:07 pm

              If your final comments were aimed at me, you are way off track, Gossie. But some of what you say makes sense, particularly the urbanisation you mention. Just the other day, the world shifted from a rural majority to an urban majority. The pressure to convert farmland to housing is also affecting farmers and while there can often be excellent one off returns in subdividing the land, it’s often a dead end street (no pun intended).
               
              But the real problem is corporatisation, which, ironically, is indeed like Brother No1’s Kampuchea, in that it removes ownership of the land from those that work it and concentrates power in fewer and fewer hands. It’s this alienation from our sources of wealth that really worries me.
              • Gosman …

                30 January 2012 at 3:14 pm

                I’m sorry but trying to stop some sort of natural economic movement because you don’t like the fact that increased efficiencies in an area tend to lead to increased returns for fewer people is essentially luddite. It would be like trying to state that we should restrict the use of Word processors, Spreadsheets, and e-mail because it has enabled offices to function more effectively with fewer staff. A farm is simply a business no different, other than what it produces, from any other type of business.
                • The Voice of Reason …

                  30 January 2012 at 3:49 pm

                  Leaving aside your misuse use of the term Luddite, I think you are starting to get it. The one mistake you are making is confusing efficiency with ownership. Corporatisation stifles capitalism, Gosman, and dairy farming in NZ is rapidly heading towards the domination of the industry by just a few players.
                   
                  Right now, if you are starting out in the industry as a share milker, it’s almost certain that you wil be in partnership with a Queen St accountant, not Fred Dagg.
            • ak 73.2.2.2.1.2

              30 January 2012 at 3:20 pm

              Ah. Onto dinnamic and Cambodia now. Enough, you got us.

              Give up, brothers and sisters. Gosman, Gormless, Roger Douglas and John Key are right. If you can’t follow the glorious logic of their argument, at least look to the fruits of their collective economic genii:

              It explains clearly why farmers are lining up to sell their farms (and Fonterra) to foreigners, why land sales worked out so well for Maori, why we’re now Roger’s “Switzerland of the South Pacific” and young Australians are flocking to these shores to share our bounty, and why those dumb old non-land-selling Chinese are so far behind the rest of the world. And why Gossy and co are so highly respected and successful.

              I’m voting ACT now.
              • Gosman …

                30 January 2012 at 3:51 pm

                “…why land sales worked out so well for Maori, ”

                Following that logic the areas where Maori were able to hold onto much of their land should be the areas that they are doing the best in. Do you happen to know the areas with the largest amount of land still in Maori ownership?
                • felix …

                  30 January 2012 at 3:58 pm

                  New Zealand.
                • Frank Macskasy …

                  30 January 2012 at 5:08 pm

                  “Do you happen to know the areas with the largest amount of land still in Maori ownership?”

                  Hang on. Let me spend the next two or three hours this evening researching that information for you. Then you can either ignore it or deflect from it or state that you meant something else entirely.

                  Would you like to know anything else? Perhaps the number of left-handed, vegetarian, Capricorns in Zimbabwe?

                  We live to serve by answering your most inane questions.

                  Why?

                  Dunno. Let me look it up for you…
                  • Gosman …

                    30 January 2012 at 5:40 pm

                    It isn’t irrelevant Frank. I am simply pointing out the flaw in the reasoning of ak. If Maori being deprived of their own land was the main cause of their economic position then it should stand to reason they would be economically better off in the areas of the country where they still control much of the land. However this isn’t the case. The poorest parts of the country are in places like East Cape and Northland, which coincidentally also have the lowest degree of alienation of Maori land. Land doesn’t count for anything unless you have the capital and infrastructure required to make it profitable.
                    • vto …

                      30 January 2012 at 5:46 pm

                      I see your simplicity of understanding isn’t limited to foreign ownership
                    • Frank Macskasy …

                      30 January 2012 at 5:51 pm

                      I didn’t say “irrelevant”. I said “inane”. (To be followed by 50 posts on the difference between “inane” and “irrelevent”, followed about a couple of deflections, and requests for information about the number of grains of sand on Ninety Mile Beach… )
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 5:51 pm

                      Care to explain why the places with the highest rates of land ownership by Maori are amongst the most economically deprived then vto if it isn’t to do with lack of investment?
                    • Gosman …

                      30 January 2012 at 6:01 pm

                      Many on the left, (seemingly including you Frank), seem to think that a farm is somehow different in some kind of special way over other types of businesses. It simply isn’t. In fact farms can have much lower ROI over time than something like TradeMe has. If I make 10% ROI on an investment it doesn’t matter if it is from growing corn or from selling a computer programme.

                      You might like to theorise a time when suddenly the world collapses to explain why farmland is important for a country. If that happens then food prices tend to go with it as well. Food is not usually a store of value in times of trouble. The economy collapses so does the cost of milk.

                      The only way we would have a strategic problem is if the foreign owners were deliberately circumventing NZ laws or they had the ability to set these laws themselves. This is what happened in India and Ireland under British rule. Because the Brits set the laws they were able to decree that food was exported when people were starving. As we are not giving away that ability then there is little risk of this happening with the sale of farm land.
                    • Colonial Viper …

                      30 January 2012 at 6:12 pm

                      Gosman’s stupidity it stupid.

                      Food is not usually a store of value in times of trouble. The economy collapses so does the cost of milk.

                      If you look at what happened during the Great Depression, deflationary effects on food prices did not keep up with the absolute plunge in peoples’ incomes.

                      Hence hunger and an inability to afford even the ‘cheaper’ food which was on sale (when you could find it).

                      Your amnesiac, highly financialised viewpoint is extremely limiting and irrelevant to the real world, you should really look at growing beyond it.
                    • ropata …

                      30 January 2012 at 11:38 pm

                      Hey Gosman Bro, Bastion Point and huge swathes of the bountiful Waikato were “acquired” at gunpoint. Maori were once wealthy landowners but something called the “Land Wars” took away their heritage, dispossessed them and nearly wiped them out.
                    • Gosman …

                      31 January 2012 at 5:44 am

                      Hey Ropata. I call BS on that. Large parts of the North Island are still Maori land and were NEVER taken from Maori. This is especially true of places like BOP and East Cape. As for the land wars nearly wiping them out I suggest you have next to no evidence for that hysterical nonsense.
                    • ropata …

                      31 January 2012 at 8:51 am

                      SO now you are claiming land is NOT wealth?
                      Pray tell why are there so many foreigners buying up the countryside o sagacious one?
                    • Gosman …

                      31 January 2012 at 9:11 am

                      Owning land does’t guarrantee wealth ropata. There are a number of examples of land owning aristocrats in the UK going broke because they couldn’t afford the up keep of their estates.

                      It is what you DO with the land that is key. If you use it to produce something people want then you can make money. If you use it to produce something that noone is interested in then you won’t.

                      To do this requires a combination of capital, both physical and intellectual and labour. If you don’t have enough of these then you won’t get the economic outcome that you want.
              • Frank Macskasy …

                30 January 2012 at 5:55 pm

                “I’m voting ACT now.”

                Heh heh heh…
    • Frank Macskasy 73.3

      31 January 2012 at 12:28 pm

      “Firstly, does this mean people are opposed to the concept of Sharemilking and if so should this profession be discouraged?”

      Nah, I’d be milking shares for all they’re worth, Gosman… *winks*

      “Do you really think farmers are going to be itching to jump over to left leaning parties based on this issue?”

      I prescribe a decent sheep-drench to take care of that itch. There are several good brands “Labour 4eva”, “Green & Mean”, and “NZ First-Right Wing Parasites Last”.

      Any other questions? 😉
74. randal 74

    30 January 2012 at 2:48 pm

    farmers will vote labour at the next election.
    because national is forcing fonterra to sell milk to other businesses who instead of competing in the local market are selling it overseas and competing against fonterra for export receipts.
    farmers dont just vote because of the colour of the ads.
    they have more nous than that.
    • Frank Macskasy 74.1

      30 January 2012 at 5:54 pm

      Indeed, Randal. Or even NZ First may pick up a few votes (if Winston’s fellow NZF colleagues don’t stuff things up like that did in the late 1990s).

      Key has mis-judged this one badly.

      And having Williamson deride legitamate concerns by New Zealanders as “racist” – well, not exactly the best way to win friends and influence people…
      • Gosman 74.1.1

        30 January 2012 at 6:05 pm

        You always think Key has misjudged badly and then it doesn’t have an effect or much of one. Then you blame the media, which is always the resort of someone who has lost the argument. “Oh no my prediction didn’t come true. It is because the media is in bed with the right wing parties”.I think a drinking game could almost be made out of that Frank. It could be called “Frankly speaking bollocks.”
        • Colonial Viper 74.1.1.1

          30 January 2012 at 6:07 pm

          You always think Key has misjudged badly and then it doesn’t have an effect or much of one.

          National’s coalition is 4 seats down on 2008. That’s not a reasonable sized effect.
75. Gosman 75

    30 January 2012 at 4:15 pm

    Which parts of New Zealand felix?
    • felix 75.1

      30 January 2012 at 4:30 pm

      Irrelevant, your question presupposes that land ownership is the only variable in the equation.

      We call that a strawman, as you well know.
    • Dv 75.2

      30 January 2012 at 5:17 pm

      I recall that there was a fair amount of discussion when shania twain was allowed to buy up big in wanake area too.
      • Frank Macskasy 75.2.1

        30 January 2012 at 5:46 pm

        Indeed, you’re correct, DV; http://fmacskasy.wordpress.com/2012/01/29/land-sales-a-sorry-saga-of-sheer-stupidity/
76. Frank Macskasy 76

    30 January 2012 at 5:03 pm

    Claims by Maurice Williamson that New Zealanders did not get upset over past land sales to foreign owners is patently false; http://tvnz.co.nz/view/news_national_story_skin/117876
77. felix 77

    30 January 2012 at 5:27 pm

    At the time of writing, this thread has 436 comments, of which 55 are from one person.

    That’s 12.5% , all written by the cowboy who claimed he didn’t really care one way or the other about land ownership.
    • Frank Macskasy 77.1

      30 January 2012 at 5:49 pm

      I hope he’s well remunerated by his Masters, Felix. It might make up for the loss of profits from overseas-owned farms..
      • Gosman 77.1.1

        30 January 2012 at 6:09 pm

        Paranoid conspiracy theories much Frank?

        Someone holds a differing opinion from yours and somehow he is being paid to expouse it. What utter nonsense you spout off sometimes.
        • Colonial Viper 77.1.1.1

          30 January 2012 at 6:14 pm

          Methinks doth protest too much.
        • felix 77.1.1.2

          30 January 2012 at 6:26 pm

          But you don’t hold an opinion Gosman. You don’t care one way or the other. Remember?
          • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 77.1.1.2.1

            30 January 2012 at 6:42 pm

            They should pay me instead. I’m doing a much better job.
            • felix 77.1.1.2.1.1

              30 January 2012 at 6:48 pm

              I think the opposition should be paying Gos, he’s exposing the paucity of thought behind the govt better than they ever could.
              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …

                30 January 2012 at 6:52 pm

                Speaking of the Opposition, did you hear Parker on Checkpoint saying that, while as Minister he had authorised the sale of much farmland to foreigners, he wouldn’t authorise any at all from now on?

                Hi-lar-i-ous.
                • felix …

                  30 January 2012 at 6:58 pm

                  Or a good start, depending on your p.o.v.

                  Now if they’d only get serious about rejecting the rest of the pretend-free-market corporatist ideology and get back to looking after the interests of NZ instead of the interests of global capital…
                • McFlock …

                  30 January 2012 at 6:58 pm

                  It’s called a “policy change”.
                  Be grateful for it – it is why slavery is illegal, the speed limit is now generally 50kph in urban areas, 10 year-olds aren’t sent down the mines, animals aren’t allowed to be beaten to death, and women have the vote.
                  • felix …

                    30 January 2012 at 7:05 pm

                    Not sure if you’re going to be able to sell those to right-wingers as improvements…
                    • McFlock …

                      30 January 2012 at 8:30 pm

                      aye, it is the flaw in my argument. Perhaps National with the wage&price freeze?
        • Frank Macskasy 77.1.1.3

          30 January 2012 at 9:02 pm

          Gosman, please initiate an emergency re-boot of your sense of humour.

          After all, if you take the piss out of people, or accuse them of certain things – expect to get it back.
78. randal 78

    30 January 2012 at 7:15 pm

    if gosman knows so much then let him tell us why the the east coast and northland are economically deprived.
    why gosman why?
    *waiting*
    • Colonial Viper 78.1

      30 January 2012 at 7:21 pm

      Well that’s easy, those are areas full of lazy Maori, good for nothing DPB mums and dole bludgers, and lacking investment from mainland Chinese /sarc
    • Gosman 78.2

      31 January 2012 at 5:58 am

      Because they lack investment to develop the resources.
79. vto 79

    30 January 2012 at 8:45 pm

    So, yet again, after about one million posts, still nobody in favour of selling land to foreigners has put together a cogent set of points in simple explanation of the net benefits (please please please, nobody let gosman see this..).

    Not over at kiwiblob.

    Not by John Key or Maurice Williamson. They just talk like Winston Peters.

    Not over here.

    Not over there.

    Not under the couch and not in the garden.

    Not at the table and no beg your pardon.

    Not up a tree. Not in a lee.

    Not Fran O’Sullivan. But tried by Spike Milligan (I mean gosman.)

    I really would so like someone to outline the benefits.
    • Frank Macskasy 79.1

      30 January 2012 at 9:00 pm

      Heh heh heh… very good… *thumbs up*
    • seeker 79.2

      30 January 2012 at 9:36 pm

      Tim Watkins has tried on Pundit,but even he ends up saying that after listing some benefits he has to ask himself why he is still uneasy at the sale. His answer…….because ownership matters.!!

      http://www.pundit.co.nz/content/crafar-farms-deal-ticks-the-boxes-%E2%80%93-but-where-does-it-end
      Tried to hide this from Gos…
    • Gosman 79.3

      31 January 2012 at 6:02 am

      You’ve been given an explanation you just don’t accept it.

      It would be like me stating noone has given a cogent explanation of why foreign ownership is bad for us. There has been a number of posters making a claim but I just disagree with them.

      I will state though that noone has really made a coherent argument over why selling a farm to an overseas investor is worse than selling a factory.
      • felix 79.3.1

        31 January 2012 at 6:38 am

        Strawman. No difference in theory as I’ve been saying and you’ve been ignoring all along.
      • RedLogix 79.3.2

        31 January 2012 at 6:44 am

        Great news Gosman!!!!

        Policy Central has decided that your genius idea of selling everything is the final solution. However it’s been determined that the rather luddite farming lobby is resistant; and some of the committee members own a few themselves, so we’ve decided to trial the concept on an even more unproductive class of asset …all the houses and homes.

        We were on the verge of calling for volunteers for a pilot programme when it occured to us that YOU … our loyal and faithful servant Gosman … are the ideal standard-bearer to show the way to the ordinary people.

        In order to get things moving we took the liberty of selling your home and sent the proceeds directly to the Consolidated Account in order to clearly show the ‘net benefit’ to the nation. Hope you don’t mind… the paper-work you need to sign is in the mail.
80. vto 80

    30 January 2012 at 8:47 pm

    btw, I wonder who gosman’s time got charged up to today?
81. Frank Macskasy 81

    30 January 2012 at 9:05 pm

    Hmmmm, another interesting point to consider;

    If it’s true that under the FTA with China we cannot deny them the right to bid for things they wish to buy – how is John Key going to ensure that “mum & dad” investors get first rights to buy into our power companies that are shortly to be privatised?

    Methinks John Key is about to do another major flip-flop…
    • Carol 81.1

      30 January 2012 at 9:36 pm

      Also, under the FTA, how is it that the NZ government cannot deny a Chinese firm the right to buy an NZ farm, but China can deny any NZ request to buy a farm, or land, in China?
    • muzza 81.2

      30 January 2012 at 9:54 pm

      And why are the details around the TPPA hidden for the first four years – FTA looking great for NZ so far!

      Wonder what else we can look forward to no longer being able to say no to..
      • vto 81.2.1

        30 January 2012 at 10:00 pm

        Yes.

        What are the details around the TPPA? If they are hidden, why are they hidden?

        Anyone?

        Perhaps the same person who has explained the benefits of selling our land to foreigners? … oh wait ….
    • Gosman 81.3

      31 January 2012 at 6:03 am

      You mean a major flip flop like what the Labour Party is currently performing on this very issue?
      • RedLogix 81.3.1

        31 January 2012 at 6:23 am

        Or the one Key looks like he’s going to make as well. After spending a week lecturing us all about being racists… suddenly it’s all about ‘public opinion’.

        Poor old Gosman, now he’s going to have to come back here and argue how all these farm sales are not such a wonderful thing after all… work, work, work…nothing but work. Shame how they shitcanned those overtime rates Gossy. If it all gets a bit much for you maybe they could contract it out.
        • Gosman 81.3.1.1

          31 January 2012 at 7:15 am

          Why would John Key’s opinion matter to me?
          • RedLogix 81.3.1.1.1

            31 January 2012 at 8:23 am

            We know you don’t care… just looking forward to seeing you flip-flop when the message changes.
            • Gosman 81.3.1.1.1.1

              31 January 2012 at 8:52 am

              Considering I don’t really care what John Key’s position is on this it is irrelevant.
              • felix …

                31 January 2012 at 9:29 am

                lolz
82. randal 82

    30 January 2012 at 10:22 pm

    that kweewee really knows how to make a deal.
83. millsy 83

    30 January 2012 at 10:52 pm

    Monique Watson, the only people who are spitting are the likes of you and Fran, who are busy spitting on the New Zealand flag.

    I hope you enjoy your Chinese gold. The price of that will be eternal slavery.

    I love my country, and IMO those who wish to see it sold into overseas ownership are traitors.
84. millsy 84

    30 January 2012 at 11:26 pm

    The views here of some of the right wing commentators speaks volumes about their patriotism.

    They only really care about one thing: money.

    They will have every square inch of this great country sold into Chinese ownership because all they care about is money.
    • Gosman 84.1

      31 January 2012 at 6:17 am

      Selling land overseas doesn’t impact sovereignty. The Government can still do what it likes. Youjust need to look at Zimbabwe to see that in action.
      • McFlock 84.1.1

        31 January 2012 at 11:54 am

        Or Chile. Or Cuba. That’s the funny thing about foreign ownership – foreign secret services feel obliged to try to preserve that ownership.
      • Frank Macskasy 84.1.2

        31 January 2012 at 12:55 pm

        Or Somalia – that Libertarian region where sovereignty isn’t an issue, and government barely exists?
      • Colonial Viper 84.1.3

        31 January 2012 at 12:59 pm

        Selling land overseas doesn’t impact sovereignty. The Government can still do what it likes. Youjust need to look at Zimbabwe to see that in action.

        “Sovereignty” has no financial value therefore I expect you to place no value on it.

        Not sure how you can make the claim that selling land “doesn’t impact on sovereignty” as you do not understand the concept of “sovereignty”.

        BTW the fact that the Govt might not legally be able to turn down the land sale because of the FTA demonstrates that the FTA might be a sovereignty destroying document.
85. millsy 85

    30 January 2012 at 11:46 pm

    Some good news:

    http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/rural/97103/dairy-holdings-sold

    Interesting that it could be the Super Fund….
86. felix 86

    31 January 2012 at 7:03 am

    Well well, it took a while but finally Gosman clearly articulates the National Party’s vision:

    It would actually be incredibly beneficial to NZers if we sold the entire countries farm land.

    There it is, the brighter future. Ambitious for New Zealand.
    • RedLogix 86.1

      31 January 2012 at 8:34 am

      And given that he’s comprehensively argued that there is no fundamental difference between farmland and any other business… we should hock all them off too.

      And as for that really underperforming class of asset … our houses and homes… absolutely they have to go.

      Why didn’t we see this before… we’re rich beyond our wildest dreams felix!!
      • Gosman 86.1.1

        31 January 2012 at 8:50 am

        Simple questor you Red Logix. Which is better economically – NZers makes a 10 % return on investments in NZ or NZers make 20 % return on investment off shore?
        • Colonial Viper 86.1.1.1

          31 January 2012 at 8:58 am

          The only way you can make 20% pa (or even 10% pa) is by participating in a ponzi scheme or asset price bubble.

          Your suggestions are both unrealistic and unsustainable. I suggest you grow out of your highly financialised view of decision making.
          • Gosman 86.1.1.1.1

            31 January 2012 at 9:16 am

            When you grow out of your infantile winner takes all leftist view of the world CV.
            • Colonial Viper 86.1.1.1.1.1

              31 January 2012 at 9:48 am

              “Winner takes all” – ironic as this is the capitalist’s view of the world, as is evidenced by the 0.1% hoarding 20% or more of the world’s weath for themselves.
              • felix …

                31 January 2012 at 10:00 am

                Gosman prefers to see it as a “natural economic movement” in which “increased efficiencies in an area tend to lead to increased returns for fewer people”.

                Apparently it’s also “essentially luddite” to attempt any reversal of said trend and ultimately we’d all be better off selling everything.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  31 January 2012 at 1:02 pm

                  “increased efficiencies in an area tend to lead to increased returns for fewer people”.

                  I suppose he hasn’t quite cottoned on to the fact that the chances of him being included in this exclusive club of the better off “fewer people” = fuck all.
87. The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 87

    31 January 2012 at 8:26 am

    Where were you guys when this one happened:

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/5712149/Ngai-Tahu-sells-Canterbury-forestry-land?
    • Colonial Viper 87.1

      31 January 2012 at 8:32 am

      I think quite a few commentators on The Std made relevant parallel points when it became known that iwi corporates were using foreign fishing boats with foreign fishing crews.
      • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell 87.1.1

        31 January 2012 at 9:37 am

        I look forward to Millsy insisting that they be hanged.
        • Colonial Viper 87.1.1.1

          31 January 2012 at 9:49 am

          Actually they usually just end up sinking in the Ross Sea, so gallows costs are saved.
88. Monique Watson 88

    31 January 2012 at 11:40 am

    You’re pretty much correct Millsy. Apart from standing up to bullies, money is all I care about. Enough money to raise my kids and do a bit of good for the community. I don’t give a shit who owns the land to be honest. Our feet all touch the same earth. You find wankers everywhere so it doesn’t matter what colour they are.
    • millsy 88.1

      31 January 2012 at 11:48 am

      ” standing up to bullies”

      Which is what you are Monique. Calling your tenants cockroaches and oxygen theives, and wanting the poor to be thrown on the street.

      So how much have you benefited from the changes to state housing as a rental property, having all those DPB mums to charge 80% of their income in rent, because they find they cannot get a state house?
    • felix 88.2

      31 January 2012 at 12:01 pm

      “You find wankers everywhere so it doesn’t matter what colour they are.”

      The Baron, Gosman, Wayne, and a couple of the others have been trying to find examples of the kind of racism you’re implying for about four days now.

      Let’s see you try Monique. Give us one example of someone on this site who opposes the sale of land to one race or nationality but not to another.
      • Gosman 88.2.1

        31 January 2012 at 12:04 pm

        Where have I been trying to find examples of racism? Just because you wanted us to doesn’t mean we tried to. It would be like me stating that you tried to explain why the Tumeke blog views about this issue being used to dog whistle to racists was wrong. You never did that at all. To claim that you did would be lying.
        • felix 88.2.1.1

          31 January 2012 at 12:07 pm

          Then it’s about time you admitted that you can’t find any.
          • Gosman 88.2.1.1.1

            31 January 2012 at 12:39 pm

            I’m not looking for examples of racism so why would it be time for me to admit I can’t find any?

            I’m also not looking for pink unicorns. Do you think it is time to admit I can’t find any of those?
            • felix 88.2.1.1.1.1

              31 January 2012 at 12:43 pm

              Then you need to retract and apologise for comments like this one you silly boy.
        • Frank Macskasy 88.2.1.2

          31 January 2012 at 12:32 pm

          Actually, your use of Phoebe Fletcher’s article is unfair. She wasn’t making any such suggestion at all. Not that you care, but let’s stick to facts, eh?
          • Gosman 88.2.1.2.1

            31 January 2012 at 12:37 pm

            Are you going to finally acknowledge you need help with understanding basic economic concepts Frank?
            • felix 88.2.1.2.1.1

              31 January 2012 at 12:46 pm

              Says the guy who thinks we’d be better off if we sold all of NZ’s farms to overseas interests (along with all of the other businesses as they’re no different to farms).
            • Frank Macskasy 88.2.1.2.1.2

              31 January 2012 at 12:58 pm

              I fully acknowledge that my understanding of economics is not at your “level”, Gosman.

              For which I am quite grateful.

              Back on topic; your mis-use of Phoebe Fletcher’s blogpiece on “Tumeke: is dishonest.

              You cannot find any rational argument or evidence to support the Crafar sale to overseas investors – so you try to mis-represent what Ms Fletcher wrote?

              Bad form, mate. Intellectually dishonest.
            • Frank Macskasy 88.2.1.2.1.3

              31 January 2012 at 1:01 pm

              By the way. Still no answers?

              Oh dear, you right wingers really have run out of steam. Little wonder that National has resorted to it’s own deflection; using “racism” and “xenophobia”, as you do Gosman.
              • Gosman …

                31 January 2012 at 3:55 pm

                Phoebe tends to distance herself from her views when people take the obvious implications about what she writes. I actually agreed with your assessment of what she wrote when you originally pulled her up on it. Phoebe tries to have it both ways. It is a rather bad trait.
              • Gosman …

                31 January 2012 at 3:58 pm

                By the way I thought it was quite pathetic when you apologised and reversed your original comments about her post. The fact that you took from her post the logical implication that you did and she reckons it wasn’t states more about how she put forward her views than it does your interpretation.
89. felix 89

    31 January 2012 at 12:05 pm

    Once more, just because it’s so teh awesome. Gosman provides a glimpse of the brighter future:

    It would actually be incredibly beneficial to NZers if we sold the entire countries farm land.

    That’s where he’s at.
    • ropata 89.1

      31 January 2012 at 12:52 pm

      According to Gosman, if it isn’t making money it should be sold. So there goes our national parks and marine reserves.
    • Frank Macskasy 89.2

      31 January 2012 at 1:12 pm

      Good lord!! How the hell did I miss that crap?

      To requote,

      It would actually be incredibly beneficial to NZers if we sold the entire countries farm land. Not only would our Debt levels fall to virtually zero we would also have a highly priced dollar that we could exploit to take advantage of high performing assets in other countries. The high dollar would reduce the returns for the new owners oif the farms. While NZers were either being paid to manage the farms (at no risk to their capital) or using the massive capitalinjection to invest offshore the new owners would most likely be in a position where they wanted or needed to sell their underperforming assets. Hence there would be a fire sale of NZ farms and NZers could therefore them up again much cheaper than they sold them for. Of course it isn’t likely to happen this way but the concept is about as likely as anything someone from the left postulates and at least is consistent with standard economic thinking. – Gosman

      That has to be the most naive, si mplistic view of economics since my nephew asked why he couldn’t have $100 pocket money instead of $10. (He was about 8 or 9.) At least my nephew understood when it was patiently explained to him.

      And no wonder Gosman evades direct questioons or issues put to him; he truly is clueless.

      (As usual, I’ve noticed that it is the Left that has to explain economic realities to Right Wingers. For Right Wingers, asset/farm sales = Money trees. And as we all know, there ain’t no such thing. )
      • Gosman 89.2.1

        31 January 2012 at 2:22 pm

        I was hypthesising an example. I neither advcate for or against that position. In fact I care not a jot how much of our land is owned by overseas interests. I note noone has identified exactly why the scenario isn’t beneficial to NZers just tried to imply that is what I am advocating, (which it is not).

        By the way Frank, I think not knowing the difference between the Balance of Trade and Balance of Payments is about as stupid in economics as you can get. So you get the award on that front.
        • Frank Macskasy 89.2.1.1

          31 January 2012 at 3:02 pm

          By the way Frank, I think not knowing the difference between the Balance of Trade and Balance of Payments is about as stupid in economics as you can get. So you get the award on that front.

          There y’go again, squire, with that personal derision. You must feel quite threatened by my ” stupid economics”…

          By the way… just where did I confuse BoP with BoT?

          Care to share that with us?
        • Frank Macskasy 89.2.1.2

          31 January 2012 at 3:06 pm

          I was hypthesising an example. I neither advcate for or against that position. In fact I care not a jot how much of our land is owned by overseas interests.

          Really???

          REALLY????

          So you didn’t write,

          It would actually be incredibly beneficial to NZers if we sold the entire countries farm land. Not only would our Debt levels fall to virtually zero we would also have a highly priced dollar that we could exploit to take advantage of high performing assets in other countries.

          “It would actually be incredibly beneficial to NZers” seems to me to be advocating precisely that.

          Do you now resile from that statement?

          (Waits for evasion; a couple of jibes; and delection to conquest of Aztecs by the Conquistadores…)
          • Gosman 89.2.1.2.1

            31 January 2012 at 3:22 pm

            If you look at the reason for m post Frank you will see I was taking to the logical conclusion someone elses ridiculous suggestion that all NZ land could end up in foreign hands. All I did was point out the potential economic benefits from such a hypotheric situation (which was suggested by a hysterical lefty and not by me). You disagree with my scenario then perhaps you could explain why having a huges amount of Capital influx at one time driving up the value of NZ owned assets to unheard of levels, (beyond what is sustainable via a simple ROI) wouldn’t benefit NZers.
90. mickysavage 90

    31 January 2012 at 1:12 pm

    WowI think this is the 600th comment on this post and at least of them must be by Gosman …
91. mickysavage 91

    31 January 2012 at 1:14 pm

    Oops meant to say “WowI think this is the 600th comment on this post and at least half of them must be by Gosman …”
     
    And Lprent the edit function does not work.
    • The Voice of Reason 91.1

      31 January 2012 at 1:23 pm

      It’s a triumph of quantity over quality … Gosman; subtracting value from your internet experience since forever.
92. randal 92

    31 January 2012 at 1:58 pm

    go on…..gossy just likes to see his name inprint.
    he like some sort of junkie.
    he craves attention and here is the only place in the world he can get it.
    anywhere else no one would take him seriously.
    we on the left know how to be kind to dumb animals.
93. vto 93

    31 January 2012 at 3:11 pm

    ha ha, I reckon this has turned into the funniest thread in ages…..
    • Frank Macskasy 93.1

      31 January 2012 at 3:25 pm

      Indeed, vto. It seems to be descending into farce… my “lack of economic knowledge”, y’know… 😉
94. Gosman 94

    31 January 2012 at 3:33 pm

    Look at post 67.3 and 67.3.1.1

    “Nations have Balance of Trade figures. This affects their credit rating, and the cost of capital they may borrow from Banks.”

    “Do you mean to say with a straight face that losing export income is not going to impact on our Balance of Payments?!?!”

    Balance of Trade won’t really be impacted by this sale unless the Chinese decide to stop exporting or to export far more. Yet you somehow think it will be.

    Then you swap this over to Balance of Payments and try to equate the loss of profits offshore with a fall in export income. The two are unrelated and repatriation of profits does not impact the Balance of Trade or Exports one bit.

    You are seemingly mixing up your basic macroeconomic meassures.
    • felix 94.1

      31 January 2012 at 3:45 pm

      Go back a couple of comments and sort out your bullshit before you start new threads please Gosman. You’ve been caught in a whopping lie about “hypthesising” (lol) and you still haven’t retracted your disgraceful racist smears.
      • Gosman 94.1.1

        31 January 2012 at 3:50 pm

        Stop making BS up felix. I have asked you to show where I have claimed this is racist. You have yet to do so. You have tried to argue that I have failed to show how it is racist. I stated I wasn’t even looking to do this yet the fact that I failed to show how it was racist when I wasn’t even claiming it was somehow proves that I am lying about it being racist. Your logic is truly astounding. You must amaze yourself every time you do this.
        • felix 94.1.1.1

          31 January 2012 at 3:56 pm

          I linked, you ignored. As usual.

          Back up, check again. This is the trouble with you writing several hundred comments a day, you have no way to keep track of the discussion.
          • Gosman 94.1.1.1.1

            31 January 2012 at 4:03 pm

            I didn’t ignore I didn’t see. That comment was me taking the mick. If you followed my comment on the Racist thread you will see where I specifically state that opposition is not racist but it is xenophobic.
            • felix 94.1.1.1.1.1

              31 January 2012 at 4:10 pm

              No, you’re not getting away with that.

              Either you were parodying your opponents or you meant it yourself.

              You choose.
              • Gosman …

                31 January 2012 at 4:49 pm

                I was parodying a certain type of opponent to the sale for comedy effect i.e. I was not being entirely serious. I am sure you agree there is the possibility that a small number of people might not like the sale based on the ethnic background of the purchases don’t you? It would be naiive to suggest otherwise. That is not to state that the mainstream opposition to the purchase is motivated by this racism. I certainly don’t belive that. However as stated it is not racist but it is Xenophobic. I am not interested in finding out if the opposition to the purchase is racist because I think the issue is about problems with foreigners not with race.
                • McFlock …

                  31 January 2012 at 4:53 pm

                  I was parodying a certain type of opponent to the sale for comedy effect i.e. I was not being entirely serious.

                  Oh, the fuckwit who cried “wolf” syndrome?
                • felix …

                  31 January 2012 at 5:06 pm

                  Oh so you were parodying someone, but not anyone here. Some other person you were having a similar discussion with on at the same time on the other side of town, no doubt.

                  But either way, you definitely weren’t implying that anyone was a racist.

                  Let’s just quote what you actually said then and let people decide for themselves what they think your intentions were.

                  Gosman 6.2
                  26 January 2012 at 9:50 am

                  Yes SDM. Those perfidious Chinks can’t be trusted with our land. Before you know it they will either be shipping it back to China land or over populating it with their billion plus people.

                  I’m not laughing at you Gosman, I just remembered a funny story.
          • Gosman 94.1.1.1.2

            31 January 2012 at 4:08 pm

            See comment 6 in this thread http://thestandard.org.nz/its-not-racist-to-want-self-determination/

            I specifically state that opposition is not racist.
            • McFlock 94.1.1.1.2.1

              31 January 2012 at 4:15 pm

              out of interest, why didn’t you link to the comment itself?
              • felix …

                31 January 2012 at 4:27 pm

                I think I can hazzard a guess.
        • Frank Macskasy 94.1.1.2

          31 January 2012 at 4:01 pm

          And this, Gosman; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_payments

          Note the first paragraph, foolish little man.
          • Gosman 94.1.1.2.1

            31 January 2012 at 4:05 pm

            Ummmm… Frank why were you mentioning Balance of Trade in relation to this? Care to explain that rather than linking to Wikipedia for definitions of Balance of Payments?
            • Frank Macskasy 94.1.1.2.1.1

              31 January 2012 at 4:09 pm

              Because those links show that you haven’t a clue, sunshine.

              I’ve given you the information – deal with it. You’ve made assumptions that are incorrect.

              However, knowing your predilection to evasion and ducking for cover, no, you won’t look at the links. Because then you’ll realise how you’ve embarressed yourself.

              As I said; pathetic.
              • Gosman …

                31 January 2012 at 4:13 pm

                You haven’t given me squat except two links to wikipedia which basically describe something very similar. You haven’t explained why you mentioned Balance of Trade, which is unaffected by this issue. Care to explain how the Balance of Trade comes into the equation Frank? I mean it was you who brought it up in the first place. By the way the Balance of Trade is not the same as the Balance of Payments.
                • Colonial Viper …

                  31 January 2012 at 4:26 pm

                  So what does the Crafar deal do to our balance of payments? Does it improve it or worsen it?
                  • Gosman …

                    31 January 2012 at 4:34 pm

                    Unclear at this time. Considering the farms weren’t making any profits before being put into receivership it isn’t as if we are losing those profits offshore is it. The other thing is that the farms were paying interest to Aussie owned banks which supposedly repatriated some of this interest income to their parent companies. Now this interest isn’t going to be paid to Aussie owned banks so therefore there isn’t going to be the same amount of money flowing over to Aussie. There is also the impact of reducing the debt burden of NZ citizens by the forced sale. If the Chinese increase production on the farms and sell more produce offshore then the Export side of the BOP increases. It therefore depends on the amount of profits the Chinese make and if the repatriate the entire lot without reinvestment and improvement in the land. In short it is too early to state whether this will be a negative or positive to BOP.
                    • Frank Macskasy …

                      31 January 2012 at 5:11 pm

                      Short answer: it worsens it, when the farms start making a profit.

                      Simple really.
                    • Gosman …

                      1 February 2012 at 6:32 am

                      Not necessarily.

                      Now care to explain why you brought the balance of trade and Exports going overseas into this discussion?
                    • vto …

                      1 February 2012 at 6:53 am

                      Not necessarily.

                      Now care to explain …

                      1. Why you think the right to vote in central or local govt elections has never been and is not today tied to land ownership?
                      2. Why you think that the foreign owners of land will never come to NZ?
                      3. Why you think that the foreign owners of land will never try to influence anything which affects the property they own here?
                      4. Why you refuse to answer the simple question – which is better for NZ, either all land owned by foreigners or all land owned by NZers?
                      5. Why you think Maori problems are all due solely to a lack of investment?
                      6. Why neither the national govt nor John Key has published a detailed and simple account of the reasons why foreign ownership of land is beneficial to NZ?
                      7. Why you cannot understand the difference between a business and its ownership?
                      8. Why you seem tto think the entire world and its history and ways can be explained by financial measures?
                      9. Why so many people here get pissed off with you and accuse of evading their questions, diversion, etc?
                      10. Who has been paying you?
                    • Gosman …

                      1 February 2012 at 9:44 am

                      What a BS Strawman argument you have created vto.

                      I might as well be concerned about males voting because they used to be the only ones allowed to vote.

                      I might as well be worried about foreign trade becuase that lead to colonialism and slavery.

                      I might as well worry about Socialised medicine because that led to forced sterilisation and horrigic abuse of mental patients.

                      Just because something happened in the past doesn’t mean it WILL happen again or even there is a good chance that it will happen. We have moved on as a society.

                      Your concerns would be valid if there was a serious political movement to return to a property owning franchise and even then it wouldn’t apply in this case as it still requires individuals, not corporate entities, to be living in a place to be able to exercise that franchise.
      • King Kong 94.1.2

        31 January 2012 at 3:53 pm

        That is exactly what a racist would say.
        • The Voice of Reason 94.1.2.1

          31 January 2012 at 4:00 pm

          What’s Vienna like, KK?
        • felix 94.1.2.2

          31 January 2012 at 4:14 pm

          Piss off Kong, adults are talking. To Gosman.
    • Frank Macskasy 94.2

      31 January 2012 at 3:58 pm

      You twat!

      Here, read this and educate yourself; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_account

      Pathetic!
      • Colonial Viper 94.2.1

        31 January 2012 at 4:06 pm

        I guess Gossie’s knowledge of “basic economic principles” is rather more shit than he thinks it is.
        • Frank Macskasy 94.2.1.1

          31 January 2012 at 4:13 pm

          Indeed, Viper.

          At first I didn’t get what Gosman was rabbitting on about. But the moment he identified the paragraphs concerned was when he tripped himself up.

          The trouble with Gosman is his fixation on believing only what he wants to. Everything else is dismissed, derided, or deflected. (Hey, not bad alliteration… )

          But eventually, his lack of comprehension is his(and other right wingers) undoing. It’s not enough to know about economics – one has to comprehend their overall effects. Ie; the whole picture, not just a few pixels.

          Good lord… *facepalm*
          • Gosman 94.2.1.1.1

            31 January 2012 at 4:14 pm

            Why did you bring Balance of Trade into the discussion Frank? How is this affected exactly?
          • Gosman 94.2.1.1.2

            31 January 2012 at 4:16 pm

            How do exports fall Frank when profits are repatriated?
            • Colonial Viper 94.2.1.1.2.1

              31 January 2012 at 4:28 pm

              The more you ignore the obvious the dumber you’re going to be in your next incarnation Gosman.
              • Gosman …

                31 January 2012 at 4:36 pm

                Care to explain then why the Balance of Trade is applicable in this situation CV?

                By the way I anwered your question about the BOP impact above. In short I think it is not possible to state for sure the impact. It could well be negative.
      • Gosman 94.2.2

        31 January 2012 at 4:10 pm

        Why were you mentioning Balance of Trade in relation to this issue?

        Care to explain that rather than linking to Wikipedia for definitions of Balance of Payments?
        • Frank Macskasy 94.2.2.1

          31 January 2012 at 4:15 pm

          You’re losing it, Gosman. Repetition doesn’t make it reality.
          • Gosman 94.2.2.1.1

            31 January 2012 at 4:17 pm

            Why can’t you explain why you brought the Balance of Trade and falling exports into this discussion Frank?

            You do accept you brought them indon’t you? It was your own words, noone elses was it?
95. randal 95

    31 January 2012 at 4:10 pm

    so kling klung is drinking the canal water again.
    he might catch something?
96. vto 96

    31 January 2012 at 4:16 pm

    I would like to toss another grenade into the ring…..

    People like gosman and other people who think it is beneficial if all of our land is sold to foreigners ALSO constantly run this line that it has no effect on sovereignty.

    But that is just patently untrue isn’t it. Two examples for ponderation;

    1. Ratepayers are the ones who get to vote in local body elections. They are the ones who own the land.

    2. Early democracy was for land-owners only. If you owned land then you got to have a say in the election of rule-makers.

    Now please nobody come out and wrap little excuses around this. The point here is that with regard to sovereignty there is a very strong past and current history of sovereignty being tied to land ownership.

    Selling land to foreigners has an effect on sovereignty.
    • Gosman 96.1

      31 January 2012 at 4:20 pm

      Only in your mind. All your loss of sovereignty issues are hypothetical. Also I’m not sure if corporate bodies are able to vote in local government elections so that is just a big fat red herring.
      • vto 96.1.1

        31 January 2012 at 4:24 pm

        You deny the truth that soveriegnty has been in the past, and is today, tied to land ownership.

        I cannot believe that you deny that. Yes I can.
        • vto 96.1.1.1

          31 January 2012 at 4:27 pm

          I am basing my entire world view on my opinion that tomorrow the sun will not come up.
    • Frank Macskasy 96.2

      31 January 2012 at 4:27 pm

      VTO – I think people like Gosman show that they often aren’t thinking very clearly. Obviously, they identify so deepy with a given ideology that they turn a blind eye to anything that doesn’t sustain their worldview.

      In the case of politicians, they simply use media advisors (spin doctors) to repeat a given mantra.

      Eg; “There is no alternative”. “Private management is more efficient than State ownership”. “Employment contracts will raise wages”. “Removing zoning gives choice in schools”. And the latest, “Opposition to farmland to XYZ is racist/xenophobic”.

      Right wingers are wedded to their neo-liberal religion because the alternative – to them – is too frightening to contemplate.

      I think that’s why Gosman has lost the plot here. This is too threatening to his belief-system, and he’s not coping very well…

      And it’s why other right wingers (with exceptions) tend to get fairly hysterical on matters like these..
97. vto 97

    31 January 2012 at 4:20 pm

    And one final one for gosman… which of these is more beneficial for New Zealand (New Zealand being its people, cultures, history, economy, land, future, everything about it)?

    1. All of the land being owned by foreigners.
    2. All of the land being owned by New Zealanders.

    It helps with evaluating the issue at hand. Starter for 10.

    (I try to keep these things simple, but lordy it is difficult to avoid a diversion…)
    • Gosman 97.1

      31 January 2012 at 4:25 pm

      Tell me this vto. Does it matter that the vast majority of the NZ banking system is Australian owned in terms of Sovereignty? Were we less sovereign prior to Kiwibank starting up in the early 2000? Much of the private property in the country is currently mortgaged and is therefore technically foreign owned. Have you noted something concrete that this has impacted? Do we speak with more of an Australian twang? Is our culture diminished because of this fact?
      • vto 97.1.1

        31 January 2012 at 4:28 pm

        answer the question fool and wanker
        • Gosman 97.1.1.1

          31 January 2012 at 4:38 pm

          I don’t think it makes a blind bit of difference. It will only impact things if the foreign owners come here or try and influence things from afar. If the people who live here still set the rules and define the culture land ownership is irrelevant.
          • vto 97.1.1.1.1

            31 January 2012 at 4:43 pm

            Well see here you are actually arguing against yourself again…

            “It will only impact things if the foreign owners come here or try and influence things from afar.”

            1. You are right that none of these foreign owners will come here. The Chinese have said they are never coming to the Crafar farms. Shania Twain has never visited.

            2. You are also right that an owner of something will never try and influence things which affect the thing they own.

            I bow down to your greater knowledge and wisdon in the ways of the world. I cannot believe I have had these things completely arse-about all of my life.
            • Populuxe1 97.1.1.1.1.1

              31 January 2012 at 4:48 pm

              I would actually be ok with Shania Twain as our head of state – she had a couple of danceable tunes.
              • Frank Macskasy …

                31 January 2012 at 5:29 pm

                Could be a bonus for tourism?

                Maybe the OIO decision to let her buy the high stations should have included;

                * doing a few chairity gigs here in NZ each year,

                * running a training centre for up-and-coming singers,

                * and fronting as our HoS. (She can’t be worse than you-know-who in London.)
                • McFlock …

                  31 January 2012 at 5:33 pm

                  Able to appear on Letterman without reinforcing the belief that we’re all hick hobbits.
          • vto 97.1.1.1.2

            31 January 2012 at 4:55 pm

            Oh yes you are right in the other point you make here too…

            ” If the people who live here still set the rules …..”

            It has never been the case at any time or place in the whole world that the people who live in a place have not got to set the rules, has it. You are quite right.

            Women have always had the vote.
            The people of Iraq, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya always set the rules, nottheir rulers.
            Ghenghis Khan never set the rules for the people who loved outside Mongolia.
            Same same re Rome’s rulers and the English (never got the scots – ha)

            … back on track… screeeech … gosman, you really do keep on keeping on when it comes to exposing your simple lack of knowledge, history and basic understanding of the world.
      • Frank Macskasy 97.1.2

        31 January 2012 at 4:29 pm

        I can tell you what’s “diminished” here, Gosman, and it ain’t “our culture”…
    • Populuxe1 97.2

      31 January 2012 at 4:32 pm

      Because god knows the effect of all of those embassies in Wellington has completely fucked our sovereignty. I will concede that land ownership is a factor in sovereignty, but so is national law,democracy, and self determination, none of which are particularly affected.
      Just out of curiosity, should Canberra be worried about the number of Kiwis who own property in Australia?
      • vto 97.2.1

        31 January 2012 at 4:36 pm

        Obviouly Mr Pop, it is a question of degree. That shouldn’t need spelling out. And the degree is not the point. The fact of it is the point.

        But thanks for confirming the point that soveriegnty is tied to land ownership because many many people have tried claiming that it is not. And that is simply untrue. Has been in the past and it is today. Fact.
      • Frank Macskasy 97.2.2

        31 January 2012 at 4:41 pm

        Just out of curiosity, should Canberra be worried about the number of Kiwis who own property in Australia?

        Dunno.

        But they were certainly worried enough about New Zealanders in Australia to deny them access to social services – even though many paid taxes any other time.

        I suspect that with the flow of profits from NZ to Australia, Canberra isn’t worrid at all. Why should they? They’re profitting from the outflow of profits from here to there.
98. randal 98

    31 January 2012 at 4:27 pm

    vto, there is always one more thing that can be said about anything and gosman will say it just because he can.
    hehasn’t really contributed anything to this thread except keep it going so all of new zealand can see what a creepy bunch the tories are who would sell everything and everybody if they could get away with it.
    they need money to make themselves feel good and will do anything to get it including prostituting themselves to the highest bidder.
99. Gosman 99

    31 January 2012 at 4:27 pm

    People still needed to be present to partake in the democratic process in those times and corporate bodies weren’t entitled to vote. So your analogy is irrelevant to the proposed sale of land to a corporate body from China.
100. randal 100

     31 January 2012 at 4:30 pm

     blah blah blah gosman.
     yo still haven’t answered the question as to why the east coast and northland are economically deprived.
     when are you going to do that.
     • Gosman 100.1

       31 January 2012 at 4:41 pm

       Ummm… I think you will find I have. I stated quite categorically that it was due to lack of investment.
       • ropata 100.1.1

         31 January 2012 at 5:27 pm

         I agree there is a lack of investment in the people of Northland and their wellbeing. Maybe you ought to vote for Mana next time.
       • McFlock 100.1.2

         31 January 2012 at 5:30 pm

         For his next trick, Gos will explain that people are starving in Africa because they are not eating enough.
         • Frank Macskasy 100.1.2.1

           31 January 2012 at 5:36 pm

           Yeah, but he’ll frame it as a question; post it a dozren times; and ignore every response he’s give… 😀
     • Jum 100.2

       31 January 2012 at 6:10 pm

       Randal,

       Mentioned by Ashley, No 4 commenter, on NZ Herald – Editorial, 26 Jan 2012

       Why not develop ‘Whangarei which is a natural deep water port as the primary port for big ocean going vessels.

       It is a lesser distance for the ships to travel, it can accommodate the bigger ships and with a proper and efficient rail link with Auckland goods could be cleared for customs and in Auckland within hours. Not only would this bring considerable work opportunities to Northland (an area with high unemployment) but it would also see meaningful capital structural investment taking place where it is much needed.’

       Would that be useful, but still protecting the current Auckland port and not endangering jobs?
       • vto 100.2.1

         31 January 2012 at 6:21 pm

         Oh I like that.

         Big job with excitement and potential and all sorts of other goodness. Problem being double-handling for the Ak marketplace. But not rest of NZ – get it on train and choo choo it everywhereabouts.

         Go the north! Oldest and bestest
         • ropata 100.2.1.1

           1 February 2012 at 12:08 am

           There is a disused rail line that goes way North.. it could work in conjunction with a Whangarei Port
           • eljaydee 100.2.1.1.1

             1 February 2012 at 7:36 am

             Except it stops in the middle of nowhere at Ohaiwai because when they were building it, the Government of the time didn’t believe there was anything worthwhile north of there. (Read no one voting their way, don’t know which Government.)
             This lack of decent freight services to Northland has kept it disadvantaged for a long time.
101. randal 101

     31 January 2012 at 4:44 pm

     I’m getting fatigued with all your crap gosamn.
     have a couple of days off and give the world a break.
     In victorian england the waders in the sewers were called toshers and I aint going shit diving for you or anyone.
     • Gosman 101.1

       31 January 2012 at 4:51 pm

       You asked me a question and I provided you with the ar (yet again) and you claim you are sick of my replies. Well don’t ask me questions then. Simple really.
102. Frank Macskasy 102

     31 January 2012 at 5:09 pm

     “You asked me a question and I provided you with the arSE (yet again) and you claim you are sick of my replies. Well don’t ask me questions then. Simple really.”

     There. Fixed it for you.
103. randal 103

     31 January 2012 at 5:55 pm

     no its not simple gosman.
     so is it no investment in some of the east coast and northland.
     or some investment in some of the east coast or norhtland
     or no investment in alll of th eeast coast or northland or is it just one of those shibboleths you invented off the cuff so you wouldn’t have to provide a proper answer?
     • ropata 103.1

       1 February 2012 at 12:03 am

       foreign $$$ good
       government $$$ bad

       see?
104. muzza 104

     31 January 2012 at 7:12 pm

     http://www.labour.org.nz/news/government-wrong-to-blame-fta-for-crafar-sales

     Excuse if this has been posted somewhere up the blog, i didnt fancy reading all the way through the new posts…
     • RedLogix 104.1

       31 January 2012 at 9:20 pm

       That confirms John Key as the incompetent arse he is…
       • Colonial Viper 104.1.1

         31 January 2012 at 9:44 pm

         John Key’s incompetence seems conveniently matched to decisions which fit the neolib agenda.
     • vto 104.2

       1 February 2012 at 9:22 am

       It is not incompetence, it is willful deceit i.e. he is a bare-faced liar.
       • muzza 104.2.1

         1 February 2012 at 10:45 am

         http://www.3news.co.nz/Growing-demand-for-dairy-fuels-interest-in-Crafar-farms/tabid/367/articleID/240807/Default.aspx

         Winston seems to think as much also….second half of the video!