Posts by jh
-
Speaker: Identification strategy: Now…, in reply to JacksonP,
Aren’t we better than this?
yes but the world is spotty.
-
It doesn’t help that local Chinese are the link, the apologists and beneficiaries of real estate purchases from PRC.
It would help is they differentiated themselves – I suspect ethnic nepotism (psychological tests show people prefer people like themselves). My friends wife is Singaporian Chinese and she is “as mad as hell” about mainland Chinese buying real estate there.
Tourism is important to New Zealand yet if you look who is driving the buses it is Kiwi driver Japanese guide; Chinese driver, Chinese guide. A very visible manifestation of the benefits of immigration. -
Speaker: Identification strategy: Now…, in reply to Stephen Judd,
I just wrote and cancelled my regular donation to the party with the message that it can restart when we have three clear months without race-baiting or hippy punching.
Funny because I've been thinking of joining. I'd like to support a party that is realistic about the effects of foreign investment and immigration on New Zealanders. I think we should have a choice between globalists and nationalist. Globalists claim immigration benefits everyone [Peter Sutherland] but this isn't borne out but personal experience or the Savings Working Group, the Australian Productivity Commission (ours wears a muzzle), or Treasury, or Paul Krugman so I feel justified in maintaining that view.
Up until 1975 people from the U.K and Ireland had free entry to NZ. Up until 1965 Australians piled into NZ. I think we should choose migrants for their (genuine) skills but also when it comes to easy come and go it should be on a territorial basis where (for the common people) it is a fair swap. So if there is a nice country in Africa we go there and they come here. The problem is that the world isn't like that, most countries are overpopulated and poor with a rich minority so we end up getting the worst of both worlds.
Yes people come here from the UK, however Labour (UK) ramped up immigration "to rub the rights noses in diversity" Britain is changing beyond recognition.
In NZ (1986)policy changes were made on the basis that while it was something New Zealanders may not have wanted the "infusion of new elements" was deemed to have been "of immense value to the country". The goal however, was not to add condiments it was based on the (outdated) Standard Social Science Model which gave us anti-racist ideology (to break the hegemony of the Anglo-Saxon population). What's more muffled voices (the Savings Working Group - "a great bunch of thinkers") say the policy choice of increased immigration has done us no good.
While we are to welcome truckloads of migrants and enjoy minority status in China 91% are of one ethnicity. Also "More than 94 per cent of Chinese permanent residents and more than half of those with NZ citizenship told University of Auckland researchers that they felt a greater sense of belonging and identified more with their country of origin than New Zealand."
Maori were not consulted over immigration policyThis glossing over of Maori opposition is consistent with the
procedure of elites generating policy from above and imposing it on
the people below. The report was a fait accompli, and the Minister’s
restricted discourse with Maori leaders after the fact, gave an illusion
of democratic consultation. The select committee hearings on the Bill
were also a charade. Of the 75 submissions made to the committee, 73
opposed the Bill. The two submissions in favour were made by
immigration consultants, the people who earned substantial fees from
processing immigration papers for clients wanting to get into New
Zealand.Please Labour give us a clear choice. Somebody bat for New Zealanders.
-
Sorry but hard to see this as anything other than ham-fisted politics. Phil has turned a legitimate economic issue related to the impact of foreign speculators on Auckland housing affordability to a singling out of Chinese investors based on ropy stats. So the political opposition gets to frame labour as dog whistling, labour get to spend days explaining what they *really* meant. And media get plenty to feed off.
That’s fair.
The rapid rise in wealth in the worlds most populous country, (China has 21 cities with economies larger than Greece's) it's opening up combined with the strength of Chinese identity (91% identify as Han) make it an ethnic issue. Globalists ("anti-racist") are trying to argue that no one is hurt by globalization (the Burke Report refers to immense benefits).
-
Twyford's 'racist', 'cynical' Chinese property buyer statistics de-bunked
However, data journalist Keith Ng, writing on the Public Address blog, responded to the claims and tore down the statistics point-by-point, exposing clear holes in the methodology used to determine them.
data journalist? what's that? Media bias?
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Swan,
If the market was functioning properly, an increase in demand would generate a supply response. And indeed it will even in Auckland although it is far from optimal given the current planning regime.
Richard Heinberg says the human economy is part of the earths ecosystem but many think otherwise. If oil prices get too high the economy slows (demand destruction) and the cost of materials filters into the cost of house construction, infrastructure provision etc.
For the market to function properly we need dirt roads, chemical toilets, grow your own vegetables and cardboard houses from the Warehouse to reflect the true state of the economy.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Kumara Republic,
I’ll say it again: much of the current planning regime is propped up by rentier hypocrites who claim to be anti-RMA free marketeers, but are prepared to play the NIMBY card to block anything that might threaten their cartel-hold on the housing bubble. Also coming to mind is the tit-for-tat use of the RMA for commercial gain by Foodstuffs and Progressive Enterprises.
Where I live they want to rezone for greater density. At a meeting I asked the speaker if population increase is government policy. He replied "well, we have immigration and you have to have population increase to increase the wealth".
That statement isn't borne out by the savings working group, Australian productivity Commission (ours is muzzled) nor Treasury. Much more likely the assault on our communities is coming from property interests and open border socialists in positions of influence. -
Very much like the global warming debate. Just substitute CO2 for population of co-ethnics.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Jim Cathcart,
Similar narratives being bandied about in Vancouver.
This issue is not defined by race. Twyford doesn’t bother to go down that road because he knows that without such capital flows, the economy is likely to be toast.But you cannot take ethnicity, culture and population out of it. China has 21 cities with economies larger than Greece
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Sacha,
In the interests of democracy could we have a choice between open border advocates and a Labour which protects the interests of it's members?
As we saw in the Burke review of immigration policy 1986 the public has been shut out of decision making:
The attitudes of New Zealanders in the mid-1990s
towards immigration may not have reflected the positive perspective on the
value of diversity in our society that is contained in the Review of
Immigration Policy August 1986. But this does not mean that the globalisation
of immigration to New Zealand was an “unintended consequence of policy
changes in 1986”. It was a deliberate strategy, based on a premise that the
“infusion of new elements to New Zealand life has been of immense value to
the development of this country to date and will, as a result of this
Government’s review of immigration policy, become even more important in
the future” (Burke 1986:330).clearly the immense benefits are not accruing to the bottom half.
Ranganui Walker (also) points out that Maori interests were shafted by elites.