there is an issue of historic proportions looming with respect to Chinese capital outflows
Really? Is that ... extrapolation? Or just ... random ass-pulls.
Because I recall there being an issue of Belgian dentists, or Japanese widows, or Dutch dairy farmers, or bankers from Sydney, or ... let's say, everyone in NZ who isn't Māori. I mean, if you wanted to talk about historic proportions of capital flows, there'd be an interesting place to start, surely, the ten of trillions of dollars in capital stolen from Māori by imperial conquest, that we're all disturbed about now because it's not Europeans stealing it all, it's just normal and lawful everyday commerce with the CHINESE!!!!!* ... you know Kiwis are buying a bunch of stuff in China, too, right?
And not at all, say, "people whose names sound Chinese". Which is historically associated with some really nasty racist stuff in this country's history, but isn't what is happening here, even though it obviously is.
For Labour, the distinction was always about speculation from *offshore* Chinese
He only ever pitted *offshore* Chinese
Our discussion last week focused on Chinese
No, Labour never used "Chinese" of mean "foreign."
1: You forgot "offshore" sometimes, in your reactionary stuff there.
2: But you did use it to mean "bad", when combined with "offshore".
First, we never used ethnicity as a proxy for nationality. Never.
You used people's names, common to their ethnicity, and then compared that with local demographics to hang shit on Chinese nationals. That is using ethnicity as a proxy for nationality, you clown. Stop digging, Rob.
Makes very explicit the distinction between "Chinese NZers" on the one hand, and "foreign money" on the other.
No, Rob. "Chinese money". You're not worried about Chinese kiwis, just the Chinese. Not anyone else, just the Chinese. Chinese, is what you're worried about, and think everyone else should worry about, because they're Chinese, but not Chinese kiwis. Very important distinction, not at all racist, you're just really worried about the Chinese.
Nobody should read anything in our data analysis as being critical of Kiwis who happen to have Chinese ethnicity.
Indeed, you're really attacking the Chinese. That couldn't possibly be racism and it's such a clear distinction: Chinese bad, Chinese kiwis good. Really, they should just all change their names to something European and this problem would all go away. Then we could get on with hating the right kind of Chinese, couldn't we Rob.
That was far too big and you should not allow comments that long, Russell.
But we're "not racist" in employment, "not racist" in justice, "not racist" in education, "not racist" in our wars, our news, or our working out where people are from by the spelling of their name. Not even racist in immigration policy, or medical licensing, or anything really. Our endless wars of "cultural superiority" abroad (oh, gods, they mutilate female genitals! how cruel, so unlike our useful and practical mutilation of male genitals) do not make us threatening, nor are our (white man) allies tens of thousands of nuclear weapons any sort of threat of any kind to any one at all (just don't let them get any, ever, or watch out!).
But you know what I'm seeing here that pisses me off? "Oh, they might not be wrong." It's like we're having a discussion about the accuracy of Mein Kamph in relation to the occupations of Jewish people, and how it "might not be wrong".
Labour's the next biggest political party to the government, and I can now count neither of them who don't indulge in casual race-baiting. It's really horrible when Winston does it, it's really pitiful when ACT does it, but it's really fucking scary when Labour are refusing to walk away from this horrible shit and having their media people come out and defend it instead.
Blaming minority groups for significant government problems, when they're in opposition and can just blame the fucking government! Yes this gets more press, and that is a very, very bad thing.
We need to have a conversation about racism here.
What it looks like now, in a world where "no one is racist", because they're all so careful about what they say in public. How because "no one is racist" all the bad things that happen to minority groups are obviously all their own fault, as say the "no one is racist"s.
Where the Labour party of New Zealand says we need to talk about house prices because "Chinese people", like it's fucking well 1890 again, rather that a gigantic pyramid scheme built on decades of failed state policy from both major parties, who coincidentally are made up of people with nearly all their money in the housing and land markets.
How judges hand out longer sentences to Māori for the same crimes, because they need to get the message out, to Māori, about them being over-represented in prison. That sort of "no one is racist". How the police take more cases against Māori because it's an easier conviction, because they're obviously just more guilty, or so say the "no one is racist"s.
The bit where both major parties just a few years ago argued over the correct way to steal trillions of dollars of land from Māori, when it was discovered that no one had ever bought much of it, so legally it was still theirs, and what if they charged rent when the government could sell it and let a white guy charge rent instead. How this National government is still shuffling crown-held Māori land into different departments so they can legally sell it despite it not legally being theirs to sell.
How white religious people who go nuts and shoot a bunch of folk are strange and crazy and not like all us and brown religious people who go nuts and shoot a bunch of folk are terrorists and just like all them. But not in a racist way.
How we're in the middle of a fucking war in the middle east, still, with our SAS on the front lines, targeting cities for big-ass bombs, because obviously levelling Fallujah again is ... not racist or anything.
And really, those people we're bombing, they're terrible, it's all their fault, we're really trying to save them, with our giant bombs, because they keep shooting at us, just because we're in their country dropping bombs on them, like crazy people. And not because we're racist.
Except Māori don't get the same jobs, don't get into the same schools, do get arrested where a Pakeha would get diversion, do get longer sentences, do get paid less in the same jobs, do get hired last and fired first (which isn't racism, you see, it's fair, and that's not racist either).
And the forgivers who buy all our houses are Australians, just like forever. Most of whom are also New Zealanders to a good degree, the same as the immigrants from other countries who come here and buy a house. There's an Irishman owns a whole town down here, bought the lot well over market rates. Owns all the shops, businesses, houses, and if you live there you work for him and rent from him, and certainly nothing ill to say of the man, or you might find yourself not living there after all. Literal lord of his domain. Did labour care? No, fine example of foreign investment. And not because they're racist. Big German bloke, no problem. But a Chinese company (actually owned by a kiwi, married to an MP of all things) bought a farm? HOLY SHITBALLS! And not because racism.
We just suddenly need to talk about Asians buying a house. Because if this keeps up they'll own the place.
And it's not racist saying that, because "no one is racist". It's just real.
our base method was to estimate people’s ethnicity
Remembering, of course, that "no one is racist"s do things like that. Estimate people's ethnicity and start making sweeping generalisations on what are basically anecdotes and then complain about all the [minority group] and their [legal activity] and how it's associated with [unpopular thing].
Clearly not intended as one, eh Sacha.
You know who drives up the price of houses in Auckland though? The government does, stupid, Labour and National both. Low interest rates, low monetary inflation, high capital inflation, massive and basically unlimited rent subsidies, free money to do up rental places, free money to buy houses under ~$200k (guess what no liveable house is priced under?), tax write-offs for housing investments, trust laws to shield them from everything, and no tax on the capital profits at the end of the day.
Returns on investment, in housing or land speculation in general, are a couple orders of magnitude higher than anything else in the country, once you get into high leverage promoted by the state through banking regulation. Buy 1 with 10% down, wait for the price to go up 10% (a year), leverage the capital gains to buy another (hey, 10% down, for free!), as long as the state keeps paying out the ever-increasing rents for the poor folk living in them all, you're golden. Five years later you own a free house, or you just keep gambling on whomever is in government not wanting to burst that particular bubble.
But yeah, sure, blame a minority group. Because you might not be wrong about that in some alternate universe where the state doesn't regulate everything involved in setting the price of houses. Assholes.
To me, whether things have changed or not, the last few years of government have demonstrated that we seriously need to consider options for more binding constraints on lawmakers and Ministers.
No. See, National would write binding constraints that said ministers weren't allowed to vote for tax or service increases, and Labour would come in and point out that the previous government of New Zealand cannot bind the current government of New Zealand in any way, shape, or form and re-write the cabinet manual to suit themselves.
The only thing National's doing incorrectly is refusing to publicly state the rules it really operates under. One might suggest that's because they like winning elections, and lying about that just works better.
One might even suggest their real operations manual requires that everyone lie to cover each others corrupt asses all the time. Like they do.
The trick for making ministers behave is thus voting for the opposition. We were within about 1% of doing it last time, maybe get 'em next time.
This is essentially what our environmental laws are designed to do. Stay the hell out of the way of anyone who can make a quick buck by destroying the environment. While also preventing anyone from being able to set up anything long-term. So fracking is all fine and set out behind closed doors, while planting some native trees is years in public hearings.
Obviously if someone was burning down buildings and stealing millions in tools and property it'd be strait to prison for a very long time, a long time ago. But if you want to wreck protected ecosystems and steal stuff out of nature, that's like, awesome business skills, bro.
And it's not like you can really complain when the chief beneficiary is a senior minister of crown, and favorite of the police. I mean, was that man even assaulted? It's not like anyone was charged.
What we really need is laws that force women to give up other organs to their children as well. Imagine if a child gets heart disease and it's mother refuses to donate hers in replacement? Merely because of a few health concerns or fears for the future, when really, it was her choice to get pregnant in the first place.
Natural consequences you see. A little semen in the vagina and next thing they know they'll have lost all rights over their own body for the indefinite term. That'll keep the wee minxes under control, eh wot. Wot wot.
@Rosemary, as long as we're all busy telling women what they're doing wrong, something, something, anecdote, up hill both ways in the snow.
#$25, no one's getting $25 dollars, are they. That's like when they say some single mum with a kid who's at the doctor every second day is receiving $700+ in "benefits", but really aren't even getting their costs covered.
#inter-generational, it's the population bulge. There's a whole bunch of them, they grew up when the government had money to burn on making most of them wealthy, and they all vote. Then Harvard started training economists that socialism was morally wrong, people should pay for important broad social benefits by themselves, and so the rest of us are fucked.
It's not the boomers, or Gen X, or millennials, or even the politicians, it's just that the dominant economic theory in the western world (Labour, National, even the Greens) is an unscientific anti-communist bullshit piece of rhetoric from the cold war. Meanwhile, in China, the future is being built and we are aiming to miss out on it pretty well completely.
In the long run it would probably reduce the need for people to go on the benefit.
See, in said dominant economic theory, inflation is a bad thing and so a fair proportion of people have to be on demeaning beggars benefits to drive down wages and maintain the value of the capitalist's investments in things which make no return, like, say, over-inflated housing prices in Auckland.
The trick is to blame the single mums, or the preferred dog-whistle for local racist notions, perhaps some boat people, or Muslims who happen to be sitting on oil, fund ever-bigger circuses, or maybe challenge a neighbour's dietary habits about how they all eat shellfish (of all things!).
Whatever you do, just keep 'em distracted while you hope your bullshit economic theory of the day eventually comes good despite all that evidence to the contrary. So, none of the expected surplus turned up for seven years running, let's try doing more of the same and see if that works. Is there perhaps some public good people aren't yet paying enough private profit for? Let's try housing this time!
Re: Thumper's intolerable bullshit. Mostly from
1: Global temperatures have been stable since bla bla bla. No they haven't. The escalator is a stupid trick and you are stupid for using it.
That's also air temperature, where the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, long La Nina, melting icecaps, and recent solar minimum have acted to pump the air temperature gains into other heat sinks, almost all into the oceans.
2: CO2 output is exponential, temperature increase is stepped, that makes no sense, oh, wait, yes it does. It's expected to take centuries for air temperatures to actually equilibrate to CO2 levels, and the strongest effect on temperatures may be delayed by up to 40 years.
3: CO2 in the air, bla bla, is both constantly turned into more of the radioactive isotope, and constantly exchanged with CO2 in the oceans and in plants, you dimwit. There's a carbon cycle, we're just shifting the balance point by digging up stable fossil fuels.
4: The lifetime of CO2, see, if you understand there's a carbon cycle, why #3? Anyway, the lifetime we care about is when the balance point for the carbon cycle returns to normal, and it's a very long way off indeed with the primary sink of rock weathering. We aren't concerned with individual atoms of Carbon.
5: Sinusoidal, you should look it up, it does not look like a hockey stick.
You can't just keep adding degrees of fit until your curve goes down, you have to have a mechanism for action, how does the temperature fall, why, what happens to the CO2 balance, why is all of science wrong?
6: WTF? Yes, the CO2 absorbs heat and re-emits it, and the effect is indeed not linear but totally retains more heat anyway! Check out fucking Venus, the heat, it be retained.
7: The laws of nature in the extreme past were lucky enough to have a less energetic Sun to be orbiting. Solar output increases by about 10% per billion years until it goes giant, so it used to be a good thing to have a great deal of CO2, back long before there was multi-cellular life and such.
8: FFS. Sea level rise is accelerating, if you don't cherry-pick your time frame to hide that. The sources of it are measured and in agreement. It's expected to peak around 6-9mm per year, or 0.6-0.9m per century, at current temperatures, faster as we go higher and capable of reaching 2m+ per century, currently at 3mm/year and climbing.
9 & 10: This thing which "has not been measured" is hilarious down at #17, where it's measurements are noted.
11: The Antarctic ice pack is indeed increasing, because of all the melting ice off the land, fresh water being easier to freeze.
12: The total water-ice surface is indeed roughly equal, because of all the melted northern sea ice. This is what warming does, how is it an argument against warming?
13: The ARGO buoys do show warming in some reviews, are not the only measure available, and when combined with all ocean measurements made at the time they agree that the ocean is warming. You can't cherry-pick data like that, again ignoring the long-term trends.
14: I don't even. That's cray-cray. You're saying the planet is measured to be warming from space, so there can't be a warming effect? I don't even.
15: Nothing is actually a black body. Nothing. Black body radiation is a model that works more or less well for all sorts of things, including things it was never intended for, but it totally works for STARS! Which are plasma, and also not a "black body". YFI.
16: HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! Second LAW people, insulation cannot work because it's colder than your house and thus cannot, oh fuck off.
For those confused, cold things emit heat too, just less of it. This was surprising to people in the 15th century, and is not surprising now.
17: This is the thing there was no measure of back at #9-10, he's complaining that it's measure matches the CO2. Just, like, we're emitting CO2, that's what happens when you burn hydrocarbons. The temperature increases with the CO2 increase, but probably delayed a few decades.
18: So? There's a study of things unrelated to climatology. Thanks.
19: Yes, there is more cloud when it's hotter, we know, the models have such big uncertainties specifically because people are still measuring exactly how that works on average. New satellite and everything.
But importantly, the way the air circulation works changes with a changing climate, the climate zones change size and grow, shifting the places that are dry and wet and it's hard to predict exactly what we'll end up with at each particular moment along the way. Models are "inconsistent" because they're honest about not knowing exactly.
20: Hilariously, models are diverging from measured temperatures most greatly because we keep accelerating our production of CO2 from fossil fuels and pushing us off the high end of the predictions until they can be updated to model our new, even crazier output levels.
21: Yes, it can't be predicted long-term. But by long-term, they mean predicting things centuries ahead. So the models only get 80 years or so before the uncertainty sort of explodes them. You can totally predict mean climates much further ahead for thousands of years, even make predictions out hundreds of millions of years to some degree, but actual climates and the rate of change between them at any point will vary.
22: The IPCC is not doing the science, it's collating the science. Every other body that's attempted independent collation, even the Brothers one, found the same results. "Pal review" is a slur spread by a bunch of cranks who were doing pal reviews for each other's denier bullshit and assumed the "other side", composed of actual scientists, must be too. They were incorrect and remain so.