Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Chinese are not aggressive
Whenever anybody claims “[X group] are not aggressive”, the question comes to mind, “So how have they survived so long?” Most groups are aggressive when they feel they need to be. (Genghis Khan was of course a pacifist who made a point of ending all war.)
-
Kiwis don’t resent selling to Chinese —they resent the fact that who they have to sell to are non-white
There is greed and resentment, sure, but I don’t think this is quite where it lies. Others on this thread have mentioned the frustration experienced at phone bids winning auctions. In that situation, the seller is blind to the race of the buyer: all that matters is the size of the bid, and the process demands that the sale go to the highest bidder. So “resentment” doesn’t come from sellers – it comes from the local buyers trying to compete. And there may be resentment without racism. Why not assume merely “they resent the fact that who those who successfully buy are non-resident ”? (Hence belonging to a different market, and not competing on the same basis as locals – which goes against the traditional Kiwi value of “fairness”, whence the resentment.)
(And again – this is a problem with how our market is set up, not with any of the individuals using it.)
-
OnPoint: My last name sounds Chinese, in reply to Kalka River,
Problem with people like you is you can’t stand the fact that a non-white power is rising and non-white people have money.
“…People like you…” Ah, such othering language.
To rephrase: “you are worried that you (and more generally, others like you) are losing some control over your own lives”.
(i) Is that an illogical stance?
(ii) Is it necessarily “racist”?
[Some degree of xenophobia may certainly be involved, in dividing “others like you” whom you can meet, and you feel you understand, and so are readier to have in control (e.g. as landlords), from “others unlike you” whom you haven’t met, and whose motives you are less certain of.]NB1: a note on formatting on this site: HTML tags don’t work. Boldface can be applied using a double asterisk as a delimiter; italics using a double underscore as a delimiter (see instructions under the “Post your response” box).
NB2: On this forum at least, it’s usually safer to assume that someone you disagree with is not automatically an “idiot”.
-
Hard News: Friday Music: Silver and Gold, in reply to Barnaby Nicholls,
people weren’t buzzed about the lead single/album track Let It Happen, but I have no idea why
The positives you mention are there, all right – but the “CD-stutter” transitions are fingernails-on-chalkboard-level irritating.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Paul Campbell,
we should have tax brackets (and benefits, and the minimum wage...) tied to an inflation index
e.g. tied to ministerial salaries, which would markedly change incentives.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Danielle,
TT had, I think, an entirely valid point in (repeatedly) insisting that the racist framing of the issue came from media reports rather than from the wording or interpretation used in the original analysis. This whole snafu really seems much less a matter of “OMG I can’t believe Labour used a racist dogwhistle, WTF were they thinking!?” and more a matter of “OMG Labour totally stuffed up their media strategy yet again” – as a result of which it got turned into a racist dogwhistle.
Labour really have been tone-deaf and clueless enough in their dealings with the media over the past few years that I’m perfectly willing to believe it’s (another) cock-up rather than a conspiracy. -
Speaker: Living under bridges, in reply to Brodie Davis,
Given the location under a bridge, I would guess space is not readily available for off-street parking, so access to street parking is a legitimate concern.
-
Speaker: Honest Bastards & Dishonest Cowards, in reply to Bart Janssen,
So, more specifically, you’re arguing for a more progressive tax regime.
I agree. If the main problem with National’s management is wealth redistribution from the poor to the wealthy, then a progressive tax is the most obvious remedy. It would be hard or impossible to direct the other revenue streams suggested by Ben in the same way: e.g. currency devaluation is effectively just a flat rate tax; and bonds are only guaranteed to work progressively (in effect, as a tax on disposable income of investors) if they actually make a loss (which would rather defeat the purpose). -
Speaker: Honest Bastards & Dishonest Cowards, in reply to Tinakori,
the amount being paid off is greater than the sum being borrowed
Steve’s point was that that you originally said something quite different, as “maturing debt” is debt that is coming due for payment (or contract renegotiation), not necessarily debt that is being paid off.
-
Speaker: Honest Bastards & Dishonest Cowards, in reply to Tinakori,
social spending in New Zealand increased by 22%…
Let’s put that in context:
(i) Could certain Christchurch events between those two dates have affected total social expenditure, do you think?
(ii) The GFC also struck NZ between those two date ranges.
So an increase in total expenditure does not translate into a per capita increase for those that need it.
(iii) In that OECD summary, your quote appears under the heading Strong increase in the share of population that cannot afford to buy enough food, which seems at odds with the cheerleading tone otherwise adopted, and suggests some serious problems with the economic indicators chosen for comparison.