Yeah great comparison. Because one is totally at the expense of the other :rolleyes:

If you're so concerned about rape crisis funding, why don't you write a few letters to your MPs? Why don't you apportion some blame to the Opposition for sitting on their thumbs?

I do think this was a bad 'political' move by the Greens. Though changing the law 'because rugby' is blatant favouritism.

My comment is about what gets certain people exclaiming "cunts!" and what doesn't.

You don't know what I've done or what I'm doing to address the concerns I have.

Why don't you tell us? Let me guess, you've got nothing to prove. Same horseshit deflection as always.

It's not favouritism, it's populism. It's a populist, opportunist move by ACT. And ya know what? That's fine. It doesn't come at the expense of anything else and only sourpusses would oppose it.

It can be populism AND favouritism. It favours rugby over all other sports/events/festivals/performers etc etc
It is a perfectly rational response for some people to be pissed off about it. Like people who are bound by liquor laws (or even people who don't follow rugby) and see it as the Govt. urgently changing laws to suit their entertainment preference.

Thanks, but it's just feeding the Lolspeed, and I'm well past that.

whether you like it or not, its our "national game" so yeah... it is favouritism. im not sure why this is an issue considering whats being discussed.

"their" entertainment preference? what? you really think the bill is there just cos seymour wants to watch the ruggers at the bar (not saying he doesnt of course)

no, its because its what the general populace wants. or as good as they can tell because they've already wasted enough money on referendums with this whole flag bullshit.

I'm an Abs fan and not really concerned about the bill. I'm just pointing out that there are people who're annoyed that they're subject to blanket closing of bars and others aren't because the All Blacks playing in the world cup, overseas, really caught the Govt. by surprise. But yeah it is what the general populace wants so tough shit to those annoyed I guess.

Im not entirely sure it is what the general populace wants. I think the general populace dont care.
According to sky, they have about 50% penetration. Not all of them will have sky sports but then they are probably not the ones that will be worried about rugby.
Then actually add on that Prime is going to show all the AB's games live anyway.
So what you are left with is a small group of the population who feel the need to go to a pub to watch the game.

So?

Eric Crampton:

more info, etc

http://offsettingbehaviour.blogspot....revisited.html

Auckland house prices need to drop 50 percent - Greens

Greens are all "we gotta help a generation own their own homes". Labour is all "but there's handful of people who don't need help that we need to protect!"

Jesus

I guess there is a difference of house prices suddenly dropping, compared to dropping the Inc to House price over time.

If we currently have an average income of 1/10 the house price.
If you assume 2% inflation on income, and you could make house prices stay static, by the year 2030, thats already changing the ratio to 1/7.

The sooner the greens are free from Metiria Turei, the better.

Would a drop of house prices over the course of ~15 years have much impact on sole home owners? And how would a drop in prices impact those who have no intention of selling the properties they own? Who would be detrimentally impacted by a drop in prices?

Bernard Hickey did an article on this recently.

The problem is that this assumes that incomes are increasing for everyone, when actually incomes are only really increasing relative to inflation for the top 10%. When inflation is taken into account, incomes for everyone below the top 10% have either stayed static or gotten smaller. The only reason that it looks like incomes have increased on average is because of how much the incomes of the top 10% have increased, thus skewing the distribution.

Turei is basically telling anyone with a mortgage or who has just paid off their mortgage, fuck you and all your hard work. She's just trying to appeal to yoof who have not realised what their parents have gone through to keep a roof over their head. She is literally the worst - but she knows she doesn't actually have to back up her inflammatory statements with action because she won't be in government any time in the near future.

it's not that, more it reads like she wants the market to crash. there's no doubt prices need to drop but this needs to be done gently.

if you buy a house you understand that the value could crash anytime.

My father owns a house and has a mortgage. He has spent years making payments, and has struggled. He has enough equity now that if the market tanks, he'll be okay. He doesn't care if it tanks, because he's in for the long haul. The only people that really get hurt if it tanks are people who have only just recently bought, say in the last 4 or 5 years, in which case they haven't actually been working that hard for that long yet, so your comment doesn't apply, or people who have been speculating and are only in the market to make money.

For the former kind of people, well, that's a pity that they'll get boned, but they should have been smarter than to buy in a bubble, and besides, once they get over their bankruptcy in a decade or so, the market will be much more favourable. They'll be able to buy a house without having to mortgage their children into life long debt. So everyone wins.

As for the latter kind of people, the speculators, just straight up fuck them. They're part of the problem.

JB from Squirrel Mortgages always has a good view on this kind of stuff:
https://www.squirrel.co.nz/news/musi...et-correction/

I may be misinterpreting you - but even if the "value" of your house drops below the size of your mortgage, you don't suffer any instant repercussions. You don't immediately become bankrupt, as far as I am aware.

People agreed what they were happy to pay for their house, and they agreed what they were happy to borrow. They agreed to continue to pay for n years, and life goes on, assuming they still have employment. At the end of their mortgage term, they've paid far more than their house is worth, it's true - but this is the case with most mortgages, and people are doing everything they can to get one!

I believe that is correct. And I also believe that we aren't the same as the US when the mortgage is greater than the house, then you can just mail the keys to the bank and walk away from the debt.

So it really only affects people that need to sell. They could sell for less than their mortgage which would mean that they could have a large debt to have to pay.

Even just moving house. If your mortgage ended up being 100% of the house price. When you go to move, you will only be able to borrow 80% of the next house. So effectively you have to find the deposit again.

So as mentioned, it affects the people that bought in the last few years. They will be stuck there.
Investors/Speculators. (Oh well, poor them. Thats the risk)

Call me crazy, but shouldn't the Greens have you know, run this 50% thing past Labour before announcing it?

Was it explicitly stated that it wasn't?

They'll still want to distinguish themselves as distinct political entities.

Remember that whole Memorandum of Understanding? You know, the Greens and Labour were going to work together in "good faith and mutual trust" to change the government?

Turns out the Greens didn't remember it either.

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/politi...onsible-labour

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/poli...be-cut-in-half

This is the fire Ab:

So because this small group of people with the money to buy a home in these conditions, everyone else must be the ones to bear the economic harm?

It's the people at the bottom who are burning.

Yeah, I was kind of hedging my words to some extent. I'm not sure exactly what happens in that scenario, you could well be right about all of that. If you are, it only really makes my point stronger though. I'm not entirely sure, I think the reasoning for the concern about a drop in market value goes something like:

If house prices come down, then people do not need such large loans any more.
If loans are smaller and incomes stay the same then people can afford larger repayments relative to the size of the loan.
If repayments stayed the same demand would probably out-strip supply, and prices would have to go back up.
Therefore,
Interest rates must increase if house prices are to decrease.

The problem comes about, then, when people who have taken out really huge mortgages on expensive properties which they could service under low interest conditions suddenly find themselves facing an interest hike, and the size of the repayments shoots up.

Pity the landed, is that it? Really?

But how is this out of the ordinary? That's the way the system works. Always has been.

There is always risk with assets etc, but I guess the difference now is that there is a mindset out there that you have to get onto the property market now, otherwise it will never happen.

So over the last couple of years, there will be a lot of (skewed to the younger side) people that a stretching themselves just to get onto the market.

Crashes in the past would not have involved that to the same extent.

(No sources, opinion only)

Oh, I'm not saying that it's out of the ordinary, or that we should pity them. I'm just regurgitating a rough form of the reasoning that I've heard as to why a fall in the market might result in bankruptcies, to answer DrTiTus' comment.

For my actual view, see the post that he was replying to with his comment.

Apparently photographs are now selfies.

The Green MP and the genocide hearings

Long story short, young lawyer takes on the necessary dirty work to further her career. She worked her job in good faith and was involved in a photograph with a defendant.

Or: Green MP takes smiling selfies defending wicked perpetrator of genocide, hates victims.

Dunno man, looks to me like she's done everything possible to get credit for something she didn't do - and the thing she did do is fucking horrible.

Eh? By fucking horrible you mean crucial to the administration of justice right?

I know nothing of this woman or her career other than what's in the news right now. But it appears to me that she volunteered to go and work for free for some fucking evil motherfuckers - evil motherfuckers who had no need of her services because their real lawyers were being very very well paid. Maybe she did it for the experience, who knows. But it looks like she has engaged in a pattern of deception about the work ever since - claiming (or allowing other people to claim without correcting them) in multiple places that she had been in Rwanda working for the PROSECUTION.

disclosure: I went to school with Phil Quin (the guy who brought this all up) and considered him a friend. His life and career have taken him other places (like, Rwanda, where he saw some awful shit, and which is why he takes issues of Rwandan-genocide falsehood really really seriously) since and now he's a distant Internet old friend. But when I knew him he was a good guy. Ridiculously clever with a social conscience.

I don't really have any clue how the international justice system works. But I get the feeling she wouldn't get in the court room by volunteering to work for the prosecution.

If there is a genuine deception going on, why call a photograph a selfie? There's no need for hyperbole if genuine concerns can be demonstrated.