Cunliffe's constituent Liu?

[mashman]

Pointlessness.

Right. Don't have time to cobble up wizards with hammers, but here's enough statistical obfuscation to keep mashie appeased for fucking yonks: From treasury:

More pointlessness.

It might please you to know that I have absolutely no desire to look at those figures. Comparing then and now using statistics masks the fact that there are an awful lot of people struggling. It's gonna have to be wizards and hammers.

[Brian d marge]

Ok

Roughly and I can and will later post the links , but i tried to find a house , age where all was good in NZ , so far Im at 1970 I chose 1970 as it was just before nixon moved of the gold standard and all was kinda well with NZ .... sorta

Also the house I chose was ......

The following table shows typical tender prices being accepted in the four main centres at the end of the last 11 financial years for similar types of three-bedroom State rental houses of equivalent floor space. In each case the house is a typical single unit on a flat section, built in weatherboards with a tiled roof. The price includes drainage, fencing, paths, toolshed, revolving clothes line, and letterbox. The cost of the section is not included.


Roughly 6.8 dollars per sq foot

the average state house , typical for the time and similar to private contruction was 976 sq ft

Adjusted for inflation that is 297.17 dollars per sq foot in todays money

so 976 x 6.8 equals $ 6636 to build so .... $ 6636 in todays money is $ 290 035

there are 90.67 sq m in 976 sq ft

so $ 290 035 divided by 90.67 equals $ 3198.79 per sq meter


Now from this web site http://www.dbh.govt.nz/bofficials-es...g-costs#latest


they reckon its $ 1824 to build a house 0f 145 sq m in wellington ( all of these prices are for the house only )

and LARGER houses seem to be CHEAPER per sq m at $ 1660 for 202 sq m in wellington !


So the cost per meter to build a house has dropped by half AND is cheaper , slightly per sq m.

Yet the afordability of said houses has shot through the roof


From Ocean1 link

Snip

What drove the surge in New Zealand house prices in the 2000s?The sharp rise in house prices in

New Zealand during the 2000s reflected a number of cumulative

demand
-
Internationally, a range of influences came together to encourage a strong increase in credit growth, much of which increased effective demand for housing in a number of OECD countries:



In conjunction with loose monetary policy in the United States, high savings from some Asian and

Housing Affordability

The house price boom was more widely dispersed across the country than previous house price expansions.

However, there were important exceptions to this trend

–

in the Queenstown Lakes District and

metropolitan areas in Auckland and Wellington, houses were among the most expensive in the country in

the early 2000s, but these regions still

experienced strong real house price appreciations over the boom. In

Auckland home to around one third of New Zealand’s population and 31% and 41% of its housing stock

by number and value respectively this continued a well-

established trend of strong real house price

increases relative to the rest of the country. As a consequence, the distribution of house prices in Auckland

is now markedly different to that in the rest of New Zealand, particularly at the lower end of the Auckland

housing market. For example, between 1995 and 2011, the gap between lower

quartile house prices in

Auckland

the rest of the country increased by over 260% in real terms. The analogous figures for

median and upper quartile house prices are 230% and 150% respectively



SO there ya go , Houses were MORE expensive to build but due to cheap credit they are more expensive to buy.


Stephen

[Ocean1]

It might please you to know that I have absolutely no desire to look at those figures.

Doesn't surprise me in the least, the facts haven't altered your opinion to date and I see no liklihood of that changing.

Comparing then and now using statistics masks the fact that there are an awful lot of people struggling.

Bollox. It proves the point that there are fewer people struggling less hard now than there's ever been. It's just the usual socialist fuckwits that feel the need to blame "the system" for personal failures to take advantage of todays enormously greater opportunities.

[Ocean1]

SO there ya go , Houses were MORE expensive to build but due to cheap credit they are more expensive to buy.

Yeah. Not sure about the second bit, there. Someone else could find different numbers no doubt, but the fact remains that houses are not significantly more expensive than they've ever been. How could they be more unaffordable? people stretched as far to afford houses then as they do now.

And I agree, cheap credit is the root cause of the rise in prices, but that's because homeowners borrowed and upgraded, nobody held a gun to their head, it was entirely the owners choice, as it should be. All of this bleating about housing unaffordability misses a very inconvenient point: Those houses represent a coresponding increase in the ability of Kiwis to pay for them. A net rise in our standard of living, no less. The exact opposite of the trend our socialis mates insist is the case.

The downside is, of course that the more money invested in the top half of the market the higher the prices in the entry level. But let's put the blame for that where it belongs: untennable and unwaranted compliance costs and material prices dominated by monopolies. If you could build the house today your father built 50 years ago it would cost you no more than it did then. Probably less. You can't, of course, the local authorities want their cut, and they don't get that by allowing cheap buildings on developments they've milked for far more than it costs to produce them.

[Katman]

It proves the point that there are fewer people struggling less now than there's ever been.

So does that mean there are more people struggling more?

[mashman]

Doesn't surprise me in the least, the facts haven't altered your opinion to date and I see no liklihood of that changing.

Bollox. It proves the point that there are fewer people struggling less hard now than there's ever been. It's just the usual socialist fuckwits that feel the need to blame "the system" for personal failures to take advantage of todays enormously greater opportunities.

Facts, like what? Oh we've never had it so good because the facts say so? In which case there shouldn't be 3.5 billion people are in poverty. You may prefer top roll over and play dead once you've been placated, but that ain't for everyone... thank fuck.

It proves nothing of the sort. However, it does prove that figures can be massaged to appease fuckwits though... thanks for the incontrovertible proof there. @usual socialist fuckwits and blaming the system for personal failures. That has to be one of the most moronic and ignorant statements you've made to date... and you've uttered a few doozy's. Bravo, bravo.

[oldrider]

Struggling people today are way better off than struggling people were even when I was a kid ... believe it or not!

IMHO the world does not owe anybody anything except a fair and proper monetary system!

And believe it or not the only thing that it would cost to give it to them is to remove the power of those that currently control it for their own ends!

[mashman]

Struggling people today are way better off than struggling people were even when I was a kid ... believe it or not!

IMHO the world does not owe anybody anything except a fair and proper monetary system!

And believe it or not the only thing that it would cost to give it to them is to remove the power of those that currently control it for their own ends!

... the only reason that the people in power are in power is because there is a monetary system.

The system defines human behaviour

[Oscar]

... the only reason that the people in power are in power is because there is a monetary system.

The system defines human behaviour

Human behavour determines that the smarter, stronger and more socially adept rise to the top.

The less socially adept, weaker and stupid examples sit around bleating about the system.
Your problem is that there will never be a system where bitter incoherent jealous onanists get to the top.

[oldrider]

... the only reason that the people in power are in power is because there is a monetary system.

The system defines human behaviour

Well true but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with current monetary system in its self ... it is a means of exchange and we need that!

The problem is that the system has and is being manipulated [Quote: give me control of the finances of the world I care not who makes the laws] against us!

The reason that this happens is simply "because "we" allow it" ... even INSIST upon it to continue unabated!

The old adage "laughing all the way to the bank" must have been coined by the profiteers who control the banks at our expense!

No government - Left / Centre / Right / whatever - will succeed unless they take back what is rightfully ours/theirs, the creation of all "new" credit for the economy!

The reserve bank is already established and able to provide that service ... all it needs is the will of the people through government and it could be fixed immediately!

The people need to simply vote for those who have the will and have the policies that will take the solution to the treasury benches! (one offering currently)

The biggest obsticle to actually getting this done is ... The media and public complacency! (read stupidity)

[mashman]

Human behavour determines that the smarter, stronger and more socially adept rise to the top.

The less socially adept, weaker and stupid examples sit around bleating about the system.
Your problem is that there will never be a system where bitter incoherent jealous onanists get to the top.

it does nothing of the sought... however it does highlight the socially irresponsible.

I guess you figured in for a penny in for a troll.
You have no idea what my problem is with the system... primarily as you seem incapable of understanding anyone else's point of view. Leaves you as nothing more than just another moron with an entitlement complex to justify the social damage that you create.

[mashman]

Well true but there is nothing fundamentally wrong with current monetary system in its self ... it is a means of exchange and we need that!

The problem is that the system has and is being manipulated [Quote: give me control of the finances of the world I care not who makes the laws] against us!

The reason that this happens is simply "because "we" allow it" ... even INSIST upon it to continue unabated!

The old adage "laughing all the way to the bank" must have been coined by the profiteers who control the banks at our expense!

No government - Left / Centre / Right / whatever - will succeed unless they take back what is rightfully ours/theirs, the creation of all "new" credit for the economy!

The reserve bank is already established and able to provide that service ... all it needs is the will of the people through government and it could be fixed immediately!

The people need to simply vote for those who have the will and have the policies that will take the solution to the treasury benches! (one offering currently)

The biggest obsticle to actually getting this done is ... The media and public complacency! (read stupidity)

There is something fundamentally wrong with it because despite 10's of thousands of years of using a monetary system, not a single one has been kept. The reason for that being that something is fundamentally wrong with the monetary system, especially when you consider that it modifies and leads human behaviour. We don't need it anymore thanb we need govt (see Belgium for recent history of a country not requiring a govt).

The system has to be manipulated... in fact it is absolutely imperative, else we would have had the same system for all this time. We haven't, because the system is fundamentally flawed.

True, we only have ourselves for that... well, that and every generation before us.

it probably was, but it's a catchy strapline to hoodwink the morons into believing that human beings can't live without it .

Aye, it doesn't matter what colour govt is in as all they're interested in is BAU and growth... and even if they govt did have a hold of the purse strings, money would still be created at interest and there'd never be enough money to pay off the debt.

bwaaaaaaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha haaaaaaaa... can I borrow those rose tinted specs after you've used them. If the govt doesn't have enough money to build a bridge (for instance), then it doesn't matter what the people ask/want/demand as the bridge isn't affordable. No doubt they'd toll the bridge to pay for it, well, to pay back the loan they had to borrow (including interest) for something that the people wanted. True though, the will of the people can move mountains (as long as it's financially affordable).

Who is the one group that has these magic policies?

heh... now there we agree... however I've found that talking about it face to face can easily counteract the media spin and I've also found that most of the complacents (that I've met) are complacent because there is nothing to vote for as they've seen it all before. Something new is needed.

[Oscar]

it does nothing of the sought... however it does highlight the socially irresponsible.

I guess you figured in for a penny in for a troll.
You have no idea what my problem is with the system... primarily as you seem incapable of understanding anyone else's point of view. Leaves you as nothing more than just another moron with an entitlement complex to justify the social damage that you create.

I probably don't have any idea what your problem with the system is - the blame however is yours alone, because despite the thousands of lines of drivel that you've inflicted this site with, you rarely even begin to make sense.

Entitlement complex? I worked for everything I have.
Social damage? You are a pompous twat that doesn't know me, how can you begin to know how I fit into society?
You are a dreary, jealous, slighty boring Troll.

[Brian d marge]

Yeah. Not sure about the second bit, there. Someone else could find different numbers no doubt, but the fact remains that houses are not significantly more expensive than they've ever been. How could they be more unaffordable? people stretched as far to afford houses then as they do now.

And I agree, cheap credit is the root cause of the rise in prices, but that's because homeowners borrowed and upgraded, nobody held a gun to their head, it was entirely the owners choice, as it should be. All of this bleating about housing unaffordability misses a very inconvenient point: Those houses represent a coresponding increase in the ability of Kiwis to pay for them. A net rise in our standard of living, no less. The exact opposite of the trend our socialis mates insist is the case.

The downside is, of course that the more money invested in the top half of the market the higher the prices in the entry level. But let's put the blame for that where it belongs: untennable and unwaranted compliance costs and material prices dominated by monopolies. If you could build the house today your father built 50 years ago it would cost you no more than it did then. Probably less. You can't, of course, the local authorities want their cut, and they don't get that by allowing cheap buildings on developments they've milked for far more than it costs to produce them.

The first bit was from the NZ yearbook 1970 http://www3.stats.govt.nz/New_Zealan...apter_1_163727

and the second part was from your source the productivity commision , when I have a chance Ill post it

Anyway v, very quickly , re read the links you posted , they are good , but sorry As far as I can see , yes houses have been getting bigger but they have been getting cheaper to build and the ( I think ) the biggest cause of unaffrodability is due to the relaxation of the credit market in early 1980s , cheap money , rising equity in an asset , ( you must admit if you had a house in 1980 you have had a good run of rising equity !)

and at the end of the day , houses in NZ are abouve the 30 % morgage stress limit ,

Stephen

sorry meeting at 1 and need to prepare

[Banditbandit]

There is something fundamentally wrong with it because despite 10's of thousands of years of using a monetary system, not a single one has been kept. The reason for that being that something is fundamentally wrong with the monetary system, especially when you consider that it modifies and leads human behaviour. We don't need it anymore than we need govt (see Belgium for recent history of a country not requiring a govt).

The system has to be manipulated... in fact it is absolutely imperative, else we would have had the same system for all this time. We haven't, because the system is fundamentally flawed.

True, we only have ourselves for that... well, that and every generation before us.

Any organised society needs an exchange medium/system (especially highly organised ones involving divisions of labour) ours happens to be a monetary system ... but any other system will do just as well.

The issue is not with the system, but with human behaviour and desires .. some people want to get to the top and will fight there way there and make it - even the so-called Communist systems (actually left-wing dictatorships) prove that .. as do all other systems. Even the animal kingdom has dominant group leaders who fight for that position ..

So, the issue is not with the monetary system, but with human beings .. and fuck it, I'm sick of trying to change them ... the stupid fuckers just keep on doing whatever ... that's probably why I'm a cynical old fucker ...