Posts by talkie_toaster
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Sacha,
You directly contradicted yourself.
In response to my post
if you think the analysis comes to fundamentally incorrect conclusions, just say so. Why can’t you just say so?
you said
I did.
I took this to mean that you think the analysis comes to fundamentally incorrect conclusions.and that Chinese foreign investors aren’t a major driver of the Auckland housing market
Then in response to my post
I have not seen you state that Chinese foreign investors aren’t a major driver of the Auckland housing market.
You said
Of course they are
I took this to mean that you think the analysis comes to fundamentally correct conclusions and that Chinese foreign investors are a major driver of the Auckland housing market.
One of these things is not like the other.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Danielle,
eh?
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Alfie,
Personally I have no problem with discussions of race and dog-whistle politics and they are an issue. Just not in this case. I just think people have gone straight from "racists are going to like this" to "it's racist" with minimal discussion. Sure, racists will interpret this analysis in their usual asshat racist way. Doesn't mean we have to.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Stephen Judd,
You really, really need to read the back catalogue here
No offense, but frankly I have better things to do with my time. Watching paint dry, scooping out my own eyeballs with a salad server, that kind of thing. I take your point that I'm not familiar with previous discussions.
profession political consultants
Just lol. How’s their track record?
But, I take your other points, fair enough.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Stephen Judd,
Having said that, laying yourself open to charges of hypocrisy through poor framing AND pissing off your own activist base probably aren’t helping.
I guess my problem is that there are a billion posts about percieved racism and no posts about capital flow from the tanking Chinese stockmarket, the price of Auckland houses, the difficulty young people face in owning a house, or any other issues that matter to the people who vote for Labour (rather than the volunteers who work for Labour).
What’s the point of pleasing your activist base? Really, are they a major voting block? Surely pleasing your voter base is more important?
-
I haven’t mentioned jack squat about the method (statistics: not my thing). I’m saying that if you know *any* Australian and NZ immigration history this is a dogwhistle that’s been periodically used for over a century in politics and handwaving it away with “that’s just what they WANT you to do, sheeple” is really insulting to the victims of that racist dogwhistling. If you don’t want us to talk about how shitty this is, Labour, DON’T PLAY THE DOGWHISTLE CARD. It’s pretty fucking simple.
I know what dogwhistles are and I agree that it's gross. The idea that this draws conclusions on race is an opinion, and one that is explicitly rejected by the author of the study. Includes race, uses race, draws conclusions that are based on an uncontroversial correlation between racial data and nationality: yes, sure. But draws conclusions based on race? The author is so careful to explicitly reject that.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Sacha,
I did. Learn to troll better.
Sacha, just to point out: not only did you not state that the conclusions of the analysis are fundamentally incorrect, you stated that:
__I have not seen you state that Chinese foreign investors aren’t a major driver of the Auckland housing market.__
<q>**Of course they are** – but this piece of research does not show that.
Which seems to imply that you do think the conclusions are correct.
So there I am.. learning to troll better.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Sacha,
Gosh that superior intellect of yours must be a burden.
Honestly, I'm OK with my superior intellect. Appreciate your concern though.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Danielle,
The Nats didn’t have to do any work.
No, they never do. You do it for them by focussing on the method and not the conclusions... despite the fact that nobody really disagrees with the conclusions, and despite the fact that the method is entirely robust according to the considered opinion of statistically literate people. And that's the problem.
-
Polity: House-buying patterns in Auckland, in reply to Sacha,
Of course they are – but this piece of research does not show that.
Good to see that we agree on that at least.This piece of research really never claimed to definitively show that; the research claimed that:
on the preponderance of all available evidence from the aggregate data that there is likely a large impact of offshore investment from China in Auckland’s real estate market
Note the qualifiers. So, according to the available evidence, including the lived experience of all Aucklanders (of all races) in the housing market, and testimony from actual Chinese investors, and the considered opinion of experts in the real estate market, the conclusions of the study are correct. So, now the issue becomes: why isn't this the issue?
Why have you, according to the content of your posts, uncritically accepted the right's framing of this issue: that it's about racism and not the conclusions of the analysis?