Posts by Jim Cathcart
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I’m not really sure of what it is about Auckland and the Mr Wheeler attitude towards cyclists, but it fits in well with the NIMBY concept of property rights. After riding the main roads of Osaka for over 10 years, I never experienced road rage or intimidation once, even if my approach to cycling would probably warrant me a hiding in Auckland. Took my road bike out after landing in AK 5 years ago and was harassed twice in 7 days, one time from Devonport to Takapuna and the other from Highbury to Takapuna. I gave up as it’s not worth the stress in my opinion. Better to ride in cities like Whangarei where people don't seem to care and are used to seeing the Marsden Wheelers around.
OTOH, I’ve seen some appalling etiquette among cyclists in Auckland, particularly the MAMIL weekend warriors who probably need to attend a course led by experienced cyclists who have experience riding in packs (likely to be amateur racers).
-
If anyone is interested, Rodney Dickens has an analysis of house prices and consumer spending in NZ here. Good read and he's suggesting that even if house prices were to fall, rising employment and increasing migration will keep consumer spending high.
-
Polity: Hosking’s right about jobs, in reply to Kumara Republic,
Well noted. Despite any ideological bluster, there seems to be a strong element of entitlement among the rentier class, which seems to be particularly strong in Auckland. The same rentier class (all-powerful in NZ and Australia) tend to ignore that the global monetary system, which sees our banks secure wholesale funding for mortgage lending and retail bank "money creation", is the framework for this burgeoning social structure.
-
Polity: Hosking’s right about jobs, in reply to Dismal Soyanz,
Well the only way you're going to be able to prove your point is if Auckland has a property crash. From your comments, your interpretation of the wealth effect is different to mine and that espoused by Robert Schiller.
-
Polity: Hosking’s right about jobs, in reply to linger,
The wealth effect was first hypothesized by Robert Schiller, who stands apart as one of the more respectable behavioral economists of our time. What you are saying is quite right, but that's not how people actually think during bubbles. It also works in the other direction, when asset prices crash. And this is a scenario that the govt is terrified of. Take a look at Australia and ask yourself why the govt offered first home buyer grants after the GFC. When houses become such a dominant part of your economy and a financial./ savings instrument, it becomes far too important for the wider economy, particularly in consumer-driven societies like NZ's.
-
Polity: Hosking’s right about jobs, in reply to linger,
No. As house prices rise, people tend to consumer more, particularly if they own their own homes. Speculation is simply driving up asset prices, but the "wealth effect" is felt by others, regardless if they're speculating or not.
-
I'm going to be a little disruptive here about unemployment. Since the GFC, global capital has been on the hunt for a home where interest rates are high, therefore the Aussie banks have been on a roll with wholesale funding that they can flash at property speculation, which has been on a tear in Auckland, Sydney, and Melbourne (and until quite recently Perth). Where you have property bubbles, you also higher discretionary spending, which supports employment and wage growth.
Regardless of political leadership, this would have occurred anyway because of economic orthodoxy and our reliance on persistent current account deficits.
-
Hard News: After Len, in reply to Russell Brown,
I'll take your word Russell and excuse me if I sound somewhat reactionary.
-
Hard News: After Len, in reply to Julie Fairey,
OK Julie, I know what you're saying but the chances of Auckland becoming a city based around public transport nodes is rather pie in the sky don't you think? And if this really were the great vision, what is happening in terms of mid- to high-density development happening in the modes of the CRL right now? Do you really think 3.5 km of rail is going to make a difference? Hell, even HCMC has a more grand vision than this and is on track to build a more impressive transport infrastructure by 2020. And more to the point, what is worth if nobody can actually afford to live there?
-
Doesn't Auckland need to prioritize housing before trains, public pools, and petty political battles between the red and blue corners? Or perhaps people have internalized that the little stuff is all that they can really hope to change. It doesn't really show much vision, spunk or ambition for either the council or the PA segmentation of Auckland.