If National wins ...

[fungus pudding]

There's a transcript of the Q&A program yesterday, Winston's interview. I think he got his nose out of joint a bit, over the MoU. But note the economist who has seen the graph of Auckland house price changes versus net immigration.

http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/economi...ay+6+June+2016

A 25% decrease in Auckland house prices is predicted, even if net immigration stays moderately positive.

Rod Oram in the SST yesterday.

This is a dream come true for Winston, and boy, does he know it! What you saw was not Winston looking put out - it was Winston trying not to show how he was licking his chops.
As far as house prices go, yes of course they'll come down. They always do after rapid rises. It's sometimes disguised because nominal prices are often maintained, but in real terms they will fall.

[elZorro]

This is a dream come true for Winston, and boy, does he know it! What you saw was not Winston looking put out - it was Winston trying not to show how he was licking his chops.
As far as house prices go, yes of course they'll come down. They always do after rapid rises. It's sometimes disguised because nominal prices are often maintained, but in real terms they will fall.

At least we agree on something, the last bit anyway.

I didn't see Winston's trademark flash of a smile in that interview, he's wondering how strong the new memorandum will make the Labour-Green vote in the next polls. Will they need him at all? If the Green conference is anything to go on, Andrew Little was certainly very welcome there.

http://www.labour.org.nz/andrew_s_sp...ource=nzlabour

I like the look of these Green Party members, they look younger, keener and even more aware than Labour Party people. They are, of course, very worried about climate change, as we all should be. There is no point in improving the lot of all NZers in the short term, if we don't try to safeguard our collective futures in the medium term. In particular, the Greens want NZ to be a Leader in climate change mitigation measures. A worthy goal, surely.

[Bjauck]

This is a dream come true for Winston, and boy, does he know it! What you saw was not Winston looking put out - it was Winston trying not to show how he was licking his chops.
As far as house prices go, yes of course they'll come down. They always do after rapid rises. It's sometimes disguised because nominal prices are often maintained, but in real terms they will fall.

Nominal house prices are often maintained after periods of rises. Just in recent times, there were, even in nominal terms, house price drops in NZ in 2000-01 and in 2007-09. But now prices are at record multiples of incomes and NZ house prices are the most expensive on a price/incomes basis in the World.

IMO, immigration is needed by the government to provide an impetus to the economy. A reason being that so much capital is wrapped up in inefficiently pushing up the value of residential land as opposed to being invested in improving and maintaining productive assets (which could boost productivity per worker). The government is reluctant to cut off immigration which is a short-term fix for the economy, which has migration but low productivity growth. It is easier to keep immigration (and less painful from an electoral point of view) than addressing the inefficiencies as to who how capital is currently employed in NZ.

[elZorro]

Nominal house prices are often maintained after periods of rises. Just in recent times, there were, even in nominal terms, house price drops in NZ in 2000-01 and in 2007-09. But now prices are at record multiples of incomes and NZ house prices are the most expensive on a price/incomes basis in the World.

IMO, immigration is needed by the government to provide an impetus to the economy. A reason being that so much capital is wrapped up in inefficiently pushing up the value of residential land as opposed to being invested in improving and maintaining productive assets (which could boost productivity per worker). The government is reluctant to cut off immigration which is a short-term fix for the economy, which has migration but low productivity growth. It is easier to keep immigration (and less painful from an electoral point of view) than addressing the inefficiencies as to who how capital is currently employed in NZ.

Dead right, Bjauck. Making those sorts of decisions and policy would require the National Govt to be proactive, rather than slimy administrators intent on staying in office while running down the economy elsewhere, to the detriment of most of the NZ population.

[artemis]

...., immigration is needed by the government to provide an impetus to the economy. A reason being that so much capital is wrapped up in inefficiently pushing up the value of residential land as opposed to being invested in improving and maintaining productive assets (which could boost productivity per worker). The government is reluctant to cut off immigration which is a short-term fix for the economy, which has migration but low productivity growth. It is easier to keep immigration (and less painful from an electoral point of view) than addressing the inefficiencies as to who how capital is currently employed in NZ.

Treasury prediction in pre budget papers (ie very recent) is that immigration is peaking now and will return to long term levels of around 12000 pa over the next couple of years. That is a sharp drop. They may not be right but I don't suppose they pulled those numbers out of the air.

So, wondering what you have based your assertions on. Some other numbers perhaps? Or not.

[fungus pudding]

At least we agree on something, the last bit anyway.

I didn't see Winston's trademark flash of a smile in that interview, he's wondering how strong the new memorandum will make the Labour-Green vote in the next polls.

He's wondering how much of a drop it will cause in Labour's vote, and just how much will go to the Greens and how much he will get. His head was spinning calculating the numbers to see if he would be more likely to screw National or Labour for the Prime Ministership.

[macduffy]

Treasury prediction in pre budget papers (ie very recent) is that immigration is peaking now and will return to long term levels of around 12000 pa over the next couple of years. That is a sharp drop. They may not be right but I don't suppose they pulled those numbers out of the air.

So, wondering what you have based your assertions on. Some other numbers perhaps? Or not.

Perhaps Treasury did pull those numbers out of the air?

http://politik.co.nz/en/content/econ....htm?ls-art0=0

Any better explanations?



[/I]

[Bjauck]

Treasury prediction in pre budget papers (ie very recent) is that immigration is peaking now and will return to long term levels of around 12000 pa over the next couple of years. That is a sharp drop. They may not be right but I don't suppose they pulled those numbers out of the air.

So, wondering what you have based your assertions on. Some other numbers perhaps? Or not.

It is my opinion and my interpretation of actual government policy not treasury forecasts..
I presume you are mainly referring to this part of my post: The government is reluctant to cut off immigration which is a short-term fix for the economy

I refer you to this (with my highlight):

"The Government has ruled out stemming the flow from overseas, saying that a large proportion of arrivals are returning Kiwis. It also says high net migration is only one part of a rare "trifecta" of economic trends " along with low interest rates and high confidence in the economy " putting pressure on housing and infrastructure."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/n...ectid=11651226

It is fair enough that many inward arrivals are returning Kiwis. However that still leaves foreign immigrants, the number of which the government can control. The confidence in the economy may well be due to the stimulus from immigration.

[artemis]

Perhaps Treasury did pull those numbers out of the air?

http://politik.co.nz/en/content/econ....htm?ls-art0=0

Any better explanations?[/I]

Heh. They probably made assumptions about the Australian and Chinese economies - which has been a big driver of NZers returning home and also to a lesser extent of Australians coming here to live / work.

Assumptions. Projections. But based on a degree of knowledge in The Treasury, which is more than can be said for some of the vitriolic rants above. Still perhaps Treasury staff are indeed 'slimy administrators'. Though I have known a few Treasury bods, none of them fit that description.

[Bjauck]

I was interested to read a Green opinion on immigration and house prices:
Our policy is that we need to review immigration on an annual basis, we need to do so so we can keep up with our infrastructure needs."
She said more needed to be known about the impact immigration had on cities around the country. "There are ways we could decrease numbers without applying a blanket approach which is what Mr Peters wants to do.
We should have a capital gains tax on houses and we need to ensure people who are not residents cannot buy property here,"
http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/politi...39;unrealistic'