10 ms·

"Unless they wanted to move abroad" Ah - exactly. They want to make the local citizens pay for their overseas retirement then? No thanks. Again - community

"Unless they wanted to move abroad" Ah - exactly. They want to make the local citizens pay for their overseas retirement then? No thanks. Again - community centric economic policies for domiciles is imperative. Globalization of these things will hurt 99% of us.

conanbatt 9y ago
> They want to make the local citizens pay for their overseas retirement then? They want to make foreigners pay them their foreign retirement, in that case. > Again - community centric economic policies for domiciles is imperative. It is the government itself that is creating the problem, by overly restrictive zoning policies, similar but even more pronounced in NZ.
- elyobo 9y ago
  No, it's Kiwis that will ultimately pay the price, as it's Kiwis that are getting screwed by unaffordable housing.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Person A has property and wants to sell it to person B, and person C wants to get the property at a lower price, so he forbids, by force, for person A to sell it to B. Why do you think person C is getting screwed if A sells to B? A thought experient: What if the landowners went the opposite way: property can only be sold to foreigners that are poorer than nzlanders. How would that go in this scheme of things.
    - elyobo 9y ago
      The average price of property grows due to the additional demand from speculators, foreign and local, pushing up the price that C has to pay for any other property as well. It's not that complicated. The primary purpose of housing is not to make people money, it's to house people. To serve that goal the lower the price is the better. In that context it's clear that it's not the relative wealth, or even foreigner vs local that's the problem, it's speculation of any kind. So no, in your thought experiment it's no better to sell to foreign speculators regardless of their relative wealth. A more interesting thought experiment is what happens in an economy when property speculation doesn't happen. House prices are lower, as demand is only from those that want to live in them and those that want to buy them to lease them out. With lower prices paid, there's more money (on average) in everyone's pockets - including those that rent, due to lower rental prices. This increase in money stimulates the economy, especially because most of the relative benefit accrues to those on lower incomes that spend most of their income to live. The economy is further benefited as much of the money that would have otherwise been dumped into non-productive real estate speculation instead flows into real investment. The end result of discouraging property speculation is enormously beneficial to the country. Investors can speculate in the stock market or whatever else they like, because people don't live in shares, but the housing market exists to serve a purpose... and that purpose is not to make people money. That's an acceptable side effect so long as the primary purpose is fulfilled, but in NZ and AU it's failing.
      - alexasmyths 9y ago
        It does matter 'if it's a foreigner or not' because that will yield a bunch of distortions.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    "No, it's Kiwis that will ultimately pay the price, as it's Kiwis that are getting screwed by unaffordable housing" ? If you take away foreign investment in homes, then housing prices will be affordable. The only way housing is not affordable otherwise is if there is 'bubble like activity' - like the Silicon Valley - and even then, this has a lot to do with foreign money flowing in, just as LP's and investors and not as home owners. Point blank. Toronto and Vancouver have massive foreign investment and have unaffordable homes. Montreal - with similar economic conditions - has a little less immigration, and no foundation for Asian buyers - and guess what? It's super affordable. Everywhere you see a lot of international speculation - you see affordability problems. Ban foreign ownership of property unless it's commercial. There's absolutely no reason to be speculating with our homes. FYI - this creates a serious problem: Toronto and Vancouver are Ponzi schemes - construction is a big part of the economy. If the zillions of homes stopped getting built, it would mean a 'reality based economy' that Canadians can't deal with - because we don't export valuable things and we are addicted to an ever-increasing number of warm bodies.
    - elyobo 9y ago
      I think you've misunderstood the context of my comment, as it seems we agree. I'm saying that foreign speculation (and local speculation) are bad for Kiwis and should be acted against, so it seems we're in agreement. My comment should be read in context as "No, it's Kiwis that will ultimately pay the price, as it's Kiwis that are getting screwed by unaffordable housing [caused by unfettered speculation, foreign and local]".
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  "It is the government itself that is creating the problem," I don't agree. The government should have never allowed non-citizens to buy property in the first place. Zoning is not the issue, there's plenty of space, granted, they could change that if they had to. Massive surpluses of cash from wealthy 1%-er foreigners is the issue really. Here's an idea: you can't have 'free trade' if one side is willing to allow de-facto slavery, corruption and externalization of things like pollution etc.. Because that means jobs are lost in 'high regulation country A' and move to 'corrupt and low regulation country B' - particularly into the pockets of their 1%-ers who can then rule their own country, and then come ton country A where surpluses are more evenly distributed and also take over and use their wealth as leverage. No. Just like you need certain things in order to have a common currency - you need certain things for free trade. We understand that 'strategic dumping' and 'government subsidies' are generally not allowed in 'free trade' - but we should be aware that 'government allowing pollution' etc. - is like a form of subsidy. There is already a trade war with China, so it would be best if the West simply added a tariff for imports that reflected these things, and certainly had capital controls. Nothing heavy, but domestic property ownership should definitely be regulated as well.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    > The government should have never allowed non-citizens to buy property in the first place. Why allow citizens to leave the country while we are at it. Lets just close all the borderds, never allow foreigners in, or locals out. That is the recipe for economic prosperity! You are forgetting the foreigners have let their cash into nz. They gave it to homeowners, to construcion companies, etc. Those in turn spend it and reinvest it locally.
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      Why not let foreigners vote? Why not give them free healthcare? Why not subsidize their education abroad? Why not let foreigners pay our politicians to make legislation - the money goes to lawyers, consultants etc. i.e. right into the economy! For the same reason we have borders, that we don't allow foreigners to buy some kinds of assets (i.e. wireless spectrum) - or do some kind of banking, own certain kinds of companies.

conanbatt 9y ago

> They want to make the local citizens pay for their overseas retirement then? They want to make foreigners pay them their foreign retirement, in that case. > Again - community centric economic policies for domiciles is imperative. It is the government itself that is creating the problem, by overly restrictive zoning policies, similar but even more pronounced in NZ.

elyobo 9y ago
No, it's Kiwis that will ultimately pay the price, as it's Kiwis that are getting screwed by unaffordable housing.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Person A has property and wants to sell it to person B, and person C wants to get the property at a lower price, so he forbids, by force, for person A to sell it to B. Why do you think person C is getting screwed if A sells to B? A thought experient: What if the landowners went the opposite way: property can only be sold to foreigners that are poorer than nzlanders. How would that go in this scheme of things.
  - elyobo 9y ago
    The average price of property grows due to the additional demand from speculators, foreign and local, pushing up the price that C has to pay for any other property as well. It's not that complicated. The primary purpose of housing is not to make people money, it's to house people. To serve that goal the lower the price is the better. In that context it's clear that it's not the relative wealth, or even foreigner vs local that's the problem, it's speculation of any kind. So no, in your thought experiment it's no better to sell to foreign speculators regardless of their relative wealth. A more interesting thought experiment is what happens in an economy when property speculation doesn't happen. House prices are lower, as demand is only from those that want to live in them and those that want to buy them to lease them out. With lower prices paid, there's more money (on average) in everyone's pockets - including those that rent, due to lower rental prices. This increase in money stimulates the economy, especially because most of the relative benefit accrues to those on lower incomes that spend most of their income to live. The economy is further benefited as much of the money that would have otherwise been dumped into non-productive real estate speculation instead flows into real investment. The end result of discouraging property speculation is enormously beneficial to the country. Investors can speculate in the stock market or whatever else they like, because people don't live in shares, but the housing market exists to serve a purpose... and that purpose is not to make people money. That's an acceptable side effect so long as the primary purpose is fulfilled, but in NZ and AU it's failing.
    - alexasmyths 9y ago
      It does matter 'if it's a foreigner or not' because that will yield a bunch of distortions.
- alexasmyths 9y ago
  "No, it's Kiwis that will ultimately pay the price, as it's Kiwis that are getting screwed by unaffordable housing" ? If you take away foreign investment in homes, then housing prices will be affordable. The only way housing is not affordable otherwise is if there is 'bubble like activity' - like the Silicon Valley - and even then, this has a lot to do with foreign money flowing in, just as LP's and investors and not as home owners. Point blank. Toronto and Vancouver have massive foreign investment and have unaffordable homes. Montreal - with similar economic conditions - has a little less immigration, and no foundation for Asian buyers - and guess what? It's super affordable. Everywhere you see a lot of international speculation - you see affordability problems. Ban foreign ownership of property unless it's commercial. There's absolutely no reason to be speculating with our homes. FYI - this creates a serious problem: Toronto and Vancouver are Ponzi schemes - construction is a big part of the economy. If the zillions of homes stopped getting built, it would mean a 'reality based economy' that Canadians can't deal with - because we don't export valuable things and we are addicted to an ever-increasing number of warm bodies.
  - elyobo 9y ago
    I think you've misunderstood the context of my comment, as it seems we agree. I'm saying that foreign speculation (and local speculation) are bad for Kiwis and should be acted against, so it seems we're in agreement. My comment should be read in context as "No, it's Kiwis that will ultimately pay the price, as it's Kiwis that are getting screwed by unaffordable housing [caused by unfettered speculation, foreign and local]".
alexasmyths 9y ago
"It is the government itself that is creating the problem," I don't agree. The government should have never allowed non-citizens to buy property in the first place. Zoning is not the issue, there's plenty of space, granted, they could change that if they had to. Massive surpluses of cash from wealthy 1%-er foreigners is the issue really. Here's an idea: you can't have 'free trade' if one side is willing to allow de-facto slavery, corruption and externalization of things like pollution etc.. Because that means jobs are lost in 'high regulation country A' and move to 'corrupt and low regulation country B' - particularly into the pockets of their 1%-ers who can then rule their own country, and then come ton country A where surpluses are more evenly distributed and also take over and use their wealth as leverage. No. Just like you need certain things in order to have a common currency - you need certain things for free trade. We understand that 'strategic dumping' and 'government subsidies' are generally not allowed in 'free trade' - but we should be aware that 'government allowing pollution' etc. - is like a form of subsidy. There is already a trade war with China, so it would be best if the West simply added a tariff for imports that reflected these things, and certainly had capital controls. Nothing heavy, but domestic property ownership should definitely be regulated as well.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  > The government should have never allowed non-citizens to buy property in the first place. Why allow citizens to leave the country while we are at it. Lets just close all the borderds, never allow foreigners in, or locals out. That is the recipe for economic prosperity! You are forgetting the foreigners have let their cash into nz. They gave it to homeowners, to construcion companies, etc. Those in turn spend it and reinvest it locally.
  - alexasmyths 9y ago
    Why not let foreigners vote? Why not give them free healthcare? Why not subsidize their education abroad? Why not let foreigners pay our politicians to make legislation - the money goes to lawyers, consultants etc. i.e. right into the economy! For the same reason we have borders, that we don't allow foreigners to buy some kinds of assets (i.e. wireless spectrum) - or do some kind of banking, own certain kinds of companies.