General New Zealand Politics

If there was an election today, who would you vote for?

  • National

    Votes: 17 32.7%
  • Labour

    Votes: 10 19.2%
  • Greens

    Votes: 5 9.6%
  • NZ First

    Votes: 2 3.8%
  • Act

    Votes: 12 23.1%
  • New Conservative Party

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 5.8%
  • None of then

    Votes: 3 5.8%

  • Total voters
    52
john nick

john nick

They are working off flawed theories. Most of the models are borderline quackery. There are many reasons for this including that the economy is so complex and interdependent that the models they use are not nearly complex enough, plus a good dose of vested interests peddling flawed economics that supports their interest (the housing sector bring a prime example).
Are you talking about real estate agents
 
  • Haha
Reactions: bruce
wizards rage

wizards rage

They are working off flawed theories. Most of the models are borderline quackery. There are many reasons for this including that the economy is so complex and interdependent that the models they use are not nearly complex enough, plus a good dose of vested interests peddling flawed economics that supports their interest (the housing sector bring a prime example).
Can’t they work off experience and intuition.

Most of us on here have picked prices to drop way more than the experts and we are being proven right.

They either really don’t have a clue or they try are trying to manipulate the economy by choosing either to be overly optimistic or pessimistic with their predictions.
 
john nick

john nick

Can’t they work off experience and intuition.

Most of us on here have picked prices to drop way more than the experts and we are being proven right.

They either really don’t have a clue or they try are trying to manipulate the economy by choosing either to be overly optimistic or pessimistic with their predictions.
Peter Thompson head of Barfoot and Thompson said that if covid was to arrive in NZ the arse would fall out of the housing market.
Absolutely the opposite happened.
I smell a rat
 
Fonzie

Fonzie

Can’t they work off experience and intuition.

Most of us on here have picked prices to drop way more than the experts and we are being proven right.

They either really don’t have a clue or they try are trying to manipulate the economy by choosing either to be overly optimistic or pessimistic with their predictions.
There are some that are better than others

A good start is to completely ignore anyone who works for/in the property sector or other vested interest

These guys are worth reading imo:



Edit - not to say that Chris Joye has never talked his own book 😉
 
  • Like
Reactions: john nick and bruce
Miket12

Miket12

There are some that are better than others

A good start is to completely ignore anyone who works for/in the property sector or other vested interest

These guys are worth reading imo:



Edit - not to say that Chris Joye has never talked his own book 😉
One of the best bits of advice I’ve received was to fully check out financial advisors… a lot of them are just “salesmen” for either the managed fund companies which pay them a large commission or ”salesmen” for a property company.
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
One of the best bits of advice I’ve received was to fully check out financial advisors… a lot of them are just “salesmen” for either the managed fund companies which pay them a large commission or ”salesmen” for a property company.
They are supposed to declare any commission they earn. I have known some honest investment advisors. They seem to follow a basket good performers on the market. and I doubt go for bitcoin like some did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Miket12

Mr Brownstone

One of the best bits of advice I’ve received was to fully check out financial advisors… a lot of them are just “salesmen” for either the managed fund companies which pay them a large commission or ”salesmen” for a property company.
They’re mostly old dudes that have a strong network of relationships with other old dudes. A minority of them have good market insight while a significant majority’s greatest value add is in hosting long lunches. Most would consider themselves financial experts however very few are.
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
They’re mostly old dudes that have a strong network of relationships with other old dudes. A minority of them have good market insight while a significant majority’s greatest value add is in hosting long lunches. Most would consider themselves financial experts however very few are.
It comes down to how desperate they are to produce paper profits.

The Canadian Teachers Union who put all their money in FTX are a sad example.

That guy Scarramucci in New York seemed to be exposed to FTX as well.

Milford seems to be doing well on returns in NZ compared to the ASB, but they are paper?

Then again in the old days the AMP Society had all the best commercial real estate around. Now they are a shell company in the Bahamas.

I wonder why some people prefer property?
 
bruce

bruce

Contributor
They’re mostly old dudes that have a strong network of relationships with other old dudes. A minority of them have good market insight while a significant majority’s greatest value add is in hosting long lunches. Most would consider themselves financial experts however very few are.
I do not have Kiwisaver any more, but some tell me it is a shite investment.
 
Miket12

Miket12

Has anyone actually worked out the timeline for the entrenchment clause in the 3 Waters legislation?

Problem is... Labour said it was a Greens Party idea but Sage said Mahuta contacted her about putting the clauses in when Parliament met under urgency knowing few MP's would actually be in the chamber.

Ardern and Hipkins said they knew nothing about it until it reached the Debating Chamber, but Mahuta then said Ardern and Hipkins were both present at caucus when it was discussed, and that Ardern was chairing the meeting.

Ardern says she then can't remember it being discussed in caucus, yet she instructed Parker to ask the Crown Law office to confirm whether the entrenchment clause was constitutional. Parker has confirmed he did ask the CLO but will not say what the CLO reported back.... obviously, it wasn't good otherwise the government would release it.

Now Ardern is refusing to answer any more questions on the subject because she feels she's told enough lies she's already answered enough on it and doesn't "accept that the public needs to know any more" as "it's now confusing the matter".
 
Inruin

Inruin

Contributor
Has anyone actually worked out the timeline for the entrenchment clause in the 3 Waters legislation?

Problem is... Labour said it was a Greens Party idea but Sage said Mahuta contacted her about putting the clauses in when Parliament met under urgency knowing few MP's would actually be in the chamber.

Ardern and Hipkins said they knew nothing about it until it reached the Debating Chamber, but Mahuta then said Ardern and Hipkins were both present at caucus when it was discussed, and that Ardern was chairing the meeting.

Ardern says she then can't remember it being discussed in caucus, yet she instructed Parker to ask the Crown Law office to confirm whether the entrenchment clause was constitutional. Parker has confirmed he did ask the CLO but will not say what the CLO reported back.... obviously, it wasn't good otherwise the government would release it.

Now Ardern is refusing to answer any more questions on the subject because she feels she's told enough lies she's already answered enough on it and doesn't "accept that the public needs to know any more" as "it's now confusing the matter".

Just a question around entrenchment. When it is intially passed does it have to have 75% vote (or 60% in this case) for it to become law. Or can it just be passed with the barest of majorities and have that clause in it?
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce
Miket12

Miket12


Just a question around entrenchment. When it is intially passed does it have to have 75% vote (or 60% in this case) for it to become law. Or can it just be passed with the barest of majorities and have that clause in it?
The entrenched section of the 3 Waters can be passed into law with the barest of a majority but, if passed, could only be changed with 60% of all MP’s agreeing to it.

We do have somethings entrenched currently in NZ law, but those relate to Parliament and Elections, not policies introduced by parties….

Six provisions in New Zealand law are constitutionally entrenched, meaning they can only be changed by a vote of more than 75% of the House of Representatives or more than 50% at a referendum. They are contained in the Electoral Act 1993 (and one in the Constitution Act 1986) and relate to:

  • the term of Parliament
  • the Representation Commission (a committee that determines electoral boundaries)
  • the division of New Zealand into general electorates
  • the 5% margin for the population of general electorates
  • the minimum voting age of 18
  • the method of secret voting.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bruce
Inruin

Inruin

Contributor
The entrenched section of the 3 Waters can be passed into law with the barest of a majority but, if passed, could only be changed with 60% of all MP’s agreeing to it.

We do have somethings entrenched currently in NZ law, but those relate to Parliament and Elections, not policies introduced by parties….

Six provisions in New Zealand law are constitutionally entrenched, meaning they can only be changed by a vote of more than 75% of the House of Representatives or more than 50% at a referendum. They are contained in the Electoral Act 1993 (and one in the Constitution Act 1986) and relate to:

  • the term of Parliament
  • the Representation Commission (a committee that determines electoral boundaries)
  • the division of New Zealand into general electorates
  • the 5% margin for the population of general electorates
  • the minimum voting age of 18
  • the method of secret voting.
seems a bit strange doesn't it. For a normal law, it requires just the barest of a majority to pass. So any sitting Government can pass or change or repeal almost any law. When it comes to entrenchment, you would think that if it requires a higher threshold to be changed or removed then that is what should be required to put it in to law also - therefore you would have a more unilateral or cross party support for it also.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Old Sid and bruce

Similar threads

john nick
Replies
48
Views
1K
mt.wellington
mt.wellington
Navigator
Replies
49
Views
3K
Mr Dragon
Mr Dragon
Vancent
Replies
9
Views
1K
Citygirl
Citygirl
mt.wellington
Replies
7
Views
679
Beastmode
Beastmode
Miket12
Replies
7
Views
500
gREVUS
gREVUS