Indeed – insulting the economist and his university is poor form even if Brash was caught off his guard. I like to think neither of us would play the man in that way 🙂

You should definitely comment whenever pieces come out stating that the social costs of things are massive – social cost studies are a bubble!

I’d like to think that I’m always happier to turn down a chance to comment if I haven’t had time to double check everything properly. I’ve turned down dozens of requests from our uni PR guy to put out statements on stuff where I’m not in a position to say something, or where it would take me more time to figure it out than I have. But it’s also really really easy to catch a call while you’re driving and give something off the cuff to try to be helpful.

“What seems more likely here: that Brash caught the full report and got
real mad about the tone of #1, or that he only caught part of it on a
cell call?”

It is most likely he was quoted a part of it from a cell call.

However, he is an ex-RBNZ govenour. He, the Bank, and all commentators (I am in this group), use terms like “buoying”, “stimulating”, and “boost” constantly when discussing these things. Among people who write and read these reports they have a less value laden meaning – and I think your point that they can be misconstrued is an EXCELLENT one, one I often discuss with people working in a similar sort of role!

As someone that used to use the terms in this way himself, he must have understood the context – and decided to be disingenuous and attack. Tbh, attacking Cooper on the basis of a phone call from a journalist is EVEN WORSE – not only was he taking the quote out of context (a context he should understand) but he was relying on second-hand information.

There is no way I can defend Brash here – there was no need for those sorts of comments about another person. Especially not another economicst 😉

“Buoying consumer confidence”. “stimulating demand” “boost to building activity” “catalyst for growth”.

Could just as positively state:

“First, Auckland house prices continue to rise and housing supply responses remain only on the way. Wealth effects from increased property values will increase consumer confidence and build further demand for new housing, but risk inducing households to increase leverage over their properties. When interest rates again rise, this may put pressure on household budgets. Household disposable income net of housing costs has diminished for those facing increased housing costs, and this will be worsened when interest rates return to their longer-term trend. Increased demand in finance, property and real estate and construction services sectors suggest a supply response will come soon; this building, when it begins, will have consequent downstream beneficial effects on related industries. But consenting will need to double for Auckland to meet the targets specified for next year in the housing accord.”

There are lots of ways of reporting positive things.

I do like the warning Cooper gives in point 2 about the challenges of meeting the new building targets. And I really liked Cooper’s interview with Ed Glaeser.

I also wonder whether Brash saw the full report, or if he were giving off-the-cuff reactions to a few choice quotes about Auckland prices marching upwards, buoying confidence, stimulating demand, boosting expected building activity, and providing a catalyst for downstream growth. Always dangerous to provide reaction quotes without having seen the full piece. What seems more likely here: that Brash caught the full report and got real mad about the tone of #1, or that he only caught part of it on a cell call?