False Tweets Archive, NZ2017

This page will gather all the false and misleading tweets from each of the Echo Chambers.

Criteria:

False tweets are demonstrably counter-factual.  Misleading tweets can easily be interpreted in a way that would lead to a counter-factual conclusion.  Tweets with links to articles and blog posts that contain false or misleading content are also included.  Tweets and articles that conflate facts with opinions are also considered misleading.

Partisan and opinionated commentary is not considered misleading, as long as the opinions are not conflated with facts.  It should be noted that the distinction is a fine one, and borderline cases may be contested – those in the business of creating fake news deliberately strive to blur the line between fact and fiction.  You may not entirely agree with my assessment of what is misleading and what is not.  I advise you use your own judgement, and I am open to feedback, though I may not necessarily agree with you after I hear it.

Echo Chamber National:

(!) Linking a tweet that links to an aggregator, which then links to a partisan opinion blog that mingles opinions with quotes and facts taken out of context:

(!) This tweet misrepresents the content of the linked news article, where Andrew Little clarifies that Labour does not support the charter school model:

(!) This article does not describe Labour infighting at all:

(!) Race baiting, misrepresenting the content of the linked article.  Retweeted by @bhudson_nz:

(!) Misleading use of statistics.  2009 was at the height of the Subprime Mortgages global financial crisis, and the New Zealand government cannot claim credit for the global economic recovery that followed:

(!) The linked article does not say anything about the existence of internal disputes within Labour.  King lashed out at the Herald journalist, who was the one who suggested Ardern might replace King as deputy:

(!) No, Foster-Bell, the news is real, your tweet is the lie.  The link has actual video footage of Wayne Mapp acknowledging civilian casualties in the raid.  If one spelling mistake constitutes “fake news”, well bad news for you, the mistake was quickly corrected, too:

(!) Misleading omission of information.  This refers to greenhouse gas emissions from energy generation and use only, does not include agriculture, construction, and other industries.  Also, year-to-year variability may not reflect long term trends:

(!) Brett Hudson (@bhudson_nz) retweeting unsubstantiated and unverifiable rumours:

(!) The linked article literally shows that there are more people unemployed now than in 2008, when National came into power:

(!) Look-Through Companies are an legal invention created in 2010 by the National government to allow more streamlined tax offsetting, which was previously done through Loss Attributing Qualifying Companies.  This “standard tax practice” was invented by the National government, and doesn’t exist outside New Zealand, nor did it exist before National was in government:

(!) The image does not, in any way, provide any evidence for a causal relationship between land availability and house prices in Christchurch.  Alternative hypotheses for lower house prices may include, for example, a population slump after the earthquake (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11140576 ):

(!) When your linked “opinion” piece is contrary to facts, it’s not an opinion, it’s lies:

(!) Labour’s health funding analysis takes into account the age of the population as well, with higher costs as people age.  Also, no rebuttal for housing shortage and poverty:

(!) Is this a loaded question designed to implant a certain presupposed conclusion into the readers’ minds, while also obfuscating important facts such as the disassociation of Matt McCarten from Labour before the alleged immigration fraud took place?:

(!) The linked article quotes one union leader who specifically says that their union wasn’t involved.  The whole point of the scandal is that Campaign for Change didn’t get any union money or official Labour support, and that’s why things went bad:

(!) This is for the first Monday morning only after the new tunnel opened, specifically from the CBD to the airport.  Does not necessarily reflect how traffic patterns will adjust in the long term.  Statistic taken completely out of context, and is deeply misleading:

(!) “Kiwi families” veils the fact that National’s tax cuts benefit the richest far more than the poorest, and misleadingly implies an equivalence where there is none.  National proposes tax cuts that go mostly to the rich, Labour proposes benefits for low- and middle-income families:

(!) No, actually, inequality was falling under the last Labour government (1999-2008), then it rose back up under the National government (2008-present) (http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/nz-social-indicators/Home/Standard%20of%20living/income-inequality.aspx):

(!) Labour has a plan, a “diverted profits tax”, it’s not even complicated:

(!) One of eight, not one of three.  I don’t think the person in charge of National’s Twitter account even read the whole article they linked.  Just the headline of the article lists four countries among the “stand out digital economies”:

(!) The article also says that it is due to low global interest rates and high overseas equity prices, things that are out of our control.  Our net foreign liabilities remains high by international standards, and has not changed much in real dollar terms:

(!) This completely misrepresents Labour’s policies.  For numbers on where Labour plans to spend the money, see (https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/94879965/labour-lays-out-financial-plan-with-billions-more-for-health-education):

(!) From the linked article, “The report said there was headroom for growth but it was possible the Hawke’s Bay commercial properties were at a valuation peak, or approaching it.  “It seems likely that 2017 could be overall another ripper for New Zealand and Hawke’s Bay commercial-industrial property, however, with heightened risks that could conspire to spoil the party and maybe at short notice.”  Associate director Kurt Richards said: “This is possibly typical of a market, at or nearing its peak.””  Also, the article says retail vacancy is improving, and fewer vacant properties are better, but the person in charge of National’s Twitter account thinks “vacancy is up” is a good thing:

(!) This claim picks the most favourable statistic, without considering how much of that income is disposable.  On page 110 of said report, the increase in median disposable income after housing costs is from 2008-2016 is shown to be around 5%.  For the bottom 10% of income earners, the increase is less than 1%.  For the top 10% of income earners, the increase is around 10%.  Quote “Using the AHC moving line (relative) measure (60%),the population poverty rate was in 2016 the same as what it was in the recession and in the early to mid 2000s. Rates in 2013 to 2016 were roughly double what they were in the 1980s.”:

(!) Unemployment down, labour force participation also down.  That’s means it’s not more percentage people working, it’s less percentage people trying to find work:

(!) If you read the actual report (https://www.anz.co.nz/about-us/economic-markets-research/job-ads/ ), it says that job growth peaked earlier in the year and is currently stalling.  (Also, is the same white dude getting all the jobs?!):

(!) There are 3820 lakes in New Zealand larger than one hectare, by the way.  You can look up the number of rivers for yourself:

(!) This has nothing to do with sugar.  Bottlers using municipal supplies already pay the local council for the water supply.  Whether the council charge for the water itself or only for the infrastructure is up to the council.  Labour water charge is for extracting directly from rivers and aquifers:

(!) The linked article does not support the Tweet’s assertion:

(!) Actually, the linked article quotes Dunne being quite clear that the citizenship issue has nothing to do with Hipkins:

(!) Do I really point this ignorance out?  “Kids starved of nurturing and love.”  And the boot camps will continue with that.  “What would a boot camp give them? […] Suddenly you’ve got a sense of purpose.”  They already had a sense of purpose: survival.  If you give military discipline to a criminal, they’ll become a disciplined criminal (which is more dangerous, by the way).  What they need is money, food, a home, skills, a good job.  “Some years ago, when I was 18, I did Outward Bound for a month. I’d never been away from home and suddenly I was […] Sleeping rough in the hills in driving rain, […] And that was me for three days on my own.”  You did that for 3 days, and after plenty of training, huh?  Consider homeless kids for whom that’s their everyday, and they’re not even 18 yet, you privileged white woman.  “Will a boot-camp work? It has to.”  Faith before evidence.  “And it has to be better than the alternative. Turning these kids out on the streets once they’ve done their time.”  Straw man alert.  The alternative is not turning them out on the street, the alternative is a home, counselling, training, a job.  Your opinion is privileged ignorance:

(!) 9 years of bad housing policy and now the band-aid on the symptoms cost $6 million per day with no end in sight:

(!) House prices in Auckland has approximately doubled in the past 5 years.  Halving current prices only means correcting the price bubble:

(!) This is a building boom relative to the aftermath of the Great Recession of 2008.  If we look at longer-term trends, current consent numbers are comparable to 1950 – 1980 averages.  We should also note that the current uptick in housing construction follows a larger surge in population growth, thus this boom is merely struggling to keep pace with demand (http://m.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/estimates_and_projections/dwellings-household-trends-1991-2015.aspx ):

(!) This graph is deliberately truncated to mislead (see full data set at https://data.oecd.org/lprdty/gdp-per-hour-worked.htm ).  The start date of 2005 is below long-term trends for New Zealand.  If 2004 or 2007 were picked as starting dates, then New Zealand would be shown to be below OECD average.  Limiting the data set to the selected countries also misrepresent the data.  Comparing with all OECD countries, New Zealand is in the bottom half in percentages terms, and significantly below OECD average in real dollar values.

(!) A “NZ tax resident” is very different from a “NZ resident”.  Actual NZ citizens and legal residents are only 40% of the market.  57% of the market are people who pay New Zealand taxes, but are neither NZ citizens nor residents.  You qualify to be a tax resident merely by owning a house in New Zealand, which is tautological when we’re talking about property investors.  From the IRD website on tax residency, “Even if you maintain ties (or even a physical home) in other countries you can still be a New Zealand tax resident. As long as you have a permanent place of abode in New Zealand you’ll always be a [tax] resident”:

(!) A capital gains tax on investment properties is not a tax on small business in general, only property speculators.  It suppresses only the housing bubble.  It encourages job creation because it shifts investment dollars out of houses and into businesses.  It doesn’t affect incomes except for property speculators.  Hudson literally listed all the wrong things, and left out the one thing that’s correct – correcting the house price bubble may potentially push recent mortgagees into foreclosure because it wouldn’t make sense to finance a mortgage that costs twice the value of the house before even factoring in the interest:

(!) Or you can lay another track to increase capacity:

(!) Misleading use of quote marks.  The “quote” is not of the journalist, but of himself being quoted by the journalist.  The only person to use the words “false promise” is Bennett himself:

Echo Chamber Labour:

(!) @NagtiBird linking to an old blog post from April 2016, in present tense, portraying it as a current issue.

(!) Can’t tell if this is meant to be tongue-in-cheek, but drinking river water is more dangerous then driving.  61% of monitored rivers are unsuitable for swimming in, let alone drinking (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8978223/Many-NZ-rivers-unsafe-for-swimming).  E.coli infections are potentially fatal.  Probability of car accidents lower than probability of illness from drinking river water:

Echo Chamber Green:

Echo Chamber New Zealand First:

(!) That’s not what fascism means.  The bill exploits workers, it’s not a murderous racist dictatorship:

(!) Let’s file this one away for review after the election:

(!) Treaty of Waitangi, Article 2: “Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.”:

(!) You’d have to be pretty thick not to understand that production is meant to ramp up over time:

Echo Chamber Maori Party:

Echo Chamber ACT:

(!) Ad hominem name-calling, and disingenuous economic analogy.  Government borrowing is not similar to a mortgage, the government is typically able to borrow at a far lower interest rate than personal mortgages.  Many of the world’s banks were bailed out of the last financial crisis by borrowing money from governments at a low interest rate, then lending that money out to companies and individuals at a higher interest rate, allowing them to keep the difference as earnings.  There’s nothing inherently wrong with borrowing to invest, if the terms are favourable:

(!) Misleading quote due to missing attribution.  The quote is David Seymour’s words, not the journalist’s:

(!) False equivalence on charter schools.  That Auckland Grammar teaches alternative curricula does not necessarily mean it is a good idea.  That charter schools have not chosen to teach alternative curricula does not necessarily mean the law is correct in allowing alternative curricula.  That one teacher not registered with EDUCANZ is suitable for the role does not necessarily mean that negotiating each individual contract with the Crown on case by case basis is better than a EDUCANZ registration requirement:

(!) Absolutely no evidence or explanation is given as to what is envious about Labour’s policy.  Tweet and heading misrepresents content of statement:

(!) Claims the need to build houses at the same rate as from the 40’s to the 70’s, fails to acknowledge the significant number of state houses built during that time, dismisses current policies by National and Labour to build more state houses:

(!) People earning $70k don’t carry 60% of the country’s income tax burden, it’s people earning above $70k, all the way up into the millions.  Income tax revenue is in the same ballpark as the regressive GST, which means the poor pay a greater proportion of all taxes than ACT’s rhetoric implies.  People earning $70k pay 20% effective income tax, because it’s only above $70k that gets taxed at 33%.  The people who get the most out of ACT’s tax cuts are people earning far more than $70k:

(!) Landcorp manages Crown land.  ACT wants to use conservation as an excuse to privatise Crown land:

(!) There is no statistical correlation between tax rates and GDP growth:

(!) The road network, if made into a “business”, will be a monopoly.  Airlines, accommodation, and grocery stores are not, and not allowed to be, monopolies.  Treating the road network as a business is not a market solution, it creates a market failure:

(!) McCarten was not part of Labour when it happened:

(!) There’s no explanation of where the “$16 billion” figure came from.  Figures from the IRD (https://taxpolicy.ird.govt.nz/sites/default/files/news/2017-05-25-budget-2017-2-fact-sheet-1-family-incomes-package.docx , Table 2) show the combined accommodation supplement and benefit to be less than $2 billion over 4 years:

(!) “Communism”.  You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means:

(!) Actually, it has been proven empirically that social welfare programmes measurably reduces poverty (e.g. http://www2.hawaii.edu/~noy/300texts/poverty-comparative.pdf , “Detailed analysis confirms that higher levels of government spending as in Scandinavia and Northern Europe and more careful targeting of government transfers on the poor as in Canada, Sweden and Finland produce lower poverty rates”):

(!) Literally making up statistics:

(!) This paper is not from a peer-reviewed journal.  It’s conclusion states “The existence of a temporary introduction effect and a compression effect are not supported by the data. While the results are consistent with a discretionary birth timing effect as a result of the introduction of the baby bonus, the results do not support the existence of such an effect following the 2006 increase in the value of the baby bonus, in contrast to previous literature.”:

(!) This paper notes serious limitations, including “ii) the total fertility rate has increased among low-fertility countries since 2003 and is expected to continue to increase (Goldstein, Sobotka, and Jasilioniene 2009). Therefore, it is likely that the lower fertility rate in Australia before the Baby Bonus was implemented was due in part to tempo effects; during times when the ages of childbearing increase (e.g., fertility postponement), there is a temporary depression of fertility (Bongaarts and Feeney 1998). As a result of these external factors, any delayed or long-term effects of the Bonus cannot be measured, or at least not directly.”:

(!) This paper concludes that cash subsidies do not increase total fertility, though it might encourage people to have children at a younger age. “Results indicate
that there is little ANC impact on completed fertility.”:

(!) Labour isn’t lying about anything, they’re clearly saying they’ll fund more superannuation by not cutting taxes.  This tweet and headline is the lie:

(!) The 40% tax is before deductions, and only for those with incomes over $150,000.  The 11% mortgage and disappearing jobs is completely made up scaremongering, no financial analysis is presented:

(!) Straw manning out the wazoo.  Pre-judging a curriculum before it has even been developed.  If it really does become political propaganda, it’ll be the tool of whoever is in government, not exclusively to Labour’s benefit at all:

Echo Chamber United Future:

(!) The Daily Mail is a tabloid that openly supports the UK Conservatives and the UK Independence Party, and is known for its, at best, inconsistent dedication to journalistic integrity: