Here's our summary of key economic events overnight with news the war in Ukraine is adding to the global supply chain stress. And there has been a major bond market rally as risk-off sentiment spreads. And further, there are signs of a collateral squeeze in some financial markets.
But first, it has been a notable dairy auction this morning. Overall record prices were reached, after the fourth consecutive solid rise, this one +5.1% from the prior event and the largest of the set. Since the first auction of the year overall prices are up +19%. But the rising Kiwi dollar has limited today's gain in local currency to +3.1%. New all-time record high prices were achieved for butter (after another +5.9% rise this time) and Cheddar cheese (up +10.9% this time). In USD it wasn't a record high for either SMP (+4.7%) or WMP (+5.7%), but in NZD, the WMP did touch a new record high.
Analysts were expecting higher prices along these lines. It will be interesting to hear their new farmgate payout forecasts which are all sure to rise. They have been all holding back to see this result after Fonterra raised its estimate for this season to above each of their prior calculations.
In eastern Europe, Ukraine holds - just - but faces a new more brutal version of the invasion as Russian anger grows that it wasn't welcomed by an easy victory, anger doubled because it is the Russian-speaking population fighting as hard against them as anyone. The Russians are now targeting civilians in reprisal, with indiscriminate bombing of cities.
Overnight, China gave a half-hearted indication it will try to play a role in resolving the crisis.
Sadly, this war has suddenly opened the gates to sharply rising spending on military defense capabilities. And that is a global phenomenon, including in east and south-east Asia. It has also renewed the desire to join security alliances. Russia has set back the gains of demilitarisation by decades, maybe more.
It is also a time investors are assessing the risks in their portfolios. It won't be good for less developed countries. The economic implications of that will be enormous and last a generation.
And re-routing cargoes away from Russia is creating a new front in the supply-chain stress situation. It is likely to have freight-rate cost implications at some point, probably soon.
Despite the grim European security situation, the February factory PMIs in the US were all very positive. The widely-watched ISM one rose marginally and holding its very healthy level. The internationally-benchmarked Markit one also rose notably. New orders were up strongly while the pace of cost increases stabilised.
US retail activity as monitored by the Redbook survey is maintaining its strong expansion.
The US logistics managers index was up as well, "with no obvious signs of slowdown".
In Canada, they released the Q4-2021 economic activity data and that came out better than expected with a +6.7% rise, up from the +5.5% rise in Q3-2021.
And the high-profile trucker protest at the Windsor bridge had zero impact on their factory PMI which rolled on at a healthy expansion.
Both the official and unofficial factory PMIs were out for China late yesterday, and both recorded minor gains, but sufficient to take them from a stall to a marginal expansion. Their services PMI is little changed too, and still in a tepid expansion.
Yesterday however a senior Chinese official warned that they are facing big challenges stabilising consumption this year amid huge pressure on foreign trade. The result is downward pressure across the whole country, their Minister of Commerce said.
The overall EU factory PMIs stayed expansionary in February, with good output growth supported by stronger demand and fewer delivery delays in the month.
German reported its inflation rate ticking up to +5.1% in February. On an EU harmonised basis it ticked up to +5.5%.
There was a PMI report out for Russia for February too. That reported a renewed decline in their manufacturing sector performance amid weak customer demand. They were contracting, and are it is not likely to improve in March.
In Australia, the RBA sat pat with its official cash rate still at 0.1%, and give no signal that this was about to change. They say the war in Ukraine is a major source of uncertainty for the global economy, local wages growth isn't strong, and inflation is benign in their view.
In Australia, mortgage lending to investors rose to a record high in January. And at 33% of all new housing lending (except refis) that proportion is back at a four hear high. (The record high was in 2015 when it hit 46%.) Currently New Zealand lending to investors accounts for just 17%. The NZ proportion peaked at 35% in mid 2016.
The UST 10yr yield opens today at 1.71% and down another sharp -16 bps from this time yesterday as the international risk-off mood builds on markets. The UST 2-10 rate curve starts today a little flatter at +40 bps. Their 1-5 curve is much flatter at +66 bps and their 30 day-10yr curve is also much flatter at +165 bps. The Australian ten year bond is down a very sharp -14 bps at 2.03%. The China Govt ten year bond is up +2 bps at 2.83%. And the New Zealand Govt ten year is also up +2 bps at 2.78%.
Wall Street opened its Tuesday trading with a -1.5% fall in ongoing afternoon trade. Overnight European markets were all sharply lower again in a range from London down -1.5% most others down -3.5%. Yesterday, Tokyo ended its Tuesday session up +1.2%, Hong Kong was up +0.2%, and Shanghai was up +0.8%. The ASX200 ended up +0.7% and the NZX50 was up +1.8% with surprisingly good gains in our Tuesday session.
The price of gold starts today at US$1934/oz and up +US$39/oz from this time yesterday. We are in full "extreme fear" mode now.
And oil prices are sharply higher again today and have pushed on up well over the US$100/bbl level. In the US they are up +US$10 to just over US$104/bbl. The international price is just over US$106/bbl. The last time crude oil prices were this high was in 2014 so these latest prices are eight year highs. (In between they fell to just US$18/bbl in 2020. It was only a brief stop that low however.) The price of coal hit a record high yesterday.
The Kiwi dollar will open today at 67.6 USc and a marginal slip. Against the Australian dollar we are at 93.2 AUc and also a marginal slip. Against the euro we at 60.9 euro cents and a rise of more than +½c. That means our TWI-5 starts today at just on 72.4 and unchanged from yesterday even if it is still a five week high.
The bitcoin price has risen again today, up +5.3% from this time yesterday to US$43,278. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been extreme at +/- 5.1%.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
128 Comments
"Russia has set back the gains of demilitarisation by decades, maybe more."
No, David, you are conflating cause with causal. There are 4x too many people on the planet even at this rate of consumption, let alone attempting to 'raise' the unconsuming to consuming levels. Someone was going to make the first move, indeed Iraq and Libya and Afghanistan (x2) suggest this isn't the first. Indeed, I'd add WW1 and WW2. Conflict was always inevitable, only denied by those who though 'growth' could be forever. (In other words, by those who were wrong).
"The economic implications of that will be enormous and last a generation"
Agree with the first part, but for 'a generation' try substituting: 'forever'.
The how of how it pans out, is unwritten. The why and the inevitability of how it pans out have been well heralded. We indeed live in interesting times.
"President Putin's special military operation to defend the people of Donbass from an imminent general offensive by the neo-Nazi regime in Kiev not only is it fully justified in international law by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, but it is fully consistent with the military praxis and doctrine of the legitimate self-defence of States in the face of an imminent threat emanating from a neighbouring state or enemy forces," says Heinz Dieterich, director of the Centre for Transition Sciences (CTS) at the Autonomous Metropolitan University in Mexico City, and coordinator at the World Advanced Research Project (WARP). Link
Curious? Why are US Neo Nazis on Putin's side? Could it be the pot calling the kettle black? Attacks on minorities are Nazi modus operandi.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vrTnFC4gzys&t=21s&ab_channel=greenmanbucket
While not disagreeing with the population argument PDK, are you attributing to much to Putin? Many would like to say this is all about resources, but others say it is just about power (my view too) and maintaining control. I agree with DC. This series of events proves to the whole world that no matter how smart or clever we think we are, no matter how evolved we like to think we have become, underneath it all the lust for power and control simmers endlessly and a few let it out. Militaries are still needed if only to deter these attitudes, as is the political will to employ them when needed.
As to resources, these wars consume resources at a prodigious rate, meaning that any reserves are just consumed and depleted faster. It would be far cheaper to spend the money developing alternatives.
pdk,
" Indeed, I'd add WW1" You say that in your view the world is 4 times over populated. Well, it was under 2 billion in 1900, so even on that basis, WW! could not have been about scarcity of resources. Nor was WW2 about resources or over population except in the very narrow sense that Hitler wanted to grab other nations' resources and was keen on depopulation-at least for Jews, Gypsies and those with mental and physical ailments.
I can see no connection between Putin's invasion of the Ukraine and population or resources. It seems much more likely that he is attempting to recreate the Soviet Union.
However, I must agree that regional wars over resources may well be on the horizon.
Japan and the U.S. engaged in negotiations during the course of 1941 in an effort to improve relations. During these negotiations, Japan considered withdrawal from most of China and Indochina after drawing up peace terms with the Chinese. Japan would also adopt an independent interpretation of the Tripartite Pact, and would not discriminate in trade, provided all other countries reciprocated. However General Tojo, then Japanese War Minister, rejected compromises in China.[14] Responding to Japanese occupation of key airfields in Indochina (July 24) following an agreement between Japan and Vichy France, the U.S. froze Japanese assets on July 26, 1941, and on August 1 established an embargo on oil and gasoline exports to Japan.[15][16][17] The oil embargo was an especially strong response because oil was Japan's most crucial import, and more than 80% of Japan's oil at the time came from the United States.[18]
Japanese war planners had long looked south, especially to Brunei for oil and Malaya for rubber and tin. In the autumn of 1940, Japan requested 3.15 million barrels of oil from the Dutch East Indies, but received a counteroffer of only 1.35 million.[19] The Navy was certain any attempt to seize this region would bring the U.S. into the war,[20][page needed] but the complete U.S. oil embargo reduced Japanese options to two: seize Southeast Asia before its existing stocks of strategic materials were depleted, or submission to American demands.[21] Moreover, any southern operation would be vulnerable to attack from the Philippines, then a U.S. commonwealth, so war with the U.S. seemed necessary in any case.
While not the whole reason for WWII, resources always play a part. One of reasons Hitler lost WW2 was the deprivation of oil supply when he failed to secure the Caucasus fields.
Linklater - scarcity is relative to perception of the times - with the caveat that at some point ultimate scarcity kicks in. WW1 was a scrap over Empires - who got (particularly spatial, then) access to what. That Germany lost, directly led to Lebensraum fur Herrenvolk - which was the drive behind starting WW2. Which a 3rd Empire won, thanks to then-unlimited in-house energy reserves.
Murray - I usually contemplate your posts with respect, indeed some make me change my stance. But on this, I wonder if your military background is an impediment? This is a game of poker which we are guessing at, but if we step back, it is being played i a room we can easily describe. Russia has been going down Norway's path; 'selling' real energy, in exchange for 'debt-issued tokens'. Eventually, you end up with no energy stocks, and a s---load of tokens; worth exactly zero in an ex-energy world. This is not rocket science (although admittedly a concept beyond parameter-constrained economists); Russia is better off not selling its energy; just keeping it for (rising) internal consumption.. But Europe is dead, the first winter that happens. So must go to war, to ensure the supply (which is finite, thus temporary and with no equivalent plan-b - an interesting aside). Who stirred this one up, then?
Your angle showed up the other day, re Patton. I wasn't contemplating the (flawed) man; I was pointing out that for decades, the US has known about the possibility of 'and make it look like it was their fault'. Most folk do the same with WW2 and Hitler - blame a defective/evil persona (as is being done with Putin currently - and was done with Trump) rather than the circumstances which put them there, and made them (at least think they had to) make the moves the do/did).
Yes Europe has a big problem with respect to energy. This has been exacerbated since the Fukushima meltdown, and Germany shutting it's reactors. But it was getting it's supply from Russia not Ukraine was it not? Had Ukraine even begun to exploit its known reserves yet? My understanding is that Russian reserves remain significant, if difficult to extract. But they are a long way down the path of successful extraction from difficult places.
While it is easy to say there is an energy component behind Putin's actions, I wasn't disagreeing, just questioning the logic. Look at it this way. Russia invaded Ukraine on three fronts. If this was just about Crimea or even energy, all they needed to do was concentrate all the forces to push down the black Sea coast to secure the corridor to Crimea, and continue through to Odessa, cutting Ukraine off from the Black Sea where the reserves are. The concentration of forces would have made it very difficult to counter and easier to defend. So to me this looks to be very different. Energy might be a part of Putin's thinking, but not a big part I think.
As to the US and their approach, I largely agree, but their problem is a free press. There are to many people out there commenting on what is going on and the motivations of the players. I try to look for the evidence. Many support their arguments, and these are the ones I tend to gravitate towards, but then I look to the critics of them too to see why they criticise those perspectives.
In the upshot though, while there may be many components to Putin, in the end I tend to be of the view that this is simply about power and control.
There is always an argument about history being about powerful people or about powerful ideas. 1,000 years of English history can be interpreted as an effort to prevent any one country dominating western Europe (Spain, then France, then Germany) or it can be about unique individuals such as Napoleon. The truth is at some undecidable point in between.
It was historical circumstances that put Hitler into power but his redirecting his war effort to exterminate Jews was his defective/evil persona resisting rational historical circumstances.
Agreed it makes sense to study the circumstances - if Putin had a fatal heart attack today would that change anything happening in the Ukraine?
Hitler was neither novel nor new in the persecution of the Jewish community. It was longstanding in Europe. In the 13th century Kind Edward 1 expelled the entire jewish population. No nation had indulged in it more than Russia, repeated pogroms over centuries. That dark persona was instilled amongst, let’s loosely say christians, undoubtedly including Hitler himself. For an individual of highly malevolent and murderous nature it was very easy to muster& ramp up these deep seated prejudices into racial attacks, the Jews were made guilty of everything, to corral, control & energise the people in a national frenzy.. It became both uncontrollable and unstoppable, an outcome that is difficult for history to equal in terms of scale of human cruelty & homicide.
I should have included this in my reply to PDK, but people tend to forget that WW2 was more about the impact of the treaty of Versailles. So PDK is correct in a sense that it was about resources - Germany was being denied the ability to develop in the way it wanted (and needed) to, as well as defend itself. True it took a flaw character like Hitler to do something extreme about it, but in the end the catalyst was simple.
Muz you would find, as I did, V D Hanson’s The Second World Wars rather illuminating in that he draws all the threads together that led up to WW2 & then unravels them to explain the result, more or less a foregone conclusion. Yes Versailles provided great impetus as any injustice will but also the military and notably Hitler fervently within that, thought they had been betrayed by the rise of let’s say the German upper middle classes, frightened of losing more power & wealth. As it was perceived that the Jews were well represented there, it became simple to make the link and exploit it for persecution. Unfortunately I have my copy lent out, otherwise could quote a couple of passages :{)
The proof that people do make a difference can be seen in the behaviour of the countries Hitler invaded - compare the percentage of Jews killed in Norway, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, France, etc.
You are right when you point out that the extermination of the Jews required the existence of a general prejudice against a group. It meant all Jews were endangered whether they were Christian or even knew they had Jewish blood.
However it does not take centuries of persecution to build a hatred. Most inhabitants of Bosnia had recorded their ethnicity as 'Yugoslav' in the census prior to the ethnic bloodbath. When Belgium ruled Rwanda the definition of a Hutu and a Tutsi was based on ownership of a cow; half a million killed brutally in three months.
It is not the rare individuals of highly malevolent and murderous nature that worry me - it is the sheep who follow them.
It is interesting reading all the commentary about Ukraine and observers opinions as to why, and what Putin's motives are. I am continually surprised as to how many people buy into Putin's rhetoric and seem to have no qualms accepting and even agreeing with him. Some go even further to add other justifications.
But CNN carries an article (https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/01/opinions/georgia-former-soviet-putin…) from a Ukrainian reporter who has worked for the BBC who identifies that Putin's motivations are very basic, and that the conflict didn't start this year, but in 2008 when he invaded Georgia and got away with it.
History speaks for itself. When Russia was weakest, just after the collapse of the Soviet Union, neither NATO nor any other single country tried to invade or take over Russia. As far as I am aware NATO have never postured as an aggressive threat to Russia. Rather it has consistently maintained a defensive posture.
There are contrasting views from within Germany: German MP Says NATO Responsible For Ukraine Crisis, Should Have Guaranteed Neutral Status
Yes read that some days ago. There was also a report that in the US political system they argued that Ukraine should not be admitted to NATO to appease Russia.
But here's a couple of questions;
- Would that have averted the current situation seeing that Putin has been subjugating former Soviet states since his invasion of Georgia in 2008?
- And what of the right to self determination? Ukraine's right to choose who it wants to align with politically? If we are to say they have no right, who then dictates to us about our rights?
Turkey is an interesting case isn't it. The US got off side with them because they purchased the S400 SAM system from Russia. But the S400 is one of the best in the world apparently, so there was also an opportunity there for them too, to learn about about it. And then there is the case that Erdogan is showing all the signs of being a 'strongman' leader, crushing any opposition. NATO hasn't suspended their membership yet as I understand it, so Erdogan's question is just posturing because if they are attacked, then NATO are obliged to assist.
Correct Murray. Nato has not postured aggressively towards Russia. But they do have to deal with aggressive sabre rattling by the USA. It's very difficult for Europe. Mostly they don't openly defy the Americans but stubbornly fail to go along.
The most ridiculous thing was renaming 'French Fries' to 'Freedom Fries' when the French were hesitant about Iraq.
While that move was both dumb and laughable, it underlines attitudes that lead to lots of dead people.
The main difference I can see between this and previous invasions, is that this time US isn't the aggressor. To quote the CNN article, "suddenly the whole world is high on moral clarity." To me I see Russia using the same methods as the US in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan just to mention the last 2 decades, and a bunch of hypocrites who can't handle it when someone else does it.
There were never extensive US forces in Libya or Syria. In both Iraq and Afghanistan US stated intention was to leave. Attempting to exerting power over others is something every country does (ask small SP nations about NZ) but annexing other countries or parts of them is a different matter.
I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy, when nearly everyone and all the media is saying it's ok when the US does but it's wrong when Russia does it. That applies equally well to the referendums in South Sudan as it does to Crimea. You can't even have a dialogue when your stance is that the same rules do not apply to all. I'm sick of all the blatant hypocrisy and willful ignorance.
The alternative to this 1 sided tribalism is to consider that we (West) are every bit as homicidal and illegal in our own quest for resource control... Many more civilians have been killed and displaced in iraq, Syria, afgan, than what will likely happen in the Ukraine.
But regardless (and without any real analysis or thought) the automatic MSM response is Russia = bad, USA for freedom and democracy! Ww2 this! Nukes that!
Accepting an impartial view here is Not an easy thing for some people to consider.
It does genuinely make me sad though, that in a world of dwindling energy supply I really don't see (based on these current prevailing attitudes and lack of thought flexibility) how the world will avoid increasing conflicts like this.
A silly statement. Price is up because everyone who wanted to sell sub 40k had sold and there were no sellers left.
More likely your Kiwisaver is tainted with the blood if Ukrainians.
NZ investment funds had more than $100 million invested in Russia | Stuff.co.nz
Russia is among the top 20 countries worldwide with the highest level of cryptocurrency adoption... "Capital flight and tax avoidance may also be part of the cryptocurrency adoption story in eastern Europe, particularly in Russia and Ukraine,” Chainalysis said. Link
Wow an article from a internet news site who are quoting random crypto research group. Must be accurate.
Also note the use of the word "may". What it really means is they have no clue and are expressing an opinion.
This conflict is clearly the latest narrative people use to explain crypto price movements "OMG there is a war, it created a BTC dump" then "OMG they are accepting crypto donations, it makes it pump!". I just shake my head.
When people quote random articles on the internet about things they have no clue about, there really is not much more to say.
https://twitter.com/Ukraine/status/1497594592438497282?s=20&t=IJmvD0gWX…
Probably not, the official Ukrainian twitter account is taking crypto donations directly and has recieved tens of millions worth so far.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-01/ukraine-adds-polkado…
Ukraine have received about USD30M worth of all cryptos.
Right this minute Bitcoins daily trade volume is USD35.7B
Ukraine doesn't have enough to move the needle at all, todays gains have nothing to do with Ukraine's wallet.
Also, its not just sitting in their wallet - they're offering bounties for Russian soldiers who defect with Russian military hardware among other things.
https://metro.co.uk/2022/03/01/anonymous-offers-russian-troops-bitcoin-…
So who is putting 35 billion into Bitcoin daily, could it be Russia money trying to put it out of their system if so this will give governments around the world powers and reason to put restrictions on crypto. Also US fed and other countries around the world trying to bring down inflation just feels like something big is about to happen in all areas. Russia has so much to lose by attacking Ukraine brothers family does not make any sense.
People with limit bids are also buyers who have no had bids filled yet, or in other words, there is no seller at that price. Same can be said for limit asks. So stacked limit bids and few limit asks means more buyers than sellers. But limit bids/asks are passive orders and don't move the price! Correct. Market orders move the price and for every market order there is a buyer and seller, as you say.
US retail activity as monitored by the Redbook survey is maintaining its strong expansion.
Retail sales stumbled in December, contributing some to the explosion in inventory across the US supply chain – but not all. Inventories were going to spike even if sales had been better. In fact, retail inventories rose at such a record pace beyond anything seen before, had sales been far improved the monthly increase in inventories still would’ve unlike anything in the data series.
And now those inventories have been revised upward. While so, the more concerning result in the Census Bureau’s advanced estimates for January 2022 is how retail inventory surged higher yet again. Though retail sales rebounded substantially from December’s drop, this latest monthly (seasonally-adjusted) increase was the second-highest on record anyway (just beating out December 2018).
Companies have said they intentionally over-ordered just to make sure some amount of goods got through all the various transportation bottlenecks. They’re absolutely getting it now.
Richard Prebble opinion piece today about December's Secretary of Defence's report on NZ's defence. TLDR: We're set up well for Afghanistan-type deployments but have basically no capacity for the Pacific. Who knew that as a Pacific country we'd need an effective navy rather than a few sea helicopters and a couple of frigates?
F35s too expensive F16s are a possibility, but personally I prefer the SAAB Gripen E. Stealth is to a limited degree important, but small has a stealth all of its own.
Protection of maritime areas, and working alongside allies in areas of conflict when necessary. It's about be able to contribute effectively to your own defence.
"Overnight, China gave a half-hearted indication it will try to play a role in resolving the crisis"
Joint military exercises, big trading partner, did they condemn Russia's invasion.......
"And oil prices are sharply higher again today and have pushed on up well over the US$100/bbl level. In the US they are up +US$10 to just over US$104/bbl."
Inflation, in the world and in NZ.
Sanctions have not stopped Putin, and the attacks on Ukraine have escalated. How many days more can Ukraine hold on.
The west has bombed and invaded countries for years. Hospitals, weddings etc etc. The latest being the war crime in Afghanistan when a group were droned out of existence. No sanctions, no global media outrage. If you ever doubted the Western media were controlled well now you know.
That's such a sad indicator of how incompetent the US military has become. They see someone loading cartons of bottled water into their car, and without eyes on the street to confirm or checking databases the address and occupant, they send a Hellfire missile into the compound which were full of children at that time.
And all they can say "after investigation" is basically "oh well, sh*t happens" - no liability, no responsibility, no accountability. This sort of behaviour has been common early on in Afghanistan where friendly fire is as much a concern as enemy fire.
I can assure you that is absolutely not 'the issue'. The issue is the lives lost and economies being ruined on both sides of this conflict.
Everyone knows the US has a shitty foreign policy track record. This isn't a university common room debate and this isn't new information to anyone in 2022. It's not even remotely relevant, and is naive whataboutism at best and cynical intentional deflection at worst.
Yes. This conflict being the one people are actually dying in. Rehashing the plot of a Michael Moore film on the flimsy basis that it provides 'context' as for a European War theatre in 2022 isn't something I'm interested. Feel free to continue to make up your own reasons as to why that might be.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
Context should be very important, you can keep your tribalism and hypocrisy, I'm not interested.
You can't even see context in a map showing how many have died from conflict in the past year? That is not self explanatory to you?
What you are saying is that 'the only issue' is the people dying and suffering in Ukraine, just be honest and admit the reason they are the only issue is because Russia is the enemy. Ukraine by default is your enemies enemy = friend. Ergo Russia must be condemned.
The media today only condemns wars that US didn't start, what a bunch of hypocrites.
Everyone knows the US has an abysmal record of interfering in foreign countries.
Just like your mum knew that Jimmy might well have done it first but it was wrong then and it's still wrong now, and no it's not an excuse. Didn't make her a hypocrite for knowing that nor something that would really justify you screeching at her about her not grasping context and nuance.
Who would argue that a country doing the wrong thing now should not be sanctioned because someone else did the wrong thing in the past, though? Makes no sense at all. The fact we cannot go back in time to correct wrongs does not mean we should repeat them, does it?
How precisely might that help the people being bombed and killed today?
Really, I saw the media coverage promising we'd find WMDs and extensive Al Q terror networks in Iraq.
I didn't see coverage of anyone analysing the investments we held in the US alat the time, implementing sanctions on GBush and saying we should sell up any US based equities etc.
The hypocrisy is real and entrenched.
"" no global media outrage"" - there was plenty of outrage; probably well outnumbered in the media by those who wanted to see the end of Saddam Hussein. Many MPs in the UK complained and their complaints were reported. The Iraq war had many objectors before it started (I'll sadly admit to not being one of them) and they were reported in the UK and the USA and I'm guessing globally.
It is an important point to make since complaints about treatment of the Rohingya are not well publicised in Myanmar nor the treatment of Uighurs in Chinese media nor I assume is the Russian media protesting their govt's invasion of the Ukraine.
Note how the media did report absence of WMD after the war ended (surprised me that someone who had used chemical weapons against his own population hadn't kept any in reserve).
Well it was true in 2010 and 2012. The Russian speaking regions voted for the "pro Russia" Party of Regions. That seems to be a reasonably clean geographical split to me. Not to read to much into a translated party name but it I would guess the eastern region was fairly sick of being ruled by Kiev politics.
Then Ukraine had a successful coup supported by foreign powers in 2014, the main parties disappeared. I still have not been able to find a full convincing story on what's happened since then.
First, can you drop the "ruled by Putin" framing? The split better characterised by pro Russia vs pro EU. This is still somewhat simplistic and loaded framing but nothing close to "ruled by Putin". If you would like to compare the validity of Ukrainian elections post coup (or before) vs Russian go ahead but there is no commonly known basis for asserting one is valid while the other is not.
There are centuries old ethnic and cultural ties involved in this that might outweigh whoever Russian leadership may be.
Capitalism is amoral. Something amoral cannot be a friend. It is based on competition - dog fighting dog so it cannot be a friend. The fighting is remorseless and would lead to destructive anarchy without the rule of law. Given honest institutions and the rule of law then capitalism is an effective system for the distribution of scarcities. Capitalist contracts depend on trust. So far capitalism has proven better than alternative methods of distribution.
I agree capitalism and 8 billion humans are destroying the planet. It is amoral. It distributes resources successfully but has no working mechanism for handling waste. So your alternative systems are: theocracy, communism, feudal, hunter gathering? Which do you prefer? I'd rather vote (it was Labour last time) and hope for the best.
Capitalism is built around supply and demand. Where supply is fixed then bring in state ownership - the obvious example is all land should be nationalised. Otherwise capitalism works fine. I'm about to go out shopping and capitalism gives me the choice of buying organic vegetables or alcohol. Capitalism makes no moral judgement.
So much for the "Ukraine adventure" - in the battle against climate change the line is holding. Go James Shaw - you got this!
"February, 2022 was 0.00 deg. C, down a little from the January, 2022 value of +0.03 deg. C."
https://www.interest.co.nz/business/114575/russia-paying-heavy-economic…
Rubbish mate. Usually you have a lot better insight that some imagined comment. It has always been the rate of warming that has been interesting- and confounding for the hand wringers. Given we are in an inter-glacial and still coming out of the Little Ice Age it would surprising if there wasn't any warming. For the hand wringer hypothesis to be correct we should be seeing a warming rate faster than pre-1945 rates.
Yet here we are, 24 years after your 1998 pick, still 0.49 degrees cooler in the UAH dataset and 0.19 degrees cooler on the RSS (January) dataset. In the same period atmospheric CO2 has increase by 14%. Some correlation you've got going there.
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/v6.0/tlt/uahncdc_lt_6.0.txt
https://images.remss.com/msu/graphics/TLT_v40/time_series/RSS_TS_channe…
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/mcs/media/images/70025000/gif/_700258…
You're going to need to get used to the fact a shrinking pool of people are going to take any of your comments on the matter seriously.
Your BBC source stops at 2010, and is flummoxed by the wider trend: https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Likewise, global average surface temperature: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-cha…
And then even your first source, which clearly shows Trend figures:
Trend
- Globe: 0.13
- Land: 0.18
- Ocean: 0.12
What's the point of being in your rabbit hole?
Thanks for highlighting the satellite era trend.
"And then even your first source, which clearly shows Trend figures:
Trend
- Globe: 0.13
- Land: 0.18
- Ocean: 0.12"
That is the point - the trend is the satellite era is no faster than pre-1945 when antro CO2 was begger all. Some rabbit hole - the lack of runaway global warming is in plain sight.
"As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different.
1860-1880 0.16/decade
1910-1940 0.15
1975-1998 0.16"
https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/mcs/media/images/70025000/gif/_700258…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm
Note also your NASA data link shows similar warming trend as the BBC Met Service data.NASA - 0.186/decade warming 1910-1940 and 0.167/decade warming in the satellite era. It is all here in plan sight - I don't even bother using my tinfoil hat any more.
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/graph_data/Global_Mean_Estima…
You are really battling, for sure. Meanwhile, your own source goes along with the IPCC findings at the time and notes "there's evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity".
Question remains, why bother? What's in it for you to go down the rabbit hole?
Mr Putin will be 70 this year. It's now or never for him. He's running out of time on this side of the grave. This is his plan & has been for 20 years or more from what i have read. He hasn't changed. He thinks he's got his act together, or he thinks if I'm going to finish this chapter off my way it's now or never. What's happening is horrible but it is not a surprise. He treats his own people like livestock with 145 million of them (out of 150 million) having f.... ..l & doing what they're told to or a) they'll be killed or b) worse. I've been following him for most of that time & I can tell you there is nothing to like about him what-so-ever. Even the Russian people hate his guts. He's a spook from a previous century that governs a huge land mass with an iron fist, with 90% of the materialistic benefits going to 5% of the people. He's a prick. But he's a dangerous prick.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.