sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Bond investors nursing heavy losses; China profits fall; money rushes out of China; US looks at billionaires tax; Hart eyes sell-down; UST 10yr 2.49%; gold up and oil holds; NZ$1 = 69.6 USc; TWI-5 = 74.9

Business / news
Bond investors nursing heavy losses; China profits fall; money rushes out of China; US looks at billionaires tax; Hart eyes sell-down; UST 10yr 2.49%; gold up and oil holds; NZ$1 = 69.6 USc; TWI-5 = 74.9

Here's our summary of key economic events over the weekend with news there is a global bond selloff underway which we will be watching in the run-up to the end of the month. Bond investors are nursing huge losses as the bond market enters a bear phase, the scale of which we haven't seen in nearly 40 years.

But first up, China reported that in the first two months of 2022, profits at private businesses fell almost -2% compared to the same period last year. Profits of foreign companies fell more than -7%. But their state-owned enterprises reported a more than +16% rise, most of which came from "mining" (read coal). The net result over all this is a +5% rise.

Bigger sales and higher prices are producing a bonanza for coal miners there. The coal price has more than doubled in 2022 so far, and they more than tripled in 2021. China is planning more coal output and more coal-fired power stations, at least through 2025. Beijing seems to be the green-washing capital of the world when it claims it is tackling climate change.

Future industrial profits outside the coal industry might be a challenge in the face of the growing spread pandemic. Shanghai has now ordered a lockdown and mass testing in a key industrial powerhouse part of the vast city. This will have global shipping and supply-chain consequences

Since the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, China has been experiencing huge flows of money out of the country. They are leaking funding from both stocks and bonds, according to monitoring a high-frequency data. And it is China-specific, not a general emerging-market trend. The volume has been enough to shift the yuan down by almost -0.5%. It is as though both American and European wealth managers are rethinking their structural commitment to China. There will be loud echoes if such a shift is underway.

Separately, it looks like the Chinese are pulling the plug on some large oil-sector investments with Russia.

And the Americans have agreed to supply the EU with significant gas supplies in an attempt to reduce Europe's reliance on Russian energy. Canada has chipped in too, now. Russia currently supplies about 40% of the EU's gas needs and this deal will cut that to 30%. Internal reductions will get priority to minimise much of that. Germany says it is making real progress on that.

In the US, the Administration is proposing a 'billionaire minimum income tax' of 20%. Most billionaires pay little or no tax now. It would require that American households with a net worth of more than US$100 mln pay a rate of at least 20% on their income, as well as on unrealised gains in the value of their liquid assets, such as stocks and bonds, which can accumulate value for years but are currently taxed only when they are sold.

Economic data from the US on Friday was nothing to get excited about. Sentiment slipped, as measured by the respected University of Michigan survey, but is was a smaller slip than expected even though the overall level remains low.

The number of signed contracts to buy existing homes in the US declined by -4.1% in February, near a 2 year low, and surprising analysts who had expected it to rise by +1%.

Data from the Canadian economy continues to impress. They had an unexpectedly good manufacturing sales level in February, and it seemed broad-based.

Mexico raised its policy rate by +50 bps at the end of last week, now up at 6.50%. What makes this news is that the Mexican president talked about it hours before the official announcement, confirming there is little central bank independence there.

In Germany, business sentiment has taken a dive, but in the circumstances not a huge surprise. The fall is from a moderate level but as a one-month event it was bigger than at the start of the pandemic. Interestingly, 'current conditions' assessments didn't actually fall much, but companies in Germany are expecting tougher times ahead. However that is in the perspective of an earlier +3.7% growth expectation; now it could be as low as +2.2% - so still an expansion.

More broadly, the global bond market repricing got more momentum at the end of last week in anticipation of a looming policy tightening cycle with major central banks seeking to tame inflation running at multi-year highs. The yield on US 10-year note hit 2.5%, the highest since May 2019, Germany's 10-year Bund yield, a benchmark for Europe, rose to as high as 0.56%, the highest since May 2018, while the French 10-year yield held above 1%. Here is a primer on what the bond market might be indicating.

Among commodities, the rise and rise of the lithium price is now so extreme that it is expected to weigh on demand for electric vehicles. Analysts now say that just to stay still cost-wise, EV car makers will have to raise prices by at least +15%, maybe as much as +25%.

For wheat supply, Russia is saying that contracted flows of supplies are running ok, but that new orders have virtually dried up on money transfer difficulties. The wheat price is staying very high, but not rising further.

In a useful review, ANZ has been reviewing how inflation is impacting Asian economies. Rising crude oil and food prices are taking a toll on these economies, most of whom have yet to fully recover from the pandemic. Price pressures are rising and current account positions will come under pressure. Asian economies will also need to navigate through potentially more aggressive tightening by the US Fed. Those that are commodity exporters are expected to handle the stresses better than commodity importers.

Finally we should note that local billionaire Graeme Hart is apparently looking at a public listing of his Carters and related wood products holdings. The talk is that he will realise about $1 bln in the transaction. But we should also note that Hart has dabbled with sell-downs in the past of parts of his empire on a number of occasions and nothing really came of them.

The UST 10yr yield opens today at 2.49% and unchanged over the weekend. The UST 2-10 rate curve starts today a little steeper at +20 bps. Their 1-5 curve is however little-changed at +89 bps. Their 30 day-10yr curve is also little-changed at +231 bps. The Australian ten year bond is down -1 bps at 2.87%. The China Govt ten year bond is unchanged at 2.83%. And the New Zealand Govt ten year is also up by +2 bps at just on 3.33%. And recall, a week ago the NZ Govt 10yr was at 3.19%, so there has been a big shift higher over this past week.

The price of gold starts today at US$1958/oz and up +US$2/oz from this time Saturday. A week ago gold was at US$1929/oz, so almost a +US$30 gain since then.

And oil prices are little-changed US$112/bbl in the US. And the international Brent price is still about US$116.50/bbl. These prices are about +US$10/bbl higher than a week ago.

The Kiwi dollar will open today essentially unchanged at 69.6 USc. Against the Australian dollar we are firmish at 92.7 AUc. Against the euro we are little-changed at 63.4 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today at just at 74.9 where it has been since Thursday.

The bitcoin price is up +0.9% from this time yesterday at US$44,939. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been modest at +/- 1.6%.

The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».

Daily exchange rates

Select chart tabs

Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
End of day UTC
Source: CoinDesk

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.

56 Comments

I thought Russia had banned grain, sugar etc. exports to try to suppress food price inflation?

Up
0

Thanks for the link - it's worth reading very carefully

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/STATEMENT_22_2041

"The energy security and sustainability of the EU and Ukraine are essential for peace, freedom and democracy in Europe."   Yep, it's always been about surplus energy.

"and the construction of clean and renewable hydrogen ready infrastructure."

This is the fossil fuel industry trying to extend itself (gas into hydrogen, make money to hell with the consequences); essentially as vaping is to tobacco. Our Energy Minister swallowed it hook, line and sinker (and it may well do the latter). Simon Upton has released a Paper:

https://www.newsroom.co.nz/pro/pce-concerned-about-hydrogen-policies

which should ring alarm bells. And US gas to Europe? already too low an EROEI, to maintain BAU. Storage, shipping, on sending, all yet to be built...... With?

Our media should be all over this.

 

 

Up
7

Sorry, where is your evidence to support Our Energy MInister swallowed gas into hyrdrogen, hook line and sinker?

Up
0

She's advocating turning one energy source into another - the other being hydrogen. Same EROEI problem EXACTLY.

Means she doesn't understand EROEI. Or doesn't want to, of course........

To make it clear, I believe the FF industry saw the threat, and pushed the 'hydrogen economy'. Note that the two major users are oil refineries, and fertiliser-producers. The Minister may be one stage removed - someone within MBIE has long been my guess as to the influencer - but the trail is demonstrable. She fell for it - and should not have.

We are due a full Energy Plan - it will be interesting to see if we've moved the discussion or if we still need to pretend.

https://www.mbie.govt.nz/building-and-energy/energy-and-natural-resourc…

Up
3

Honestly I could write the plan in. Do it like Elon’s master plans:

• Get every single small vehicle in NZ to electric (everything equal to or smaller than a van).

• Build more generation capacity - stop letting people veto stuff, government funding if you have to.

• Subsidise shifting industrial heat to electricity - guarantee them a multi-year fixed electricity price if you have to (with government taking the risk).

• Incentivise residential and commercial solar.

• Build Lake Onslow and smaller water/battery based storage in the North Island.

Done - that is 90% of the plan. Write it and start doing it. All the problems we have are due to people mucking around.

 

 

 

Up
3

Your plan is missing quite a bit, unless Lake Onslow happens to have moved to the North Island without my knowledge.

You are also advocating creating millions of people's worth of demand for solar panels, batteries, and other resource intensive ideas. Remember Carbon is not the only enemy, or even the worst.

Up
1

California/Australia are building massive batteries to time shift energy. If we need more of that close to Auckland it’s just a question of investment.
 

When thinking about the cost of investment, imagine how much power we could generate for just the $14B investment in light rail or some 10km motorway.

Geothermal can provide more baseload generation on the north island - That is included in my point about more renewables.

Who cares about the materials for solar panels. Solar panels cost nothing from a production perspective and are dropping ever day. We just need to get on with it and stop dithering.

Up
2

I think you're getting close Hardly, and you include a point that many are missing  - 'investment'. As has been point out before global warming is an inconvenient truth, to the point that big money has effectively squashed any debate on the subject for decades. In this they have in my view, shot themselves in the foot. Firstly they had to ignore and deny the science, which anyone could tell them would come back to bite them sooner or later. But in doing so they also denied themselves, and the rest of the world, the opportunity to develop the technologies needed to carry us beyond a reliance on fossil fuels. PDK's cries are not whacko fringe but the necessary fact based claims that people need to listen to. 

I think his denial of nuclear as an option is too short sighted though. It is true that nuclear waste is a problem. But the limited use of nuclear power plants has meant that nuclear waste is not yet the pressing problem that would force Governments to generate good quality solutions. The big money has still been able to lobby governments into cheap short sighted solutions in order to protect profits. 

But the debate has far bigger implications because as yet no-one is linking population size to energy consumption. Look at what our political parties are including in their election platforms? I have already heard it said that National will open the borders to immigration again.....

Up
3

If I understand you correctly I agree.

The investment isn’t that big compared to other projects. And all the communication needs to be about energy abundance and better tech. Electric cars aren’t just better for the environment, they are better to own/drive. We aren’t just building renewables to save the planet, we are building renewables so people can have abundant and cheap energy. And yes, building it might be expensive - just subsidize it. We waste money on all sorts of things we can afford to build energy infrastructure.

As for nuclear - I don’t think NZ needs this yet, but it has to be a major part of the international formula. World governments should sign a pact that if the tech can deliver certain outcomes for X price, they will by Y reactors. That will encourage investment in next gen reactor designs because the prize would be in the trillions.

 

Up
1

True. And it's not expensive compared to the cost of ignoring it. It's also not that expensive compared to how much we've 'invested' in propping up asset prices globally. There's an interesting book that explores what could have been achieved with some of the money that was handed out to American companies and asset owners:

https://www.amazon.com/How-Spend-Trillion-Dollars/dp/1788163451

Up
0

 ...or some 10km motorway.

That also happens to take almost a decade to complete! Can never understand that about NZ's way of project management...

Up
0

Ok, so to make it clear, is that a retraction of your statement that Woods has fallen for hydrogen via natural gas reforming?

Up
0

Yeah, makes no sense to be putting in mass hydrogen infrastructure for the storage and shipping of it, losses will be enormous. Better if it's made on site and used quickly, I think that's the only way hydrogen will be viable long term.  As you derive it from water, you just need energy (from renewables only) and water onsite to make it, otherwise you will end up with too much waste from losses.  For a truck stop, for instance, I imagine a solar and wind farm right next door to where the hydrogen is being put into tanks with some high efficiency temporary storage tanks backing it.  Wellingtons Seaview port making hydrogen from local windfarms for hydrogen ships filling up etc (there should be a wind farm on the hills behind Eastborne running to Pencarrow head, but because of it "spoiling views" for the rich suburb of Seatoun it is always a non starter).

I don't think it's impossible to do without a decent return on energy in, much like most new power infrastructure, it just has to be engineered intelligently. Like you say though, transporting hydrogen around the world is going to lead to so much losses it can't be viable long term.

Up
1

Well put. We have to remember that we ARE going to end up on renewables, and renewables will give us perhaps 15% of the energy we currently enjoy. So on one hand, we need to evaluate which is the best of a bad set of options. On the other, we can confidently say that the forward-betting financial structure we built on the better-but-temporary arrangement, is in trouble. Just how we construct what, given the implications for capex, is the biggest question around. I'm coming to the conclusion we're better with low-tech, easily-fixed, lots of capacitance.

Up
2

It's just a short term promise to sound good with voters surely? The conflict in the Ukraine won't last forever. And when the dust settles pragmatism will take over again?

Also can someone confirm, is US now a net energy exporter? 

Up
0

As usual, you have to look beyond the obfuscation. In this case, between 'total energy', and 'oil'.

In oil terms (and there are many tasks oil does best) they seem to have peaked production at about 12.7 mbpd, fracking inc. In terms of usage, their peak was concurrent at around 19 mbpd, I think they're currently about 17. So a daily shortfall of 6-7 mbpd.

Total exports - including coal and particularly gas - may well exceed imports. And of course, the US uses about twice the energy per capita that Europe does; perhaps more discardable discretionary activities internally.  But note that the gas is fully allocated through 2040, and that all three are well down the best-to-worst source options........

Biden's dilemma now, is the dissonance between feeding enough energy to other nations, to maintain cohesion - while looking at the increasing internal depletion which spells: Finished. Rock, hard place.

 

Up
1

I wish people would stop talking about hydrogen.

It has some utility maybe for large vehicles (maybe) but it’s not the solution we should be focusing on.

Up
7

Hydrogen maybe for trucks and trains.   Electricity for everythng else transport. 

Up
0

Depends on the problem you are looking for a solution to.

If you're problem is excess power due to a large industrial plant not requiring 15% of a countries power so  threatening to lower the  retail power price then hydrogen is a fantastic solution.

 

Up
0

What about the Ukraine's nuclear power.

Up
0

"Bigger sales and higher prices are producing a bonanza for coal miners there." (China)
And here Huntly burns a few tons and people have an apoplectic fit. I think it was Interest within the last three months had a piece on China developing some (3?) new coal mines producing 19million tons per year in total. A calc at 30MJ/kg, 35% overall efficiency will allow one 250MW? set at Huntly to burn that amount of coal for 72years.

"And the Americans have agreed to supply the EU with significant gas supplies in an attempt to reduce Europe's reliance on Russian energy."  Sleepy Joe at it again.
I wonder which year that's going to happen.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/03/26/biden-promised-europe-more-lng-f…

 

Up
1

Always in the news when coal consumption is up, but not in the news that coal consumption was down 72% in the last quarter yoy

Up
2

I noticed that too - some people were very quick to criticise the government for high coal use (caused by low hydro generation), but haven't emerged from the woodwork to applaud the government for the return of precipitation. 

"In the final quarter of 2021, the coal-fired units at the Huntly power station provided just 1.3 per cent of all electricity. That’s the lowest share coal has provided for any quarter since March 1997"

https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/128032984/wind-and-hyd…

Up
4

I wonder why they haven't closed it down yet. Recall having posted on this website in the last six months or so that Huntly should be closed ASAP.  We need to feel the pain of rolling blackouts. Obviously my defn. of ASAP is not the same as Megan Woods.

Up
2

Who should close it down? It's owned by Genesis, they will take the decision when the time comes. Generating with coal is already far more expensive than renewables thanks to our cap + trade scheme, it's just(!) a matter of building up our renewables, and the dry year battery project recommendations. 

If you watch Genesis scramble for solar and wind generation, you can see which way they are heading. 

Up
0

It's all about the pro fossil burning warriors that like to sniff around for a hint of hypocrisy. Biosphere collapse and finite resource can't be comprehended by their brain cell. 

Up
6

That cell also missed the fact that even were our car fleet entirely electric and charged with coal-generated electricity, emissions would still be a lot lower than an ICE fleet.

Up
0

And the Americans have agreed to supply the EU with significant gas supplies in an attempt to reduce Europe's reliance on Russian energy.

“Europe consumes 500 billion cubic meters of gas, while America and Qatar can offer 15 billion, up to the last molecule… That is why German and Austrian politicians told me: “We cannot just destroy ourselves. If we impose sanctions on Russia in the oil and gas domain, we will destroy ourselves. It’s like shooting yourself in the foot before rushing into a fight.” This is how certain rational people in the West see it today.” Link

Up
1

Countries across Asia and Africa have a lot more to lose with their relatively fragile governments and vulnerable economies.

India is going all-in and buying rupee-ruble denominated oil from Russia on heavily discounted prices.

https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south-asia/india-justifies-buying-mor…

Up
1

You may remember that American President Donald Trump became the Bull in the China shop when he told German Chancellor Merkel that  would be shooting herself and all Germans in the foot if they became dependent upon Russian gas.

Up
0

Trump was comedy gold every time he talked to anyone not wearing a red hat; German gas consumption has been relatively constant since 2005

https://bookesther.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/merkeltrump-gif.gif

(https://www.statista.com/statistics/703657/natural-gas-consumption-germ….)

Up
1

And what Per Cent of Gas was Russian supplying to Germany in 2005?

Up
0

Anthony Watts is a flat Earther isn't he?

Up
0

China is planning more coal output and more coal-fired power stations, at least through 2025. Beijing seems to be the green-washing capital of the world when it claims it is tackling climate change.

But what really struck us is the relative timidity of US nuclear power advocates to seize on this obvious moment. Instead, much of our political commentary regarding energy self-sufficiency for the US amounts to “drill, baby, drill.” Contrast this with the announcement last week by Chinese officials that they planned to construct 150 new nuclear plants within the next fifteen years. In the spirit of re-emerging cold war competition, our question amounts to, “what would it take for the US to do the same thing?” We should add that the Chinese government estimated a $440 billion price tag for these 150 new reactors or about $2.9 billion apiece. (Southern Company’s two-unit Plant Vogtle is estimated to cost $34 billion or $17 billion per reactor.) Link

Up
0

Oil puts fuel in vehicles--I'm not aware that Nuclear is there yet.

Up
1

Nuclear is the ultimate golden shower for future generations, you would have to hate your children pretty hard to be interested in it.  At $2.9b its the deal of the century with an ROI of just over a year, until you figure in (missing) the cost of storage and renewal of storage of waste over the next 25,000 years or so.

 

Up
1

So apparently the Government is forging ahead with plans to force biofuel onto Kiwi motorists. Given the age of our fleet, and that some vehicle manuals are extremely clear on not using bio-ethanol fuels, what exactly is the end-game for the average motorist here? Because it sounds a lot like "Just try not being so poor you can't afford an EV or we'll wreck your car".

Up
10

Agreed. The vast majority of the vehicle fleet is not biofuel capable. Even a lot of new cars cannot use it and it would destroy classic cars. Surely better ele tric  charging etc would be better for a growing fleet that's here already.

Up
4

I'd have thought from a cost basis it'd be easier to migrate over to biofuels than to totally change the nature of the vehicle fleet. 

Up
1

EV's going up 15-25% this year, so the 80k rebate threshold will have to look like 90k.  Not too many can afford them so perhaps it's a mute point.

Bio-ethanol e10 can be used in most cars so it should just be seen as a useful cost saving device rather than a conversion per se.

Bio-diesel on the other hand sounds like a maintenance nightmare and as always, diesel mechanics are not in plentiful supply.

 

https://www.aa.co.nz/cars/owning-a-car/fuel-prices-and-types/biofuel-an…

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0040162520310532

http://www.clean-drive.eu/what-does-it-really-take-to-convert-your-car-…

Up
1

Hold up Hold up. People need to check before they use an ethanol blend.  As the AA notes :

The list only applies to cars sold brand new in New Zealand. It doesn't relate to any vehicles that have been imported as used cars. For the vast majority of Japanese used imports, vehicle manufacturers state that they can safely use ethanol-blend fuel up to a 3% maximum (E3). Some later models (2006 onwards) may be suitable for ethanol-blend fuel of up to 10%. If your car is fitted with a carburettor then it's highly unlikely to be able to use E3 or E10.

Ethanol will ruin the fuel system in many cars.

Up
3

Either which way the cost (as we currently price things) of taking climate action accross our daily lives is going to be enormous. 

And your point is valid, I don't see how we can all drive evs when the elements used to create batteries are obviously not available in the quantity needed.

Weve left it too late, we've over populated the planet, destroyed the majority of species that existed pre-human times and now that we are aware of our impact? Well Instead of investing in green systems over the last 20 years, we have printed money and used it to outbid each other at house auctions. Then used that money to buy shiney Ford raptors and boats that burn even more fuel.

Though What else would you suggest, continue using petrol for the next 30 years until it runs out?

You see that matt Damon film eselyium? (spelling may be off)... 

Up
0

One comment upthread went close, listing 'what to do'. But I'd suggest running a filter over it, for instance I don't think we've time for Onslow (although I think it a good idea, and despair the 'greenies' still stuck several pages back in the debate, who would challenge it). And plain bikes beat e-bikes beat any kind of car by miles - no point carting 1-2 tons of stuff to go get the groceries. Or the kids; I walked or biked to school as a kid.

But we're still building, selling and buying FF vehicles new. Tractors, boats, planes - all more vulnerable tech-wise, all doomed to be stranded assets.

Up
1

Ohh thanks David, I needed that.  I haven't laughed like that in a while and it is good to feel the lightness that comes with a good, free laugh.

The US policy wonks suggesting those tax changes obviously have the same Guru as the TOP policy team, but you know, you might not be on the right track to serious policy when your ideas generally receive a thermo-nuclear scale "bless".

 

Up
0

Bond markets are a disaster now. This is due to interest rates rising much more than predicted, and more surprises on the upside are in store. Interest rates will reach heights not seen in many years, and they will have to stay high until inflation is controlled, which may take a few years.

Up
2

There will be a firm limit to the upside due to the scale of public debt servicing required, what that limit is I have no idea :).

It's also likely that with the scale of private debt here in BRoNZ, that we will see misery, bankruptcy and mortgagee sales on a scale similar to 2008.

Up
2

Been a very frustrating season for our crops here in Hawkes Bay with heavy rain at both ends of the season. Yield will be well down on last year, and we're looking at a decent bill for improving drainage over Winter, which is obviously not the best time for digging trenches. The side effect of this is the paddocks being improved will be unavailable for grazing over that time.

Income down, expenses up. If I didn't have a day job I could be getting mighty depressed. At least diesel's cheap. Oh wait...

Up
1

At least diesel's cheap. Oh wait...

Indeed - ULSD NY Harbor Cash (HOY00)

Up
0

Latest from Doomberg is sobering stuff-

Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you're a thousand miles from the corn field.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower

The coming crash in global food supply will be driven by a similar phenomenon across virtually every input into farming 

Farmers on the Brink - Doomberg (substack.com)

Up
0

I was watching Harry's Farm the other day and thinking prices must rise. We have lived in what has predominantly been a time of incredibly low food prices though, like wheat and corn at $2-4/bushel is much the same price as in the mid-1970s.

The amazing story really is how food prices have beaten inflation for so long in a period when the human population has doubled. It's no wonder we are now playing a little catch-up.

Up
4

Interestingly, 'current conditions' assessments didn't actually fall much, but companies in Germany are expecting tougher times ahead. However that is in the perspective of an earlier +3.7% growth expectation; now it could be as low as +2.2% - so still an expansion.

Over in Europe, energy was already pinching Europeans and then the Russian advance into Ukraine made it worse while simultaneously introducing even more risky scenarios (food, at the top of the list). To which the ECB’s top central banker pretender Christine Lagarde, donning Monty Python’s famous Black Knight costume, declared it all no big deal.

…even in the bleakest scenario, with second-round effects, with a boycott of gas and petrol and a worsening of the war that goes on for a long time – even in those scenarios we have 2.3% growth.

Is anybody (outside the media) really buying this? I’d wager she doesn’t, either, not really, and says so in private.

For one thing, the global economy may already be experiencing a downturn – one part based on oil gone too high, the other on a recovery built on the illusion of supply shock-ed prices – with Europe the unfortunate leader displaying both. Link

Up
1

"In the US, the Administration is proposing a 'billionaire minimum income tax' of 20%."

The rich will have to see what to do about this. Tax haven, tax shelters...how about spending some of it.

Up
0

Interesting that all the Energy comments studiously ignore Nuclear, especially the many-underground-SMR configuration.  Quite a few cold-vermin sandwiches to be consumed before Godzone sees these, but the rest of the world has seen the light. 

Perfectly technically feasible to run ag machinery on electrons: that's exactly how irrigation and  large draglines are powered now.  Yes, infrastructure build out needed, but that's true for most if not all adaptations.  

And our friendly neighbour exports U......

Up
2

I can smell the uranium on your breath

Up
0

Can get it out of seawater these days. Though I do worry that we might run out in about 100,000 years.

"In addition, the technique can even use waste fibers for a greater cost savings and that analysis shows that seawater extraction could be competitive with land mining at present prices."

https://newatlas.com/nuclear-uranium-seawater-fibers/55033/

Up
0

3% drop in crude oil, at this moment.

Up
0