Here's my summary of the key news overnight in 90 seconds at 9 am, including news the World Bank sees a brighter 2014.
US producer prices rose but very modestly in December, and manufacturing activity in the giant New York region was up quite strongly.
Big bank BofA also reported much stronger earnings after years of 'issues', indicating its mortgage woes are behind it. However it also reported that mortgage approval levels are dropping.
The Fed's important Beige Book will be released soon and we will update this story with the details when they are available. UPDATE: Fed is reporting 'moderate expansion' broadly distributed across the country.
The German economy - thought to be the strongest in Europe - grew just 0.4% in 2013, held back by the health of its trading neighbours.
In fact, the World Bank has delivered an optimistic assessment of 2014 prospects for the world economy, and especially for developing economies, although it is nervous about the impact of the US withdrawing its stimulus.
However, speaking of stimulus, it is emerging that China has pumped much more into its economy that the US has done, and helping explain why Chinese asset prices have jumped so much.
As an aside, one of the the larger China dairy company has reported a loss and is raising prices for its products. Its competitors are following suit.
In Australia, their disgraceful banking inquiry (disgraceful because it is being led by the most senior bankers themselves) has heard that banks there are concerned about bank-bashing.
Gold has fallen back a little and is now just below US$1,240/oz. US benchmark oil however has risen to over US$94/barrel following reports of declining local inventories and the good manufacturing data. However both the Dow and S&P500 are up strongly in late trade. UST benchmark 10yr bond yields are back up to 2.90%.
The NZ dollar starts today virtually unchanged against most currencies except it is half a cent lower against the US dollar at 83.5 USc, 93.5 AUc, and the TWI is at 79.0.
If you want to catch up with all the changes yesterday, we have an update here.
The easiest place to stay up with today's event risk is by following our Economic Calendar here »
No chart with that title exists.
68 Comments
"Many NZ-er face higher interest rates on their mortgage this year, with little prospect of compensating wage growth. Most of them are not directly exposed to the dairy sector or the Chch rebuild, so the economic recovery will be something they read about rather than experience."
Re NZ Economic growth 2014:
Pattrick Smellie in today's DomPost:
peak oil, OK, what about peak grains(s)? technology save us? really? Worth watching....
"In China, for example, the increase in crop yields in wheat has remained constant, and rate of corn yield increase has decreased by 64 percent for the period 2010-2011 relative to the years 2002-2003 despite a large increase in investment in agricultural research and development, education and infrastructure for both crops. This suggests that return on these investments is steadily declining in terms of impact on raising crop yields."
See more at: http://ianrnews.unl.edu/unl-research-raises-concerns-about-future-globa…
"Considering that the global population gets 75% of its dietary nourishment from four crops that include corn, wheat and rice, the study could have serious implications for food security. This is not even considering climate change, which might further compromise yields."
<p>or fossil fuel costs and availability.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/12227483/1/earth-may-already-be-running-…Global warming is the wild card here. In theory higher latitudes in Canada, Russia, China and Northern Europe will become warm enough to grow wheat rather than rye. On the other hand we do not yet know what effect higher concentrations of CO2 will have on suppressing plant growth. But it may go some way to explaining both Russia and Canada's cavalier attitude towards warming.
Kumbel, CO2 enhances plant growth. Current CO2 levels limit photosynthesis and crop growth. On a windless day a corn crop will reduce overnight CO2 levels from 0.04% to 0.02% by lunch time. Thats why we are seeing a greening of the planet as atmospheric CO2 levels increase and why greenhouse pump up the level of CO2 to boost growth.
As for spare farmland : The Miracle of the Cerrado.
http://www.economist.com/node/16886442
Last year Australian scientists looked at how crops were likely to respond to increased CO2 levels (sorry no reference) and concluded that short-term increases combined with increased heat would increase production ("forcing") but that there is an upper limit for that effect. Of course all this assumes adequate fresh, clean water, not too many hurricanes etc
Mike - fair point, but it won't be me, how long do you try when all your doing is presenting facts. Unfortunately after a year of such trying to debate with a couple on here I have thrown in the towel and I suspect others have as well before me because I know the knowledge of many on here is very good in the areas that focus me, but they don't bother to debate much of what they say either - another couple of lame factually incorrect posts from them again today but I, seemingly like the rest, have left them to debate and back slap each other in silence.
MikeM - here's one.
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/04/06-2
Only an idiot thinks you can expand indefinitely in a fu=inite sphere of operations. The warning signs are everywhere. Decrepit Russian fishing vessels all the way down in the Ross Sea, phosphate options down to sucking it off the Chatham Rise, oil down to fracturing rock.
We cherry-pick the best, first. Always compare where we are, with where we were.
The crunch will be held off, probably, this year. Fudging and posturing and spin will do it. But not for, say, the next three years, That is an impossibility. Why can so many folk not see it? Or don't want to?
These clown confuse facts with statistics. It is sort of the difference between an accountant and an engineer, or ISTJ vs INTJ. One only sees the statistics and assumes them as facts, they other sees the facts and can make inferences. One makes a good CFO but that is their limit, the other makes a reasonable CEO.
Question is do you want someone that can count the numbers, or do you want someone that can tell you what they mean?
Here's some good news.The Waikato Times has proudly proclaimed Hamilton as the mecca for car sales.This newspaper will use any good news to promote Hmilton as the place to be.Sadly just one visit to their main street or 1 of the many malls on the outskirts would tell you it's not.
:) don't be so quick to dismiss Ham.
One hour or thereabouts to -
Auckland/Rotorua/Coramandel/Raglan surf.
A lttle further to skiing.
Decent Uni with affordable Halls of Residence and flats.
Reasonable housing.
Very good schools, both State and private.
Flat and easy to cycle in.
Beggar all trafic jmas.
Great bush walks within 15 minutes (Hakarimata Walkway).
Great cycle ways in city and adjacent (River Trails)
Kaimais a litle further.
Excellent and very large Hopsital.
Cycle Velodrome and NZ premier rowing centre.
There's more to Ham than a main street anf fog!
This year may well be a good one, heck the next year could be even better.
It's all a matter of perspective. Us "negative doom and gloomers" tend to focus on a slightly larger time scale than the next year. If you take the short term view then yes things do look on the up. But if you take the slightly more long term view you realise nothing has really changed. Debt is still a major problem, the insane idea that you can have growth decoupled from environmental degradation still persists. Climate change mitigation is being ignored in the name of short term economic growth.
So will I do well this year, probably. I am lucky enough to have a business that does quite well. The major problem for me is unlike most of the postive (delusional) people on this site I am not in my 60's so will most likely have to live through the consequences of today's actions. Also my young children most certainly will. Now I don't know anyone personally on this site but there seems to be a lot of selfish what's in it for me types on here. Now you can hide behind denial that we aren't damaging the earth but I doubt any of you really believe that.
So here's to a great 2014
The postive 60+ types have been hearing BS doom and gloom predictions since the 1960's hence can be a little sceptical about the next population bomb, Y2K meltdown, runaway global warming, nuclear winter, global cooling, the disappearance of snow etc. etc.
Oh look in the paper today positive news!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/105753…
I can't wait to live in the "consequences" of today's actions/ingenuity.
Proven oil reserves 1980 650 billion barrels. Proven oil reserves 2013 1.5 trillion. Where did they find all that oil we were supposed to run out of?
http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/iedindex3.cfm?tid=5&pid=57&aid=6&…
Imagine how much oil would be out there if the resource was run by private enterprise rather than big government.
China’s potential is certainly vast. By some estimates it has the world’s largest shale gas resources, with about 68 per cent more technically recoverable gas than the US, according to the US Energy Information Administration.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e434912c-7781-11e3-807e-00144feabdc0.html#axz…
Profile, you're a fool -------- or a spin-doctor.
Fill up your tank, start driving. I'll tell you even as you start, that you will coast to a halt at some stage. You can deny it, right up till the point it happens. The fact that you havn't stopped yet, is meaningless, as every driver knows.
Why the cranial incapacity to extrapolate? Or is it cynical, with a need to keep the mass in the dark as long as possible?
Ever wondered what kind of world will eventuate, and whether you can achieve inverted quarantine for yourself?
Mr PDK is in denial that the Malthusian Luddites have been totally wrong for the past 200 years or so .... and look likely to continue that stellar run of failure indefintely .....
.... gloomsterisationalysing creates the fear that sell ointments on Radio Live , vitamin supplements , anti-oxidants ... and causes folks to do other equally daft things , such as setting up wind farms , or promotion of carbon sequestering plants ( trees do it naturally , guys ! ) , or to take Bernard's word as gospel ..... tee heee heeeeeeeeee !!!!
Life is good , friends ... ... and getting even gooderer with each passing day ....
.... it's been scientifically proven that mortality rates increase , with elevated levels of anti-oxidants in the diet ..... Strange , but true !
So you'd best give those bottles of Resveratrol you got from a Radio Live advertisement , to someone you really don't like .... for good measure , make them some gogi berry juice .... and cranberry cookies ...
.... win/win .... that a**hole will think you're a cool and caring person after all .... but you know the truth !
It's gooder for these billion people.
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-…
well, Ralph, I figure that someone who doesn't realise that he stopped growing a long time ago - and who has probably never wondered why that was - might need shouting at.
:)
No species which genetically failed to cease growing, can survive. Think about it. Same reason every swarm, every plague, every bloom, every overrun of a species beyong it's resources, ceases at some entirely predictable point.
We are a species, and not immune to the rule.
Our little politically motivated cherry picker is busy again. When you sit there with an extremist libertarian/right wing / free market point of view and someone puts information in front of you that negates it all....of course its going to be utter denial.
If they accepted it they would have nothing left, so yes of course keep the masses in the dark, 6+billion really pissed people....going to go down well.
Canada, has little conventional oil,the bump up is where fools have converted the oil sands to "useable"....never economic, in fact if I recall correctly Shell a Private company is abandoning that play. EROEI, too expensive for business to do it.
Then he talks about oil and immediately switches to gas, as if they are the same thing when they are not.
Virtually all the non-Opec plays are privately operated, no state mis-management...etc etc.
Then of course there is peak oil which is about output and not reserves....if you cant get any more per day, which we cannot then the world's economy is going to stagger along as it is at best.
Mate, you should really google stuff. The little risk taker in the US made the shale boom not "big" oil and certainly not big state.
The 13 largest energy companies on Earth, measured by the reserves they control, are now owned and operated by governments. Saudi Aramco, Gazprom (Russia), China National Petroleum Corp., National Iranian Oil Co., Petróleos de Venezuela, Petrobras (Brazil) and Petronas (Malaysia) are all larger than ExxonMobil, the largest of the multinationals. Collectively, multinational oil companies produce just 10% of the world's oil and gas reserves. State-owned companies now control more than 75% of all crude oil production.
EROEI, yawn, so you are wanting us to hook into coal and wood then?
Surely you mean empiricist not extremist?
and the little guy sold out to the big one and the big one is now bleeding money.
Like I said you cherry pick bits of info, willfully really, so, nope extremist.
PS Saudi Armaco etc seem to be employing the very best in tech and engineers to get the oil out. Im sure some are woefully under-preforming....Iran, well its under sanctions....hardly surprising if it isnt allowed acces to high tech then is it.
regards
But hey even if your opinion is right all the little guys now have cheap gas to warm their homes unlike their poor relatives in the UK.
Cherry picking? Like when I post a 74 year commodity chart and you post an oil chart and hijack the thread onto global warming? I prefer the term supporting data myself.
Have you taken my recommendatuion and had a read up on Curry's website yet? Or is she a bit extreme for you? http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/06/ipcc-ar5-weakens-the-case-for-agw/
Hearing it? Where have you been, I am 60+ and apart from a couple of red herrings in there, I have been WATCHING the whole lot happen along with the furious destruction of rain forest, the acidification of the oceans, the collapse of certain fish stocks and many species either going or nearing extinction, not sure where you have been
I think you missed my sarcastic use of the word positive. Replace positive with selfish. Replace 60+ with people who don't think about the future consequences of their behaviour.
Interesting you don't focus on the key point I was making. In case you really didn't get it the point is to think we are doing well you have to decouple growth from the impact we are having on our environment.
Anyway we all see things through our preconceived ideas and the truth always tends to be some where in the middle.
Hard to get your point, as you seem to mix more than one point meaning they all become unclear.
Maybe it's like this:
1st point - positve = selfish?
More people in jobs - more kids being clothed and fed properly - more people able to buy a heat pump for winter - more people able to retire and relax etc etc.
These are all outcomes of NZ doing well - I dont see being happy about the above as selfish.
2nd point - the above requires destruction of the environment - and so we should not be positive?
This is not a factual statement, it's arbitrary based on government policy. Some govts would would develop policies to move NZ towards cleaner dairy, away from policies around digging holes in the ground/sea, funding of high level research in tech/bio tech at tertiary institutions.
Fair call my points were muddled
My first point was along the lines of positive = selfish. Not because of more jobs, kids being fed properly etc. My point is focusing on the short term "good times" is selfish in the sense that it is easy to become complacent. Has the world economy been fixed? Has the debt issue been addressed? has inequality been addressed? I think the answer is not really. So all that has been done is the can has been kicked down the road. Using the word selfish was emotive a better word would be short sighted.
In regards to my second point, economic growth requires destruction of the environment is spot on. Now I here you say that is arbitary but I don't think it is. Obviously some growth polices have less impact on the environment than others but there is always an effect. -- solar v coal engery production for example. Most people would say Solar is better for the environment but to say there is no impact on the environment in the production of solar panels is patently false.
There seems to be a perception that humans can decouple economic growth from environmental degredation. This idea is just not factual. Sure you can outsource your production and make your economy seem like it has decoupled environmenal degredation from growth but the earth is a closed system so you can move the degredation where ever you want but it's a zero sum game.
Why is the idea of moving to a steady state economy so unpopular. Obviously this will be happening soon. World population is projected to level off at between 10-11 billion by the end of the century. Once we have no more populaton growth continuing economic growth is going to be a lot harder. I realise our current finacial system can't cope with a zero growth economy but we are going to have the face the issue sooner or later.
You may really believe that economic growth will continue forever and we will be able to balance that with our environment. If that is the case I would be interested to know how you see that happening. From where I am looking at things this is just not realistic.
This guy reckons we'll top out by 2030 at 8.5 billion with replacement rate kicking in at 2022 going by CIA data. So looks like the worlds population has been fixed already. Another sky not falling on our heads.
http://www.businessinsider.com/analyst-world-population-will-peak-at-85…
Sorry PeakEverything but that really is the rub with you and your ilk, all problems, no real solutions. When pressed the only solutions you seem capable of coming up with would create more problems than that your trying to solve. When pressed you fall back on “you just don’t get it”. You really are just peddling doom and gloom.
What sacrifices have you made to resolve the worlds population problem? Did you start a family? Do you use goods created with oil? Have you ever had a job and enjoyed the fruits of capitalism? How can you preach others make sacrifices you yourself have not made without looking like a hypocrite?
Oh, I most certainly am a hypocrite! I have 5 kids (what was I thinking). I own a business in the fiancial (insurance) advice sphere where I get paid too much for doing basically nothing. I have started a vege garden...
To be fair the state of the world has only dawned on me in the last 12 months. You can blame PowerDownKiwi and his ilk.
As far as not offering a solution. I am you just don't like the solution. The solution is to consume less crap and move to a steadystate economy which is far more localised than our current global economy.
I know this sounds like hippy horse shit, hell I gave my party vote to ACT two elections ago. You can't say that a problem isn't real just because you don't like the solution.
Don’t get me wrong, the world has problems, always has, always will and I am all for solving them. My company car is a Nissan Leaf, my staff don’t have bins on their desks, just a communal recycle area, office was moved to a residential area so we walk or don’t commute far to work, paperless office, I sold the launch and bought a yacht, etc. Small steps but positive none the less, if someone suggests other measures I can take I’ll do em but that’s the problem round here, all problems no realistic solutions.
in my opinion most of the 'solutions' posed here would throw the world into poverty which is not a 'solution' to anything.
I used to have second rate managers who used to say this to me, my answer is and was if I had a solution, I'd fix it and there wouldnt be a problem, I bring it to you as I cant fix it.
I gues by "real" you mean an acceptable solution to you, that is carry on as usual. sorry not an option.
Our options are prepare to powerdown in a timely manner so the pain isnt too bad, or let nature do it for us and that will be quick and ugly.
There are no other viable options.
Capitalism is dead, get over with it.
Grow up and stop attacking ppl because they send you a message you dont like.
regards
1. To suggest the word positive means selfish is simply wrong; any dictionary can prove this. Apologies that it is pedantic to be sure, but after the many stupid and repeated generalisations used by PDK and Steven I do grow sick of it.
2. As posted below there are examples of growth without destruction so to assert it is generally or absolutely "not possible" is simply not true. At the very least you must apply some correct qualifications. There must circumstances where growth is not possible without environmental damage but that does not constitue general or absolute proof.
3. The planet is not a closed system, it is a small part of a greater system. It receives and gives material out to the greater system and acts (and is acted upon) by that greater system.
4. Life is growth. It is true in all of the natural world. Even a forest that didn't grow its total net biomass in a year did non stop growing the whole time.
I choose life.
... even the bones ! .... every 10 to 12 years , completely rejuvenated with fresh sparkly new shiny bright cells ( and a 7 in 8 chance they're not made in China .... haaaaaaaa ) ...
Curious though , Ralph , how is our dear friend Mr PDK going to tap into the sun directly ?
... he'll need a hoofing long hose for that little job .... Bunnings might have one for him ....
It's fecking hot on the surface of the sun apparently .... nearly as hot as Australia ... hope he has the good sense to head up there at night when he decides to go a tapping ...
According to Rees Sloan ( Newsvine 3/5/9 ) every time you breathe , you inhale 4.685 trillion atoms that were once a part of / or inside the body of Jesus Christ ... ... and Adolf Hitler ... Abraham Lincoln ....
.... and it all recycles continuously ... century after glorious century ..... without a government Bureau of Atom Redistribution and Equalisation within sight .... ... so far !!!
"you have to decouple growth from the impact we are having on our environment"
Assertion One - Switzerland is near the top of environment performance
Using the Environmental Performance Index we see them at or near the top since 2008;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Performance_Index
Assertion Two - Switzerland has recorded consistent GDP growth since 2008
Using the quarterly GDP growth figures we see that since the first quarter of 2008 and covering the same 24 quarters of the Environmental Performance Index we find the following:
Zero growth - 2 qtrs
Negative growth (contraction) - 3 qtrs
Positive (actual) growth - 19 qtrs
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/switzerland/gdp-growth
Conclusion - Countries can and do have economic growth whilst caring for its environnment.
First off thanks for the links.
I note your conclusion is incorrect, replace countries with Switzerland. Now I accept that Switzerland is doing really well but note that an index score of 76.69 out of 100 is still causing environmental damage.
So we have not decoupled growth and environmental damage. As decoupling would show no environmental damage. There has been a minimisation of damage which is good but it is not decoupled.
Over a long period of time any environmental damage adds up. The reality is even to keep Switzerland in a steady state would still have some damage to the environment.
I don't really need to say this but one country of 7 million people that produces watches and pharmaceuticals does not prove that the earth as a whole will ever move close to being sustainable, before it has to.
Switzerland is one just example that disproves your case. Turns out growth and care for the environment do in fact co-exist.
You should probably define this phrase 'environment damage' you use lest it mean even natural processes such as oxidation.
It is ridiculous to assert or imply that an earth that is millions of years old is "not sustainable".
I'm not that stressed if you think our level of economic growth is sustainable from an environmental point of view thats fine.
Your Switzerland example didn't disprove my case, if you think it did then you don't understand my point. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
I am against the direct assertion or implication that;
Because *some* growth is unsustainable therefore *all* growth is unsustainable.
Because growth is linked to *damage* (undefined) it is therefore unsustainable.
That the earth is a completely closed or standalone system that is functionally equal to a test tube for all purposes. Especially its total and aggregate economic activity.
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.