Here's my summary of the key events over the weekend that affect New Zealand, with news of more dairy developments where NZ is on the back foot.
But first, American industrial production ratcheted up in July, according to data out from the Federal Reserve over the weekend. The growth in production was at its fastest pace in over a year, with a strong push from the car industry.
Their latest reading of consumer confidence however was a bit more wobbly - although these surveys in the height of the US summer vacation season can be a little suspect.
You may remember the US$6 bln criminal settlements on the big banks for currency manipulation. That was back in May. Now the civil claims are starting and nine major banks have agreed to settle one claim for US$2 bln. Much more is to follow. Eventually, the size of these settlements could unsettle some of the world's largest institutions.
Here's something Fonterra must keep an eye on and not get blindsided: Pepsi has launched its first dairy product - an oats-based dairy drink - with JD.com in China to tap into the growing Chinese consumer preference for healthy drinks. It is Pepsi's first launch of a new product exclusively through e-commerce. Dairy marketing is transforming quickly.
We have another dairy auction early Wednesday morning this week and this will likely set the tone for the rest of the week.
In New York, the UST 10yr yield benchmark has bounced back up quite a bit and starts the week back up at 2.20%. Our local swap rates have been pretty much range-bound over the past two weeks and will no doubt take cues from the higher US benchmarks set at the end of the Wall Street session.
The oil price is weaker at US$42/barrel, and Brent crude is now at US$49/barrel.
And the gold price is also a touch lower, now at US$1,113/oz. Actually, in times of uncertainty, it is not gold they seek out but paper, it seems. China however still wants the traditional yellow metal.
The New Zealand dollar starts the week at almost exactly the same point it started last week at 65.3 US¢, at 88.8 AU¢, and at 58.9 euro cents. The TWI-5 is at 69.9.
And China is talking up the idea that the newly adjusted Yuan may now float much more freely and operate like an open currency. We are being advised to expect much more variability, more like our own currency.
If you want to catch up with all the local changes on Friday, we have an update here.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here »
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
21 Comments
Hottest July globally on record, predictions on impact of El Nino just keep being ratcheted up:
http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/71153145/world-set-for-hottest-year-…
2015 on course to beat 2014 as hottest year, with a prolonged El Nino likely to boost temperatures in 2016.
Yet mathematically the slap has been going on for a decade as the averages and trends have been climbing steadily. Is it just that some ppls math is it seems too simple to cope with trends and anomalies even when explained? ie that 197/8 was an extreme el nino year so should be discounted, or is it that yes indeed they will ignore the evidence til their death bed?
The good news however is it looks more and more like such extremists are being isolated as the changes become obvious to ppl. On top of that the "money" is now running from fossil fuel investment in increasing amounts, that is more likely to knee cap coal than anything Govn's do.
Prepare for onslaught by funded deniers ("no change in global temperatures since year ..."). Don't call them "skeptics." The data and science are being denied.
https://youtu.be/9It19FHt50g
Don't forget the 'adapters'. They are almost as insidious as the 'deniers'. When the East coast of NZ starts to look like the drought map of the West coast of the US lets see how effective adaptation is shall we:
http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/
Well if the El nino is as big as thought the East coast will be a mud bath. Southern coast states ditto while mid and north dryer. With those changes come storms maybe some records broken there as well. What the "adapters" and deniers are fighting now however is the grass root actions, ie the pension and investment funds etc bailing out of fossil fuels as they see the potential losses/lack of profits.
Things seem to be changing fast, I wonder how it will look in 12months looking back?
No one has ever denied that CO2 cases warming - the debate is around the issue of whether incremental CO2 levels going from 0.000350 to 0.000400 as of now and then further will raise the temperature 4º as per initial IPPC projections or ~ 1º as per the Lindzens of this world.
Skeptics and Deniers are emotional terms. Those that believe the effect will be present but small and swamped by other naturally occurring effects that we don't understand such as sunspot activity, galactic cosmic rays which undoubtedly form clouds as can be seen in any home made cloud chamber are simply promoting a different view from the conventional wisdom.
An open scientific debate is what is required on these very complex issues - not highly emotional terms
that do nothing to advance the level of knowledge.
Pollution and heat island effects focused in the northern hemisphere from the consumption of all forms of energy will provide heating for certain, but these are not CO2 effects.
We know for certain that gas absorption is a log function with decreasing effect as concentrations increase.
We know for certain ex the ERBE satellite that hotter areas of earth radiate higher levels of heat to space thus arguing for a negative feedback in contrast to the 15 models that all assume positive.
Why would we use models with assumed variables in preference to measured satellite data ?
So far those that believe the effect will be positive but small have been shown to be far more accurate than IPPC projections that have been lowered twice to date and the shock horror of the Al Gores of this world " arctic ice free " and " our children never seeing snow again " nonsense.
Please - no more Deniers or Skeptics terminology - just open logical scientific debate.
Actually yes ppl have denied CO2 is the cause.
it isnt "conventional wisdom" one side it is science, the other side is quackery.
"Skeptics and Deniers" is a description/definition in English.
"we don't understand" we do in the science side actually understand what it is not as science tells us this.
"open scientific debate" has been going on for 40 years, the science is settled the unknown is how bad but every year it looks worse. What we have are deniers with no science on their side of the argument promoting lies or ignorance on the public domain.
"that gas absorption" so it goes into the ocean and then the ocean becomes so acidic the food chain collapses, yes a great outcome.
The rest of what you are "publishing" is typical denier rubbish frankly it is not science.
Even in here this is not a scientific debate is it opinions only, so really if you want to publish peer reviewed papers while ignoring those already published on the points you raise, go for it.
Really? So any scientist who told you that the science demonstrating that cigarette smoking substantially increased the risk of lung cancer was settled would be regarded by you as a charlatan? Or a scientist who told you that HIV causes AIDS? Or a scientist that told you etc etc....(fill in any one of millions of possibilities as you wish).
This nonsense that there is no such thing as 'settled science' is yet another classic denialist con, so easily rebutted.
Charlatan? All I said is it wouldn't be an opinion I'd value highly. A scientist who welcomes the challenging of their hypothesis, methodology or interpretation through more science is one who piques my interest a whole lot more.
Are you sure that HIV always causes AIDS? All people with AIDS have HIV (so far), but that does not mean that all people with HIV get AIDS. Or does it?
Maybe I'm just too much of a cynic. But if somebody is a lawyer, does that always mean they are trustworthy? If somebody is a 'scientist' then do they always practise good science? I'll happily carry on my with my life open to new ideas and prepared to accept that something I believe today, may be proven to be wrong tomorrow. Cheers
'Why would we use models....'
Perhaps because they are being proven to be right?
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20…
Actually 'denier' is not a strong enough term......
There are thousands of scientific papers published with more every year on all these aspects of the problem, ie its already being hard looked at and it reinforces the already robust conclusions on the climate change issue. Look as hard as you want, scientifically it is all there already.
Thoughtful??? The science arguments are OVER. Deniers Bullroar attack the edges. Too many vested interests funding this blather, i.e. the Koch brothers and their many "foundations." Meanwhile the progression to weather extremes, heated storms, new climate heat records continues unabated.
"We know for certain that gas absorption is a log function with decreasing effect as concentrations increase." seems to be a red herring, and so the ocean will stop absorbing CO2? in which case it will sit in the atmosphere and accelerate change faster? so the point of this comment is what?
The old Denier trying to sound reasonable.
Trick one make the amount seem so small as to not be important.
Trick two mention 350 -400 parts per milliion in the hope that people won't realise that levels have increased from 280ppm at the start of the industrial era to the current 400.
("The concentration of atmospheric CO2 has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm in 2005" IPCC report)
Step 3 avoid % increase of carbon as that number seems big but a very small number seems silly.
step 4 after pertending to be neutral pick a couple of extreme examples such as ice free artic by now or kids won't see snow and use that as proof that science must be rubbish.
So based on the above I conclude that our Denier friend JB is either evil, as in knows the world needs to act yesterday to avert major problems but wants to delay it for financial gain or (most likely) really can't see that all the information he got from a denier blog is total rubbish and is guilty of being gullible and maybe a little stupid.
JB I'm prepared to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't evil.
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.