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

Friday Top 10 with NZ Mint: What China's new leadership might mean for NZ; Where's China's rich will invest their money; Jeremy Grantham and the resource crisis; Clarke and Dawe

Friday Top 10 with NZ Mint: What China's new leadership might mean for NZ; Where's China's rich will invest their money; Jeremy Grantham and the resource crisis; Clarke and Dawe

Here's my Top 10 links from around the Internet at 10 am in association with NZ Mint.

As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email tobernard.hickey@interest.co.nz.

See all previous Top 10s here.

My must read is #6 from Jeremy Grantham on resource shortages.

1. Not much reform - The new leadership of China's Communist Party has been appointed.

And now the raking of the tea leaves starts to work out what it means.

FT.com says the new team will be very cautious about political and economic reforms.

New Zealand and Australia need China to keep growth going as strong as possible, but also for it to be sustainable.

China has talked for a while now about shifting to a more consumer-led economy, rather than a more investment-led economy.

Richer consumers would buy more protein and go on holiday more often, while more investment would mean more use of iron ore and coal.

We'll see whether China actually delivers on its promise, which would be better for New Zealand than Australia, although Australia is our largest trading partner. That would weaken any benefits. Either way, we're looking at a more subdued China over the next decade than the last.

While that incremental approach served China very well over the past decade, there are growing concerns that bolder steps are now needed to keep the economy in good health.

China is on track for sub-8 per cent growth this year, its weakest in more than a decade. While it is now enjoying a mild rebound, this has come in large part thanks to a boom in investment that many analysts warn is unsustainable.

Chinese officials and economists have long said the country needs to unlock consumption as a bigger driver of growth, but that is easier said than done. It will require difficult reforms, from freeing up the closely controlled financial system to curbing the overwhelming power of state-owned companies.

The new leadership line-up does not appear the one to push through these difficult reforms. The biggest disappointment is the relegation of Wang Qishan, a strong voice for change, to the second lowest-ranked position in the standing committee of the politburo, the seven-person team that forms the core of China’s leadership.

2. Who's who in the new Chinese leadership - Here's a useful guide from Bloomberg.

3. Here comes the money - WSJ reports on a fresh report from McKinsey on wealth in China and how it is shifted around the world.

According to the report, which was based on interviews with 700 high net-worth individuals in 29 Chinese cities, roughly 60% of China’s wealthy have assets overseas. This group keeps only about 10% of their investment funds offshore, the survey found, but more than half said they hoped to increase that percentage over the next five years.

Most surprising, though, were the reasons China’s wealthy choose to invest overseas, which were not unlike their counterparts in the rest of the world. While governments around the globe are raffling off residency perks to attract Chinese money, immigration was cited as a reason for investing overseas by only 23% of respondents. And children’s education was a reason for only 16%.

Instead, diversification of risk was a major reason for 86% of respondents, and 76% cited having access to a wider range of investment products. Under no illusions about the relatively dire state of the global economy, only 15% said they were hoping for a higher return overseas than what’s available in China.

4. The fiscal cliff is not going away - Here's Stan Collender with an analysis of the politics in Washington around the fiscal cliff. There are big problems.

Rhe fundamentals of the fiscal cliff situation haven’t changed that much since before the elections. In spite of outward appearances that an agreement is more likely, there are as many new reasons to conclude that preventing the cliff from going into effect and being the worst fiscal policy since an austerity plan was implemented prematurely at the end of the Great Depression is still more likely to happen after than before it occurs.

Some things about the fiscal cliff were never going to change no matter what happened in the elections.

5. Australia's sneaky money printing - Here's some more from Westpac's Sean Callow on what the Reserve Bank of Australia is doing to quietly intervene to take the top off its currency.

"Overseas institution deposits at the RBA have risen very sharply in recent months from a low of A$0.4 billion as of 25 July to A$2.2 bln as of November 7. We expect to see more of the same story in October with foreign central banks buying Australian dollars direct from the RBA. We still have to call this 'opportunistic intervention' rather than 'intervention'. However, the longer it goes on, the more we start to wonder."

6. 'A resource crisis worsened by global warming is looming' - So says renowned fund manager Jeremy Grantham in this piece for Nature.com.

I have yet to meet a climate scientist who does not believe that global warming is a worse problem than they thought a few years ago. The seriousness of this change is not appreciated by politicians and the public. The scientific world carefully measures the speed with which we approach the cliff and will, no doubt, carefully measure our rate of fall. But it is not doing enough to stop it. I am a specialist in investment bubbles, not climate science. But the effects of climate change can only exacerbate the ecological trouble I see reflected in the financial markets — soaring commodity prices and impending shortages.

My firm warned of vastly inflated Japanese equities in 1989 — the grandmother of all bubbles — US growth stocks in 2000 and everything risky in late 2007. The usual mix of investor wishful thinking and dangerous and cynical encouragement from industrial vested interests made these bubbles possible. Prices of global raw materials are now rising fast. This does not constitute a bubble, however, but is a genuine paradigm shift, perhaps the most important economic change since the Industrial Revolution. Simply, we are running out.

He also talks a lot about a looming shortage of phosphate and potash.

Then there is the impending shortage of two fertilizers: phosphorus (phosphate) and potassium (potash). These two elements cannot be made, cannot be substituted, are necessary to grow all life forms, and are mined and depleted. It’s a scary set of statements. Former Soviet states and Canada have more than 70% of the potash. Morocco has 85% of all high-grade phosphates. It is the most important quasi-monopoly in economic history.

What happens when these fertilizers run out is a question I can’t get satisfactorily answered and, believe me, I have tried. There seems to be only one conclusion: their use must be drastically reduced in the next 20–40 years or we will begin to starve.

7. Finally a win - Australia's councils done over by Lehman Brothers in the crisis look like they'll get their money back, BusinessSpectator reports.

8. The little guy wins - SMH reports An Australian farmer has taken on the might of Australia's electricity industry and appears to have won, at least in the court of public opinion.

He essentially was asking why electricity prices were rising when demand was falling. Exactly the same question could be asked here.

IN THE morning, Bruce Robertson and his family were facing a lawsuit from six state electricity giants. By early afternoon, they were fielding an apology.

''I'm still confused,'' Mr Robertson said. ''One minute I've got a lawsuit on my hands, the next minute I've got an apology. What's going on?''

Grid Australia, which represents the nation's $10 billion transmission industry, had threatened to sue the cattle farmer for defamation.

As an outspoken critic of the power companies, Mr Robertson had exposed their inflated forecasts for electricity demand, and the ''gold-plating'', or excessive spending, which was a driving force behind the rise in bills. But after this week's revelations about the lawsuit, an outcry of public support for the New South Wales farmer forced a backdown. The chairman of Grid Australia, Peter McIntyre, wrote to Mr Robertson to "sincerely apologise".

9. A change of tack - Bryan Gould calls in the NZ Herald for a change of approach by the government in response to the rise in the unemployment rate.

We are about to start another familiar and vicious circle - an overheated Auckland domestic property market, fuelled by unrestrained lending by banks whose sole concern is easy profits, leading to higher interest rates, producing an overvalued exchange rate that prices our production out of international markets and cuts our margins, so we are forced to borrow more from overseas and sell our remaining assets to foreign owners. Little wonder that those fortunate enough to have money to spare see domestic housing as the only sensible investment and making and selling things into international markets as a game for mugs.

The chances of breaking out of this destructive cycle seem slimmer than ever. The new Governor of the Reserve Bank has wasted no time in abjuring the hints of greater flexibility issued by his predecessor and instead has nailed his colours to the mast of an orthodoxy that has been doing its destructive worst for three decades. We see not a scintilla of new thinking from either the Government or the Reserve Bank; surprisingly the only hint of the need for a new approach now comes from the Treasury.

10.  Totally Clarke and Dawe - Economic proctologist Gerry Mander thinks George Pell is to blame...a lot.

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.

49 Comments

#8 Grid Australia is a front for Power Distribution Industry

 

Not very gracious Bernard. Credit where credit is due. This saga has been going on for more than 6 months. Bruce Robertson coined the phrase when he accused the power distributors of "gold plating" their networks. Michael West has been wielding the long-handled-bat on this one from day one. Full marks to Michael West, Sydney's version of Bernard Hickey, but, without gloves. Without him this outcome would not have been achieved.

Up
0

Iconoclast

Happy to give credit to Michael. Just didn't know he was the public driver. New story to me. Thought it was worth noting.

cheers

Bernard

Up
0

Yesterday I bumped into a neighbort of mine who had just been given the bullet along with 89 other Dunedin workers at the Hillside Railroad Workshop here in Dunedin.. Their CEO gets $850,000 pa. He gave them the bad news. One of the workers apparently told him, "At least you and your family will be having a Merry Christmas". 

 

The question I want to ask to Interest Rate readers is- Why isn't there competitive hiring for the people at the top of the heap? In other words, when we need a new CEO of say the RR, TVNZ or ACC and so on, why don't we find the best qualified, enthusiastic person who will do the best job for the lowest price (lowest pa wage)???? When I shop I  often look for the "Best Buy", which is the most product or service for the least amount of total outlay. Not necessarily the cheapest or the most expensive. Anybody who has shopped for a computer printer understands. It is not complicated at all. 

 

What if there was an imminently qualified man or woman who was prepared to run RailRoad for $80,000 pa, and they had the qualifications and experience to do a great job? It seems strange that we don't give them that job? It is obvious good /sane practice. Apparently the head of Auckland Int Airport is on $1,700,000 pa. I am sure we could find an honest, experienced, competen, energetic and qualified person who would love to do it for say, $120,00 pa. Maybe someone who just wants to come home to Auckland, or immigrate to NZ or an airport/airline enthusiast. The Wanaka airshow is flawless, makes money and is organized and administered by supremely competent enthusiasts. I am sure some of them get paid, but it is probably not $1,700,000 pa? 

Up
0

It's pretty absurd that the CEO's of govt departments and SOE's get more than the Prime Minister, whoever it is, given the reposnsibility and hours attached to the job. I'm sure you are right that any number of capable people could do the job for a lot less. My brother in law who's a manager at Westpac says the same thing about their upper management. He can't believe how much time is wasted in pointless meetings that seem mainly to give the appearance of doing something. Heard the same thing from people at Air NZ. TVNZ and ACC are probably in a league of their own.

Up
0

Why isn't there competitive hiring for the people at the top of the heap?

It's a very good question. Some thoughts.

 

Firstly, I suspect the availability of people able to grow such businesses is not quite the same as buying commodity consumer items at best buy.

Secondly, it is surprisely easy to destroy a business and quite quickly.  At risk is not just the job of the CEO but everyone gaining a livelihood from that enterprise.  It's not something to just 'have a go' at (unless it's not your money of course).

Thirdly, because NZ is such a small market place it is not easy to gain experience in running business of these sizes so there is some pressure to compete in the international market place for qualified people where salalries are higher.

 

It would be great if there were more qualified people to run business, but it has been my experience that nothing worth knowing about running a business can be taught.  Which begs the question as to how you become qualified for such a thing.

Up
0

Agree with most of your points above for the private sector although it doesn't explain the disparity between executive and worker pay that has exploded in the last couple of decades. Are businesses suddenly more difficult to run? Most CEO's are not entrepreneurs with their own money on the line.

 

If you offerred current CEO's half the pay to keep their jobs would they quit and say they weren't getting enough? Would there be no one capable to replace them at half the salary? Doubt it. Why do Japanese executives earn a lot less than Western equivalents?

 

Government departments are not commercial businesses and do not need the same set of skills as a private sector company. They are Public Service organisations. Don't like it, try your luck in the private sector.

 

SOE's are mostly monopolies and are again for the public benefit. What kind of business genius that requires a $1.5m salary do you need to sell electricity. "I've got a great business plan. We're going to put up prices 5-10% every year regardless of supply or demand"

Up
0

No I don't think it explains the wider disparity fully.  My own opinion is the root cause is moral failure.

 

Are businesses suddenly more difficult to run?

Compared to the 1960's I suspect a business has riskier challenges.  But certainly nothing to account for the size of the increase.

 

Would there be no one capable to replace them at half the salary? Doubt it.

I would have to disagree with you somewhar here, good CEO's are not as common as you would hope.  It's worth noting that quite a high figure of start up businesses fail.  It's only easy from the comfort of ones couch.

Up
0

We are not talking about start-ups, but long established monopolies. Auckland Airport is just a modern version of a bus station. We are not getting Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak or Henry Ford for our $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$s, but MBAs, who are 10 cents for a bakers dozen. We have a MBA factory here in Dunedin that churns them out!

Up
0

Sure, it's easier to keep a business going than start up from scratch but I think my point that it is harder than it looks still stands.

Up
0

some of these people are being paid $500-$1000 dollars an hour in New Zealand, It is crazy money

Up
0

Ralph sounds so reasonable it hurts.

Yet, John Kay at the FT and Nassim Taleb (Black Swan) and many many others have proven again and again that corporate performance has very little to do with the CEO. ( exclude entreprenuerial CEOs as these are so few and far between statistically). CEO pay does not relate to the performance. They know this by running the numbers on large numbers of companies. The conclusion they reach is that CEOs pay is related soley to what they can get away with. Alignment of interests has failed, CEOs getting free shares simply do not stack up against people who have to pay for them. Superstar CEOs do not work. Hiring from within can often mean getting people who have been able to rise up the ranks- key skills, getting along, fitting in etc. John Kay has spoken of management culture being similar to the church elites in the middle ages in so far as skills requirements are concerned.

The key point the original writer was making is that running monopolies or semi monopolies is nowhere near as hard as the pay would suggest. Would any of them actual be successful at starting something or risking own money- it is very doubtful. They are managers - they should be paid to manage- not as if they are superstars- they are not and only the very foolish would think that they were.

 

Up
0

It sure must be nice to operate in monopoly market space, but even those don't last.

Up
0

ask Doug Hefernan how he feels about it

Up
0

These people are nuts!

 

NZ 'needs population of 15 million for growth'

http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/industries/7958900/NZ-needs-population-…

Up
0

right wing retarded rhetoric.......bin....<plonk>

Indeed....un-fortunatelly they are re-inforcing what the present crop of Pollies just knows is right!

Interesting how without the correct information, blinkers and bias you can make so wrong the decisions...

regards

Up
0

They sure are.

 

New Zealand "needs" a debate on what it means to be a New Zealander and how population size, immigratration and the environment fit into that, how many lifestyle factors we're willing to trade for GDP growth

Up
0

Turn that around, what do we give up with shrinking GDP?

regards

Up
0

Both population and GDP have been expanding for decades but real wages for most have been going backwards and costs rising rapidly. If anyone thinks doubling down, and then doubling down again will fix that they're nuts. Diminishing marginal returns turning negative I would suggest.

Up
0

If we start with costs rising this is reflected in the cost of oil and commodities. 

To return to my original comment, to grow World GDP 4% seems to take about 2.5% more oil.  Therefore if oil supply drops at 4%+ and tahst entirley realistic then World GDP and hence what we can support / do will also shrink.

Its not that I dont agree with you, I very much do, what I am saying is the diminishing returms are about to accelerate amd in some cases at least become losses.  This is an inevitable un-relenting grind IMHO due to oil output decreasing.

regards

 

Up
0

The US is seeing a rising output but that is likely to be shortlived - those shale deposits are very hard to produce from, need to be heated to extract the oil and gas and each well depletes quickly.

 

The one to watch is the standoff over the islands disputed by China and Japan. China had little interest in them until it dawned on them that there is very likely substantial oil and gas around them. I've seen one suggestion that there could be enough to fuel China for 45 years. If that's the case and Japan either capitulates or becomes an uneasy junior partner in the exploitation of these reserves then China will be able to buy up a bankrupt world.

 

I can envisage Chinese ships fuelled by their own oil heading to NZ to collect its meat and milk products from their farms.

Up
0

Fuel china for 45 years would suggest a gigantic find....the key as always is teh expotential growth %.  Even if it is so, 45 years isnt 1 person lifetime.  

Take this graph that shows China's projection to 2020,

http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?imgurl=http://www.crudeoilpeak.com/wp-co…

So by 2020 China will be consuming all of Saudi's oil (11mbpd) on its own...or (roughly) a doubling every 10 years.  So what they are saying is by 2020 The world has to have found 2 saudi sized ghawar's under that sea and thats just until 2020.

So after 40 years with a doubling every decade the demand will be...ouch...

Cant happen.

In terms of shipping out NZ food, cant see it either....bunker fuel cost and availability will make it impossible....A better bet is the chinese "Govn" jumps on their aircraft carrier and sails here one way.

and the chances of the US hunter killers not sinking it?  ho hum, I wouldnt want to be on that junk.

Oh wait we are handing out free visa's now arent we....so maybe they will just fly.

Now that is one I do expect....ie I think as the world outlook becomes more and more dire we will see the rich run here to "safety".  They will then expect to live like lords and ladies they feel is their reward...or in other words we'll overload from the parasites.

regards

 

 

 

Up
0

Absolutely nothing Steven, we would give up nothing!

GDP does nothing for me, or my family! Or the economy for that matter...

Sincerely,

HGW

Up
0

This is a token start in response to the call for 15m population. Poll of the day on the Herald site. 7000 votes so far. 60% want 5m or fewer. 25% 10m

Up
0

The call is from a "think tank" who are wed to growth and right wing (or at least "main stream") voodoo economics.   Im really gob smacked about how faulty so much analysis seems to be.

Poll of teh day, well it seems at least there are significant numbers NZers (and I am one) who dont want NZ turned into an over-crowded cesspit like the rets of the world.

I mean if you want to live like that why not just jump on a plane to New York, enjoy money, culture and oh the "children of Sandy" close up and personal.

regards

 

 

Up
0

Wed to indefinite growth indeed! 

That is the only way they can pay off their debt of unfunded liabilities, by inflating the economy, debasing the currency, and reducing the value of the debt to managable levels.

I too, like you, don't want to see NZ become like the "rest of the world," but in the 20 years I have lived here I have watched it become just that. I want to do something about it!

The concept that a New Zealand grown business, or any country for that matter, outgrows the very people that conceived it, developed it, and nurtured it through it's organic growth stage, is lucricrous propaganda with the emitter's self interest in mind. These people are perfectly capable to keep growing these businesses, without the multi-million dollar talent!

Very successfull, long stablished corporations have been run into the ground by some of these talented executives. However, one must admit that it takes real talent to manage such feats...!

Regards,

HGW

Up
0

There is something missing in the Grantham analysis of Potash.  Canada has 4400 million tonnes of reserves at 2011 and sales of only 9.5; meaning if they don't find any more (ever) and keep seeling at the current rate there are 463 years at hand. Russia has similar figures.

 

How does that translate into "mined and depleted"?

Up
0

The author seemed most concerned with the potential monopoly on those elements rather than the total reserves, if I read the article right. I guess that is because it is that aspect that in his view could cause the greatest increase in the price of K,P, and correspondingly food prices. 

Up
0

"This last question is really the main subject of White & Cordell’s website, where they are urgently recommending the rapid, widespread uptake of phosphorus recycling to prevent catastrophic starvation due to exhausting our finite fertilizer sources."

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4624

regards

Up
0

Im afraid your hypothisis seems dodgy to say the least. Also the quality of those reserves are like their shale oil, quasi-economic at any sane price.

"This last question is really the main subject of White & Cordell’s website, where they are urgently recommending the rapid, widespread uptake of phosphorus recycling to prevent catastrophic starvation due to exhausting our finite fertilizer sources."

Numbers Ive seen say there was 9 billion tonnes and 6+ has been mined. 

Then you have to consider the doubling time.

Then you have to consider the maximum rate at which you can mine/extract.

Peak production seems to have been in the past.  Rock based extraction is sometime in the next 10 to 20 years, certainly in my lifetime.

Hence it really is a problem, but tahts OK we'll ignore it as usual.

regards

 

Up
0

It's not a hypothesis, it's a simple statement of the published facts.

Up
0

No its not a "simple" statement of facts because you take some of the numbers and form a dubious opinion on them....ie you claim hundreds of years when in fact the maths and geology points to at most 40 and 20 might even be optimistic.

So, one which is at best shaky if not a downright piece of mis-information.

regards

Up
0

It's not an opinion, it's maths.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potash

Statistics from the USGS Mineral Commodity Summary 2011.

 

Canada -- Production = 9.5 tonnes -- Reserves = 4400 tonnes.

 

The rest is just maths and I did put IF statements in my sentences.  They could produce/sell more (or less) and they could find more, but all things being equal it's a simple equation.  4400 Tonnes of reserves devided by 9.5 tonnes of production equals 463.15 years.

Up
0

You also point to the USGS data which has been highly contended.  I put up a link against it and that shows that a more accurate and realistic number matching the historic output data does not support the USGS's numbers and by a long way.

In addition when you state Canada's output at 9.5, yes sure....say Russia's is similar but really others decline (Moroco) will see a huge shortage.  The USGS's data is world wide hence the output world wide should be considered and not for just 2.

So unless you somehow think the entire world's popualtion will move to 2 countries we do have a somewaht urgent problem.

regards

Up
0

You say USGS data is "contended" but present little evidence to support the claim. You posted a link but I can't find any figures for Canadian potash reserves on their site. Even if the site has figures somewhere, alone that's not prima facie evidence the USGS is incorrect.

 

Canada and Russia have 7700 tonnes of reserves out of a quoted total world reserves of 9500 so statistically they matter more the small players.

 

Even if Canada and Russia have to double production and find no other reserves in the future that's still over two hundred years already at hand.  Nothing near the 40-50 that Grantham suggests.

 

As I said at the start - something is missing.

Up
0

If you read the piece then this should stand out for you....

"The goodness-of-fit is reflected in the R2 values, which are 0.973 and 0.999 for P and Q respectively. The critical outcome of this analysis is that it suggests the 1990 downturn is a final peak, with no recovery."

These are global figures with the easiest and best resources used first.

"contended"  - to strive or vie in contest or rivalry....

Its a world market so unless Canada takes out its output then we all pay a global price, so in effect individual countries dont matter.

The reserves are quotes as original in place and what is used up....so whats left is about 1/3rd...There are two problems, output will never get to where it was (1990) or exceed it...or certianly not without a huge injection of $s and that needs a price beyond what we can pay.

We have really used up the best, whats left, well the comment is,

"we can expect heroic efforts to bring new supplies online from low-grade sources. However, several significant questions remain:

How quickly can “unconventional” low-grade phosphate supplies be brought online to replace dwindling conventional supplies, and how will we grow food in the interim?

What is the environmental cost (e.g. waste rock, greenhouse emissions, landscape degradation, heavy metal contamination) of mining low-grade phosphate?

How economic will it be to continue mining low-grade phosphate rock as energy costs rise, and how high must the price of fertilizer be to sustain this?"

So the thing to look at is like Saudi oil v Canadian tar sands, its most likely that the low quality reserves are simply un-econimic especially at $100+oil

regards

 

 

 

Up
0

Pure propaganda! I know of vast, virtually untaped, deposits of phosphates in Latin America, which are being developed as I write.

Remember "Peak Oil" and how we were about to run out? Today that danger is no more, and the USA will become an exporter within the foreseable future!

Back in 2000, it was known water could be pumped down into oil wells to fracture the rock for secondary extraction of reserves. The Bakken formation was also known, as were the oil sands of Alberta, Canada, and all the oil reserves found in Kansas, USA.

The first report on "Peak Oil" came from the same entity now reporting the new discoveries. At least, that was my source of informatiion. Propaganda and scaremonging of the population.

HGW

Up
0

Sorry HGW - but Steven has the valid argument.

 

We were never 'about to run out', that's a nonsense oft quoted by some but never the argument.

 

Peak is about the peak of supply, and given that energy is only useful in terms of calorific content, there are two problems beyond the volumetric peak.

 

One is the lessening volume. Two is the lessening quality, via the need to expend more and more of the energy, to obtain the energy. We cherry-picked the best/easiest, first.

 

We peaked conventional oil in late 2005. Oil from unconventional sources - USA is 10% corn/biofuels, counted in the mix) - has been conveniently thrown in to muddy the comparative waters, of recent times. Interesting to note that if SA is to be 'overtaken' by the US, then the projections for increased SA production have to be wrong (US tipped to be 10 mbpd, SA predicted 12-15).

 

http://www.energybulletin.net/stories/2012-11-11/does-the-imf-believe-we-have-a-peak-oil-problem

 

and check out the report itself, linked there.

 

It's an odd mix, yours. One who acknowledges low-to-no growth, but who sees no energy peak. Hmmmmmmm

 

 

 

Up
0

Just how well Greece is doing thanks to advice of the retarded right (OECD)?

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/15/oh-we-see-disaster/

Really well, honest...

regards

Up
0
Up
0

You're right, Steven, double digit growth is not coming back anytime soon, neither is growth on the high single digit scale. However, low single digit growth in many countries is possible and will probably be the norm for years to come.

It is what's needed to rebalance the world!

HGW

 

Up
0

FYI:

The Parliamentary Inquiry into Manufacturing Committee is pleased to announce that Cameron Moore will join the Committee as its independent chair.

The Parliamentary Inquiry into Manufacturing was launched by the Labour, Green, New Zealand First and Mana parties to address the alarming decline in manufacturing, which has seen the industry shed 40,000 jobs and manufactured exports fall by over 12% over the past four years.

Cameron Moore is a current Executive Member and past President of the New Zealand Manufacturers and Exporters Association. Working in Australia and New Zealand, he has extensive experience as a director and board chair for large manufacturing and exporting companies as well as public agencies. His work has been particularly focused on long-term strategic planning and innovation. Mr Moore’s wealth of experience in manufacturing and exporting, and the insights he will provide make him a valuable addition to the Committee.

“The decline in manufacturing needs to be taken seriously. I welcome the parties’ commitment to developing better policies for manufacturing and I look forward to working with them on the Parliamentary Inquiry into Manufacturing,” said Mr Moore.

The Parliamentary Inquiry into Manufacturing is currently accepting submissions from the public and plans to commence hearings around New Zealand in December. The Committee plans to publish its report in 2013. Submissions can be made to manufacturinginquiry@parliament.govt.nz or via the website: www.manufacturinginquiry.org.nz

Up
0

Potash and potassium are a sideshow.

 

Without the fossil energy to transport then in, and the produce out, bidag is stuffed as a business - indeed as an energy  - model, irregardless.

 

Bernard ;

"New Zealand and Australia need China to keep growth going as strong as possible, but also for it to be sustainable".

 

Were you looking for someone to bite? You konw full (or is that fool) well that 'tis an impossibility.

 

Bryan Gould seems to be blinkered - apparently it's 'something other than houses' overseas, that we shoud be supplying to. Now, let me see, what quantum ............ nope, they're all about houses too.

 

Economists - you gotta laugh.

Up
0

Indeed it is, yet just look at the arguments being put forward for "we dont have a problem"

So really we are up against blind denial...

"we have hundreds of years so no worries"

or we'll be in our graves who cares about 4 generations away....

When in fact its your kids....even if it isnt you.

regards

Up
0

Now that's an idea! Lets export houses...

HGW

Up
0

RIP the last true statesman...

 

Any replys please ...PLEASE watch the entire video... then retort...

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPz5ILqpetI&feature=context-gfa

 

 

Up
0

Something here for defenders of the accounting scam industry. In the FT no less.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ea26926c-08bd-11e2-9176-00144feabdc0.html#axz…


Atop their list of grievances is the idea that the decades-long relationships auditors enjoy with clients is unhealthy; PwC and Deloitte should face “term limits” like most elected politicians and cut ties with companies after a set number of years to avoid possible “scratch-my-back-and-I’ll-scratch-yours” conflicts, say the critics.  
Up
0

re CEO pay scales - the reason that there is very little internal outbursts that the 'King has no clothes" is that the henchmen underneath who realise how useless their boss is are all part of the same con and are getting paid much more also than they are worth. This continues right down the pay scales until you get to the actual workers. Its quite laughable unless you are one of these workers who gets laid off as the company goes tits up while the guy who causes it goes on to the next poor company along with bonuses et al helped along by the old boys club. 

Frankly some of the big investment firms and banks are run soley for the benefit of management and stuff the shareholders, workers and customers. Ten / fifteen years ago if I had been asked about the benefits of privatisation I would have been all for it - now its a big negative after seeing how the masters of the universe have driven once solid govt owned banks and telecoms into the ground whilst at the same time taking home gigantic pay / bonus even as the share price tanked. The way the goverments of the world bailed out failed concerns during the GFC and then allowed the same idiots to continue the con shows that at some point in the not to soon future we will be having some changes in Europe / America. If the peasants in China ever realise how "management" are lining their pockets and setting up bolt holes all over the world inc NZ we are all stuffed.

Up
0

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=108…

Damien Grant bewildered by competitive world of banking.

I think I may have made a mistake when copying and pasting the headline ablove. Perhaps readers of the NZ Herald article could help. We could run a competition to find the most errors in his latest piece. Lets kick it off with statements like these:

Banking is competitive.

Most of the money we are borrowing is sourced offshore by banks

ANZ, has ..... A$9 billion invested in New Zealand.

They provide us with a better service at a better price than if they were locally owne

Up
0