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

David Chaston on Japan's big bet; Roubini's concerns; the French Plan; the IPCC warning; interest drag; tax rates compared; China's deposit drop; Dilbert & more

David Chaston on Japan's big bet; Roubini's concerns; the French Plan; the IPCC warning; interest drag; tax rates compared; China's deposit drop; Dilbert & more

Here's my edition of Top 10 links from around the Internet today.

We have a Monday-Wednesday-Friday schedule for Top 10. Bernard will be back with his version this Wednesday. We will have another guest posting on Friday.

As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to david.chaston@interest.co.nz.

See all previous Top 10s here.

1. A $1 trillion roll of the dice
Japan has surprised markets with a major expansion of its money-printing program.

Japan is opting for another round of shock treatment, in a stark admission that the country’s economic revival plan is faltering.

It is now planning to print ¥80 tln per year (about NZ$1 tln).

That is about five times as much as the whole NZ economy.

The decision to do it is not unanimous; the Bank only got the ok to proceed after a 5:4 vote.

Let's hope they can quarantine the implications within their borders.

The NY Times has the report:

After insisting for more than a year that its aggressive monetary action was sufficient, the Bank of Japan on Friday unexpectedly announced that it would buy larger quantities of government debt. By injecting more money into the economy, the central bank is trying keep borrowing costs low, encourage spending and, ultimately, stoke inflation and growth.

The bold move helped push stocks higher around the world. The Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index rose 1.1 percent on Friday, and European equities ended the day up more than 2.5 percent.

In Japan, the Nikkei 225-stock index average hit fresh highs, jumping almost 5 percent for the day. The yen fell to its weakest level against the dollar in a month.

The central bank’s stimulus has been the cornerstone of a nearly two-year effort by Shinzo Abe, Japan’s prime minister, to reinvigorate the economy and end the persistent consumer price declines that have weighed on growth since the 1990s. But that plan, collectively known as Abenomics, has shown signs of strain lately, as economic output contracted sharply in the second quarter.

The central bank’s decision to ramp up its bond purchases was contentious. Four out of nine of the policy board members voted against it — a far closer margin than for any other decision by the central bank since Mr. Kuroda took over.

2. 'The end is still nigh'
Nouriel Roubini is asking how long the global economy can remain aloft on a single engine.

The global economy is like a jetliner that needs all of its engines operational to take off and steer clear of clouds and storms. Unfortunately, only one of its four engines is functioning properly: the Anglosphere (the United States and its close cousin, the United Kingdom).

The second engine – the eurozone – has now stalled after an anemic post-2008 restart. Indeed, Europe is one shock away from outright deflation and another bout of recession. Likewise, the third engine, Japan, is running out of fuel after a year of fiscal and monetary stimulus. And emerging markets (the fourth engine) are slowing sharply as decade-long global tailwinds – rapid Chinese growth, zero policy rates and quantitative easing by the US Federal Reserve, and a commodity super-cycle – become headwinds.

Seems like a changed tune from an uber-bear who seven years ago wrote off any possibility of a recovery, especially by the US. But he still sees a sticky end ahead:

But serious challenges lie ahead. Private and public debts in advanced economies are still high and rising – and are potentially unsustainable, especially in the eurozone and Japan. Rising inequality is redistributing income to those with a high propensity to save (the rich and corporations), and is exacerbated by capital-intensive, labor-saving technological innovation.

This combination of high debt and rising inequality may be the source of the secular stagnation that is making structural reforms more politically difficult to implement. If anything, the rise of nationalistic, populist, and nativist parties in Europe, North America, and Asia is leading to a backlash against free trade and labor migration, which could further weaken global growth.

Rather than boosting credit to the real economy, unconventional monetary policies have mostly lifted the wealth of the very rich – the main beneficiaries of asset reflation. But now reflation may be creating asset-price bubbles, and the hope that macro-prudential policies will prevent them from bursting is so far just that – a leap of faith.

 

3. All talk, no action, sliding to irrelevancy
Last week, we linked to an idea about how Europe could get out of its stagnation funk. (See Europe's fiscal wormhole.) But there are those who don't think the EIB idea will fly, and are proposing their own.

A French official, Jean Pisani-Ferry has proposed a typically French, typically grand three part idea. He says not enough risk is being taken by investors. Essentially, he want the taxpayer start and support big infrastructure projects that don't make commercial sense (not that he states it like that). I doubt the Germans will be keen.

The consequence, however, is that high-risk, high-return projects are more difficult to finance than they should be. If Europe wants to revive its economy and escape stagnation, it needs entrepreneurs to take more risk to innovate. But its financial system is undergoing a transition from a bank-based to a market-based system that involves risk aversion.

This is where the public side – both national governments and the EU – should step in and share some of the risk with private players. They should temporarily behave more like investors who scrutinize projects, contribute funding, and earn returns. Using the EIB and national development banks to this end would help overcome the current impasse.

 

4. 'It's not hopeless'
The IPCC today released its latest Report on Climate Change today. It may be a politically correct, bureaucratic body wrapped up in 'science', but it is still the best we have. It certainly is a lightning rod. Most politicians don't really listen to it - or only give it lip service - mainly because most voters are sceptical. (Green parties seem to attract about 10% support worldwide, a level they have been at or above for decades.)  And then there's this ...

But that does not make the issue wrong, it is just the IPCC is a hopeless communicator. A bit like the UN generally.

Given the rest of the world looks like it won't respond properly, we are going to be in for some new changes in our climate. That means we must accept adaption. Going back to 'the old ways' is no solution (Green Party note). New Zealand can't change the world, but it can adapt.

It might be time to listen to the insurance industry. They can't change the world either or lessen the risks from climate change. But they can (and will) price the risks of the impending changes.

Or they might not price them at all - by removing cover all together.

Best to think about these risks seriously now. And that especially includes local and central Government.

This is from the English Telegraph:

The world is on course to experience “severe and pervasive” negative impacts from climate change unless it takes rapid action to slash its greenhouse gas emissions, a major UN report is expected to warn on Sunday.

Flooding, dangerous heatwaves, ill health and violent conflicts are among the likely risks if temperatures exceed 2C above pre-industrial levels, the report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will say.

Yet on current trends, continued burning of fossil fuels could see temperature increases of between 3.7C and 4.8C by the end of the century, the report warns, according to a draft seen by the Telegraph.

Warming beyond 4C would likely result in “substantial species extinction, large risks to global and regional food security, impacts on normal human activities”.

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN IPCC, opened the Copenhagen summit by acknowledging the “seeming hopelessness of addressing climate change” but imploring policymakers to “avoid being overcome” by it.

"It is not hopeless," he said, calling on governments to make decisions “informed by the science".

Richard Black, director of the Energy & Climate Intelligence Unit, said the key question for those finalising the IPCC report was “what to say about the elephant in the room… that if the computer model projections are right, keeping global warming below 2C basically means ending fossil fuel use well before today’s children start drawing their pensions”.

5. No stress here
AndrewJ posted a comment over the weekend: "Some 32 per cent of new credit these days is used simply to pay off the interest on existing debts." It turns out he was quoting an FT story about China. Got me wondering how New Zealand fares on that metric, which is what the chart below shows.

But as usual with these types of eye-catching headlines, the FT only looks at the 'costs'; the interest income is there as well which effectively offsets the costs. In New Zealand's case, 2014 is the lowest level of drag from debt servicing interest in 14 years and the third lowest in 23 years. I would expect the March year to 2015 to be lower, even if our economy keeps growing at a slower rate to recently.

Offsetting the 2014 nine per cent cost of interest-to-GDP is the interest income the economy earns, which is 5.2% of GDP, making a net load of 'only' 3.8% of GDP. To be fair to the China data, I suspect their data needs the perspective of the income side as well.

6. Our turn soon?
The Americans are getting petrol prices that are at a four year low. US$3/gallon is equivalent to NZ$1.02/litre. Don't forget that 96 NZc of our price is in taxes (excise, and other stuff like ACC and GST).

This is from the CSMonitor:

US average gas prices dipped below $3 a gallon for the first time in nearly four years Saturday, according to automotive group AAA, and signs suggest prices could drop further. At $2.995 a gallon, Saturday's national gas prices average was just a hair below the $3 threshold, breaking a 1,409-day streak of prices above $3.

Prices at the pump have been falling consistently for most of a year, driven by a dramatic 25 percent drop in crude oil prices over the last 5 months. Oil prices are plummeting for a slew of reasons, ranging from cartel manipulation to a strong US dollar. But at its root, the falling price of crude – which determines the price of gasoline – is about supply and demand.

“In very broad terms, global production has outpaced consumer demand,” says Gregg Laskoski, senior petroleum analyst at GasBuddy.com, a website that tracks gas prices nationwide. “And that’s not just in the US; it’s in Europe and emerging markets, too.”

7. Personal income tax comparisons
Assuming an exchange rate of NZ$1 = AU$0.90 (which is what it is about today), here are the New Zealand and Australian income tax rates compared. 

Taxable income band Australia New Zealand
(in NZ dollars) rate of tax rate of tax
     
0  -  14,000 0% 10.5%
14,001 - 20,200 0% 17.5%
20,201 - 41,100 19.0% 17.5%
41,101 - 48,000 32.5% 17.5%
48,001 - 70,000 32.5% 30.0%
70,001 - 88,900 32.5% 33.0%
88,901 - 200,000 37.0% 33.0%
200,001 + 45.0% 33.0%

There is more to working out what tax you will pay in each country than just the tax rates and income bands and we have a calculator here that can help. But this comparison is revealing none-the-less.

8. The power to set our own tax policy
The German finance minister wants the our tax system to be part of a global system. While business no longer knows any borders, taxation has remained stuck in the era of the nation-state. The resulting tensions between fiscal sovereignty and globalisation can be resolved only through international standards and regulation, he says.

But are we really ready for some far away, non-elected body to set something as individual as our tax rates? Bill English might like the idea (along with you and me) of having multinational companies paying their 'fair share' here, but the rules that establish those shares won't have any meaningful element relating to what New Zealand wants or needs. And they are likely to undermine what we think is 'fair'. Just look at the table above - maybe you could see how to 'harmonise' the rates between NZ and Australia, but the chances are strong that Australia would dominate any negotiation. Now what would happen if you added in Europe to that mix? It would be a mess if Hr Schauble and co were involved.

Still, at a superficial level, he sounds sensible. And NZ has signed up to the recent OECD framework.

The agreement is based on the Common Reporting Standard, which was developed by the OECD. Under the CRS, tax authorities receive information from banks and other financial service providers and automatically share it with tax authorities in other countries. In the future, virtually all of the information connected to a bank account will be reported to the tax authorities of the account holder’s country, including the account holder’s name, balance, interest and dividend income, and capital gains.

Various measures are in place to ensure that banks can identify the beneficial owner and notify the relevant tax authorities accordingly. The CRS thus expands the scope of global, cross-border cooperation among national tax authorities. In this way, we can establish a regulatory framework for the age of globalization.

A “beggar-thy-neighbor” taxation policy, by which one country pursues tax policies at the expense of others, is just as dangerous as beggar-thy-neighbor monetary policies based on competitive currency devaluation. It leads to misallocations – and will ultimately reduce prosperity around the world.

Sounds good, but it won't be a big step to giving up the power to set tax rates. And the pressure from the big players will be enormous

9. An unexpected drop
The crackdown on fraud and corruption can result in some harsh penalties (including death) for those caught. For those who are not caught, they are avoiding the Chinese banking system, and that could have a harsh penalty for China itself.

Chinese bank deposits have actually fallen following a crackdown on lenders manipulating their numbers and illegal means of attracting money. All up, that threatens to weigh on Chinese credit growth and may be holding back their economy. Bloomberg reports:

The lower deposit levels are likely to curtail credit as banks are prohibited from lending more than 75 percent of their quarter-end holdings, while a sustained drop could hamper government efforts to rejuvenate an economy forecast to expand this year at the weakest pace since 1990. The lenders may also come under pressure to tap more expensive financing.

"Low deposit growth is an accurate indicator of the state of free cash flow for consumers and businesses alike," Jim Antos, a Hong Kong-based analyst at Mizuho Securities Asia Ltd., said in a note. "The situation looks negative."

10. Shallow money trench
"The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side." - Hunter S. Thompson

 

 

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.

63 Comments

Climate Change - repeating a lie over and over doesn't make it the truth:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/matt-ridley-whatever-happened-to-global-…

 

Up
0

...and ignoring something won't make it go away.

Up
0

Trouble is "something" is less 1/5 of that predicted by the computer models and chicken littles. Time to find a new scare story/gravy train.

"Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK."

 

Up
0

So the temperature rise isnt linear. 

If you look at the rises across say 70 odd years we see these step changes lasting about a decade, however these decades are getting hotter and we just had the hottest one,

"Nine of the ten hottest years on record all in the last decade

Four of the world’s leading climate research centres agree that the 10 hottest years on record have all occurred since 1998. These data and findings for 2010 add weight to the common conclusion that the clear, long-term trend is one of global warming."

https://na.unep.net/geas/getUNEPPageWithArticleIDScript.php?article_id=…

 

 

 

.

 

Up
0

Yeah its getting hotter - might be as warm as it was 130,000 years ago one day. But the key point is the rate of increase is not accelerating as predicted. Saying it is is the hottest decade is meaningless when it had been warmer in the past and the rate of warming is not accelerating.

Up
0

Oh yes that piece is authored by the esteemed libertarian Matt Ridley - the man most responsible for busting the British bank Northern Rock - he was chairman 2004-2007 until forced to resign, and when dragged before a parliamentary committee they threw the book at him for destroying the reputation of UK banking (of course it was his father, one of the previous NR bosses who ensured he got on the board in the first place, nothing like a bit of nepotism). Not content with having contributed substantially to the rape of the UK taxpayer (and no doubt egged on by mates in the fossil fuel industry) he then sets himself up as some sort of climate change expert (of course not remotely influenced by his die hard libertarian views). Credibility = zero.

 

Up
0

"rape of the UK taxpayer" and his customers.

 

regards

 

Up
0

You forgot to add the PhD in zoology, eight odd years as the science editor of the Economist and the million odd book sales. More credibility than a whiner. He is a libertarian so must be wrong. Lame.

Up
0

....nice try.... stacked up against a zillion more highly qualified scientists means what say?

Up
0

"Zillions" of highly qualified scientists and still no warming outside of natural variability. It's not a popularity contest.

Phil Jones back in '06...

"Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

 

Up
0

The warming is well outside natural variability. You are cherry-picking your startpoint and doing this. 2014 could yet be warmest year on record.

Up
0

It is not "well outside natural variability" - that is a myth.

"As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different."

The only difference being 20% of industrial CO2 was emitted since 2000 - yet we observed less warming than 1910-1940 and 1860-1880. I'll take observation over prediction any day.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

And of course it is getting warmer - we are in an interglacial so you would expect that. Industrial CO2 was supposed to accelerate warming - it clearly didn't.

 

Up
0

and you ignore the local climate events like la nina that mask the underlying trend upwards for a few years.

No you dont ignore it do you.  You purposely post these lies to further /defend your own politcial beliefs.

regards

 

Up
0

What lies Steven?  I've linked to the BBC and Nature for goodness sake.

Up
0

You are not telling the truth. You take long out of date statements, data and other snippets out of context and wieve them into an un-truth.

In simple  terms, that is lying.

regards

Up
0

Do you actually read the links that you provide? Noone is denying that warming is occurring and that the cause is anthropogenic; apart from yourself.

Up
0

I never said it was not warming - inter glacial and all that. Yeah antropogenic is a cause nothing too controversial there. Where it gets into fantasy land is statements like in the top ten "...could see temperature increases of between 3.7C and 4.8C " when nothing like that has been seen this century (0.04/dec observed vs predicted 0.37-0.48/dec), when 20% of the industrial CO2 is emitted, and nothing out of the ordinary was seen last century as per Phil Jones comments and observation.

Up
0

You continue spread dis-information, to lie, and you know it. The statements are out of date and taken out of context, science has moved on a long way since 2006.

Is an 8 year old line taken out of context  the best you can do?

how sad you are.

"NASA and climate scientists throughout the world have said, however, that the years starting since 1998 have been the hottest in all recorded temperature history. Do these claims sound confusing and contradictory? Has the Earth been cooling, lately?"

Underlying trend is up with short term events like La nina supressing that trend for some years giving an "escalator" effect.

In the mean time with have just had the hottest decade in a long time, explain that away.

Oh and when you look at the latest data,

"

What has global warming done since 1998? Link to this page What the science says... Select a level... Basic   Intermediate    

For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005.

Climate Myth...

It hasn't warmed since 1998
For the years 1998-2005, temperature did not increase. This period coincides with society's continued pumping of more CO2 into the atmosphere. (Bob Carter)

No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends -- and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables -- like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking single points.

There's also a tendency for some people just to concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more 'steady' indication of the warming that is happening.  Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon (Figure 1).  More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the surface air temperature.

Figure 1:  Land, atmosphere, and ice heating (red), 0-700 meter ocean heat content (OHC) increase (light blue), 700-2,000 meter OHC increase (dark blue).  From Nuccitelli et al. (2012).

Even if we focus exclusively on global surface temperatures, Cowtan & Way (2013) shows that when we account for temperatures across the entire globe (including the Arctic, which is the part of the planet warming fastest), the global surface warming trend for 1997–2012 is approximatley 0.11 to 0.12°C per decade."

regards

Up
0

Certianly deliberate deceit is antisocial behaviour, would you say perhaps psychopathic?

Up
0

Yeah it was written in 2006 about the historical record. The historical record hasn't changed! Saying the historical record is out of date is laughable. Also I included the quote from Nature that was written 2014 - after Cowtan and Way. The Nature quote is observation - the Cowtan and Way is 0.11-0.12 C figure is based on a “hybrid” “optimal interpretation algorithm”.

I’ll take the Nature/UK Met/CRU figure thanks rather than a "hybrid". And as I’ve said before Cowtan does say  “No difficult scientific problem is ever solved in a single paper. I don’t expect our paper to be the last word on this, but I hope we have advanced the discussion.” So even if he has “advanced the discussion” it is still half of the IPCC predicted 0.21 C increase and quadruple UK Met/CRU observational data. Nor does the satellite record show anywhere near the warming compared to Cowtan hybrid figures.

No the earth hasn't been cooling lately - it is an interglacial... When did I say it was cooling? Why do you make stuff up?

Up
0

"For global records, 2010 is the hottest year on record, tied with 2005."

Lots of warming if you understand or want to understand.

'06 is 8 years out of date, way out of date.

Since then we have had 2010 and it seems some record months this year and its not an el nino.

"In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. "

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998-interme…

So we have had the hottest years, even decades but still we have the extremists claiming there is no warming.

 

 

Up
0

You seem to confuse the rate of warming with the average temperature. Yeah it is warming but at 1/5 the rate predicted and nothing out of the ordinary in an interglacial. Here is a link from you favourite reference source - see how it was warmer 130,000 odd years ago.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b8/Vostok_Petit_data.svg

 

Up
0

No, I am not confusing anything, unlike you who is cherry picking old articles and data in order to try and confuse others.  

It is rising in a step and plateau sequence,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=47

Which clearly you do not wish to see.

regards

Up
0

So why is it not higher than 130,000 years ago or the rate of increase faster than 1910-1940 when there was begger all industrial CO2? Cherry picking - yeah right.

Up
0

Yet more lies, again you ignore the delays in the system, natural and weather events.

"The climate at any one time is affected by several factors which can act independently or together. The main factors include solar variability, volcanic activity, atmospheric composition, the amount of sunlight reflected back into space, ocean currents and changes in the Earth's orbit.

Before 1940, the increase in temperature is believed to have been caused mainly by two factors:

  1. Increasing solar activity; and
  2. Low volcanic activity (as eruptions can have a cooling effect by blocking out the sun)."

http://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century.htm

 

Up
0

...thanks for your posts steven. You have the patience of a saint. Unfortunately the debate has become ideological for some,  blind to the science.

Up
0

Yep, but those ideologues are being exposed more and more for being exactly what they are, extremists with no care of others.  Slowly I think even the mass of the media is also realising this. Those left like fox "news" act more and more outlandish, irrational and desperate.  They are also pooing in their own nest, I wonder how much credibilty they lost after heavily selling gold and causing their fathful to lose a whole packet of wealth.

I must admit it disturbs me that the rabid far right in the US at least has been able to capture so much of the moderate right's agenda and space, way beyond their true numbers. Effectively leaving those ppl no where to go but left or right extremism.   Sort of reminds me of the UK labour party falling to the hard left in the 1970s, sad.

regards

 

Up
0

I completely agree with your cut and paste - the MAIN factors you list don't include CO2 - try harder Steven!

 

So the "believed" solar activitity and volcanic activity 1910-1940 resulted in 0.15 degrees/decade warming. This warming being equal to the last significant warming period 75-98.  In 1998 to present (1998 being when the last significant warming period ended) we have seen 0.04 degrees per decade and this 98-14 period is when 20% of industrial CO2 was added to the system.

 

So in a period of 20% induistrial CO2 addition we get 0.04degrees/decade and pre WW2 with very little industrial activity we get 0.15 degrees per decade.

 

quote from 2014 ie not out of date... and I don't think there are any lies in here.

 

"Simulations conducted in advance of the 2013–14 assessment from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that the warming should have continued at an average rate of 0.21 °C per decade from 1998 to 2012. Instead, the observed warming during that period was just 0.04 °C per decade, as measured by the UK Met Office in Exeter and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK."

 

And a brief summary of the historical record from the former High Priest of global warming Phil Jones. Note historical record can not be out of date and i don't think there are any lies in here either.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm

 

Up
0

and qualifications in climate science? zero. 

Economist? that rag that seems to do such a great job of making economic predictions, not.  Employing him is par for the course really.

Yes I think he's blinded by his politics, well anyway always check the credentials before blindly accepting what someone says.

Credibility? oh say like Mann? no I think not.

Books well here is a good one,

http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/books/hockeystick/Me…

regards

 

 

Up
0

The truth is it seems finally getting through to even ordainary Americans that climate change is happening and is man made, they can see it in the events and changes around them.  The deniers are more and more being exposed as bought and paid for by the coal/oil industry Pollies and/or the political extremists.

regards

Up
0

well its a long time coming in texas..hard to believe the same people got a man on the moon...The Rick Perry response in 2011  ...

Gov. Perry Issues Proclamation for Days of Prayer for Rain in Texas

http://governor.state.tx.us/news/proclamation/16038/

NOW, THEREFORE, I, RICK PERRY, Governor of Texas, under the authority vested in me by the Constitution and Statutes of the State of Texas, do hereby proclaim the three-day period from Friday, April 22, 2011, to Sunday, April 24, 2011, as Days of Prayer for Rain in the State of Texas. I urge Texans of all faiths and traditions to offer prayers on those days for the healing of our land, the rebuilding of our communities and the restoration of our normal way of life.

Unbelievable...

Up
0

or the republicans answer in southern florida, buy bigger pumps.

The interesting thing is we are seeing a clear difference in policy between Democrats who are coming out for climate change (+ pro-renewables republicans) v the republicans who are against it and funded by coal and oil. This coming US election looks an interesting watch.

regards

Up
0

Southern Florida want action on climate change, to the extent that there is political rhetoric about breaking away from Northern "upland" Florida.

Up
0

Ah right, maybe the pumps were Nothern Florida's answer to southern florida's concerns, LOL.

regards

 

Up
0

The non pay walled version with the response to Sachs.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/whatever-happened-to-global-warmin…

Up
0

Yawn..scratch

A few months ago, I co-authored an article which charted the different quality in scientific output from the Dwindling Few contrarians compared to the majority of experts. My colleague, Dana Nuccitelli, summarized the article here. What we show is that the Dwindling Few have had a very poor track record – having papers rebutted time after time after time because of errors they have made. The low quality of their research has caused journal editors resign, and they have wasted the time of their colleagues who have had to publish the rebuttals to their work. 

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/20…

 

Up
0

That would be Dana from "Skeptical Science" tems who photoshop themselves as an SS Nazis, astroturf, fabricate quotes and post edit their forum to "win" arguments. Please. Roy Spencers initial response Abrahams is up on his website.

Up
0

Skeptical science actually quotes science, not that it seems you can or want understand it, prefering it seems voodoo or fundie christian viewpoints.

"Spencer is also on the advisory board of the Cornwall Alliance, a group with 'An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming' claiming that "Earth and its ecosystems—created by God's intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory."

Now if you want to believe such things as a fundie OK, explains a lot.

Roy Spencer has chosen to in effect "astro-turf" on websites because his work has been rejected in peer reviewed space. Further it has been shown as overly simplistic and hence wrong if not actually purposfully distorted to give the answer he wants.  

In terms of "nazi's" well maybe try the truth instead,

http://www.skepticalscience.com/nazis-shoddy-science-contrarian-credibi…

"Spencer also wrote of those he calls "global warming Nazis,"

"Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race)."

regards

 

 

Up
0

Yeah I already know you are a bigot Steven - why do you let yourself down with such crap?

 

As for his work being rejected in peer reviewed space - complete nonsense - you need to broaden your mind away from "skeptical science" and wikipedia.

You can smear the guy all you want but at the end of the day he has plenty of peer reviewed papers spanning decades - did you not scroll down that far on you wiki "research"? Also, amonst other awards, a US Meteorological Society award for "for developing a global, precise record of Earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate."

Up
0

#8.  Tax across borders.  Having the same tax rates does reduce incentive of course.  But the multinationals still have their tricky ways and means of accounting.  Transfer pricing has many forms, isn't very  sophisticated, but works a treat for them.

What we need is to tax them at the border, because in spite of all the accounting jiggery, they still want to move their cash sooner or later.

Up
0

Better still, compete for their business by reducing corporate tax in NZ. That way they report larger profits here and move jobs here. Easy as.

Up
0

Or better yet tax the hell out of foreign owned companies so NZ companies are on a level or even enhanced playing field, NZers employing NZers.

BTW if you look at he so called jobs created by say Ireland they are few, it is simply a tax haven few real jobs are created.

regards

Up
0

Agree...

regards

Up
0

Re:#1 - After insisting for more than a year that its aggressive monetary action was sufficient, the Bank of Japan on Friday unexpectedly announced that it would buy larger quantities of government debt. By injecting more money into the economy, the central bank is trying keep borrowing costs low, encourage spending and, ultimately, stoke inflation and growth.

 

I doubt it - the BoJ was called upon to help stem the outflows from Europe since the ECB's piddling €1.7bn covered bond purchase failed to calm those rushing to the exits, while the BUBA remains firmly set against a more aggressive ECB monetising approach.

 

October 28 – Bloomberg (Candice Zachariahs and Lukanyo Mnyanda): “For European Central Bank President Mario Draghi, the price of a weaker euro to boost the economy and stave off deflation is a record exodus from the continent’s financial assets. Domestic and foreign investors spurred 187.7 billion euros ($239bn) of fixed-income outflows from the euro area in the six months through August, the most in ECB data going back to the currency’s debut in 1999.”

Europe is again experiencing alarming outflows, even surpassing 2012 levels. Almost $240bn in six months, wow! And for the first time in a couple years I and others are monitoring ECB “Target2” balances (Eurozone central bank inter-bank balances). Target2 balances have surged euro 67bn in two months, the biggest move since the spring of 2012. Notably, Bank of Italy Target2 liabilities jumped $67bn in two months to $197bn, as “money” owed to the German Bundesbank moves higher. A quiet run from Italy? Read more

 

Up
0

In order to get the economy going and combat deflation, the Bank of Japan (BOJ) adopted a zero interest rate policy (ZIRP) for much of the period since 1990. This made the yen an ideal funding currency for the carry trade, which essentially involves borrowing a low-interest currency and converting the borrowed amount into a higher-yielding currency. As long as the exchange rate remains quite stable, the trader can pocket the interest differential between the two currencies. Since foreign exchange fluctuation is the main risk of carry trades, their popularity is inversely proportional to exchange rate volatility.

By 2007, with volatility on one-month yen options at a 15-year low, and with the Japanese currency depreciating steadily against the dollar, carry trades with the yen as a funding currency had reached an estimated $1 trillion. But that hitherto profitable trading strategy began to unravel as the credit crisis began hitting global financial markets in the second half of 2007. As risk appetite vanished literally overnight, panicked speculators and traders were forced to sell their highly leveraged assets at fire-sale prices, and then endure the mortification of repaying their yen borrowings with a sharply appreciating currency. Read more

Up
0

Such large sums dictate Yen-carry trade proceeds are placed in a larger economy.

 

The savvy Japanese bond traders worked it out last time ahead of the rest and I guess they will again.

 

“There’s tremendous deflationary pressure in the U.S.,” Yusuke Ito, a senior fund manager at Mizuho Asset Management, which oversees about $32 billion, said in a telephone interview from Tokyo on Dec. 4. “For bonds, the longer the maturity, the better” as slowing inflation preserves the purchasing power of fixed-rate interest payments.

Ito said the company held most of its U.S. debt in Treasuries due in five years and more and predicts yields on 10-year notes will fall to 2.10 percent by the middle of 2014 from 2.85 percent today. Mizuho Asset’s holdings also had a longer average maturity than those in the benchmark index it uses to gauge performance, he said. Read more

Up
0

up until the US defaults of course.

regards

Up
0
Up
0

YT states that this video is not avaialble in NZ.

Up
0

nice article on countries still repaying World War One, for those wanting to contemplate long term debt

http://qz.com/290183/in-2014-countries-are-still-paying-off-debt-from-w…

 

Up
0

#1 - Oh, i wish things could go back to the way they used to be. I am a blind man and cannot see that the world has changed.

 

Up
0

Large scale (international series, long time series) analysis of house and land prices. Makes it look like you don't need any particular local explanation for NZ prices as the overall trend is similar to the world wide trend.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/11/house-prices-since-1870-price-li…

Up
0

#5 - Irrespective of whether it is 1% or 10% you still need growth to pay it.

 

You are locked in and cannot escape.

 

All the money in circulation is debt.

If there were a default on debt then that money remains in the system. Governments can however get rid of that money by destroying tax money equal to that debt.

 

Up
0

#8 - We could solve the corporate tax dodge just by having a turnover tax.

 

But wait, those corporations help me get re-elected - I owe them

 

Lets talk about it and talk about it and talk about it while i am being re-elected, re-elected blah, blah.

 

Up
0

Re climate change.   Lots of talk but when it comes to action we seem to be in a state of denial.  In a general sense, we have a tendancy to rationalise things to preserve the status quo when faced with something that logic dictates we need to make large changes.  (Then too late we panic)  the classic example of this are the Jewish people who saw all the obvious evidence that led up to the holocost in Germany yet rationalised it that somehow it would get better, or would not effect them, or hundreds of other reasons not to get out and survive.  It appears that we a behaving in a similar manner.

The other huge elephant in the room is the world population growth.  the world has grown at an average rate of 80 million people over the last 20 years, which means that the current annual growth rate is probably well north of 100 million per year.  ie the world population increases by the population of either Mexico, the Philipines or Japan every year.  Apart from the impact on food and other resources, our population and their increasing standard of living must be one of the most significant causes of climate change.  No body seems to want to talk about it, let alone do anything about it.  It cannot carry on growing exponentially and we are probably well past a population that is sustainable on a long term basis.  Some sort a future  catestrophicly that reduces the population seems inevitable.

 

 

Up
0

This is exactly what I say to others in the Green party and the MPs. In return I get no sensible response, the comments are ignored or a misleading answer given.  

regards

Up
0

No votes in it perhaps?

Oh well Ebola might solve it

Up
0

Unfortunately not. Population growth is 'locked in' for the next couple of generations, even allowing for a catastrophic mortality event like global conflict or a disease pandemic.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141027181959.htm

Up
0

When we use 10~30 fossil fuel calories to make 1 of food and oil is gone by 2050 at the lastest, ergo there will not be the food to feed 7+billion.  So that leaves the 4 horsemen, a rather ugly, short and brutal future if so.

regards

Up
0

7 billion or so now 12 - 13 billion in 50 years.  We might reduce green house gas production rate per capita but even that is doubtfull as standards of living rise.  I have my doubts that we could reduce green house  gas production rates, and certainly total green house gases in the atmosphere are going to continue to rise at an alarming rate. 

Up
0

Re #6,   maybe a more sober view longer term than a temp drop in petrol prices, I mean all these highly comeptant businesses plan with the  future in mind right?  right?

"Kopits explains that the industry needs prices of over $100 barrel."

and worse for the US, "Kopits is telling us that on this basis, most US oil companies need a price of $130 barrel or more."

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2014/02/25/beginning-of-the-end-oil-companies…

Im sure we'll see yet more rounds musical chairs.

regards

 

 

Up
0

Why is the CO2 debate so focussed on temperature alone? Ocean acidification, pH measures of rainfall and Nitrous oxide pollution would all seem to be canary-like in the messages they convey.

My own take on the temp issue, as a layman observer, would be that the continual loss of glacial volume (globally) is holding back the big temperature swings; this is how evaporative coolers work-the change from solid to liquid to vapour must take a relatively large amount of energy. This is giving us a reverse Indian summer of sorts. My guess is that the climate change 'train ' can already be considered a 'run-away train'. 

Hence 'The Economists' are about to learn, too late, that the economy is a subset of the environment and not visa-versa. Unfortunately as they are the high priests of the current religion de-jour - growth - its going to be an expensive exercise for all of us.

Up
0