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

Bernard's Top 10: Epochacropalypse Now -- and that's just the Chinese stock market; Greece's pop-up currencies; NZ's damp, mouldy infrastructure deficit; John Oliver; Clarke and Dawe

Bernard's Top 10: Epochacropalypse Now -- and that's just the Chinese stock market; Greece's pop-up currencies; NZ's damp, mouldy infrastructure deficit; John Oliver; Clarke and Dawe

Here's my Top 10 items from around the Internet over the last week or so. As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to bernard.hickey@interest.co.nz

See all previous Top 10s here.

My must read is #2 from Ambrose Evans-Pritchard on Greece. He always tells a ripping good/bad yarn. And I'm pleased as punch that I have invented a new word -- Epochacropalypse (small pleasures are the best).

1. Cold and damp and mouldy - An HRV State of Home survey in May of 752 people found more than a quarter of New Zealanders had moved out of a home because it was damp, cold or mouldy.

Why is it our Government is willing to spend bilions on motorways and broadband and all sorts of very useful infrastructure, but the most basic infrastructure for life and a clear cause of massive health and social costs is all but ignored?

I know hundreds of millions was spent on subsidies for insulation, but most of that went into owner-occupied villas. Much of the private rental stock remains uninsulated.

The Government is looking at a rental WOF of some sort, although the current indications are it is unlikely to have a 'warm and dry' guarantee because of the likely expense for private landlords.

One way to encourage private sector landlords would be to specify that accommodation supplements only be paid to landlords of warm and dry homes. That's a NZ$1 billion subsidy that could be put to good use.

2. The Greek debacle - Things are far from cold and damp in Athens. They have other problems. Ambrose Evans Pritchard has an excellent report today on the causes and what's at stake. The chart below showing how private banks offloaded their Greek debt in the first bailouts a few years ago shows the hypocrisy of the Germans.

The details are worrying:

Events are now spinning out of control. The banks remain shut. The ECB has maintained its liquidity freeze, and through its inaction is asphyxiating the banking system.

Factories are shutting down across the country as stocks of raw materials run out and containers full of vitally-needed imports clog up Greek ports. Companies cannot pay their suppliers because external transfers are blocked. Private scrip currencies are starting to appear as firms retreat to semi-barter outside the banking system.

3. Austerity has failed - This 'Open Letter from Thomas Piketty to Angela Merkel' is also a clarifying look at the topic.

Together we urge Chancellor Merkel and the Troika to consider a course correction, to avoid further disaster and enable Greece to remain in the eurozone. Right now, the Greek government is being asked to put a gun to its head and pull the trigger. Sadly, the bullet will not only kill off Greece’s future in Europe. The collateral damage will kill the Eurozone as a beacon of hope, democracy and prosperity, and could lead to far-reaching economic consequences across the world.

In the 1950s, Europe was founded on the forgiveness of past debts, notably Germany’s, which generated a massive contribution to post-war economic growth and peace. Today we need to restructure and reduce Greek debt, give the economy breathing room to recover, and allow Greece to pay off a reduced burden of debt over a long period of time. Now is the time for a humane rethink of the punitive and failed program of austerity of recent years and to agree to a major reduction of Greece’s debts in conjunction with much needed reforms in Greece.

4. Really? - New Zealand's Government promoted its Paris Climate Change offer yesterday as an 'ambitious' plan to reduce emissions by 11% by 2030 from 1990 levels.

The experts as cited in this Science Media Centre are not so enthusiastic:

Prof James Renwick, School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, Victoria University of Wellington, comments:

“This target (30% reduction in gross emissions compared to 2005 levels, by 2030) translates to about an 11% reduction compared to 1990. This is in line with the previous target of 5% by 2020, and 50% by 2050, so there is no “strengthening” of New Zealand’s position. This new target is as weak as previously-announced ones and does not come close to what is required, if New Zealand is serious about keeping warming to less than 2 degrees (as the Government have said we are).

“The science says, compared to 1990, we need about a 40% reduction by 2030, 90% by 2050, and 100% by 2060 – and then negative emissions (removal of CO2 from the atmosphere) for the rest of the century. New Zealand is one of the highest emitters in the world on a per-capita basis. Our dependence on agriculture and already high fraction of renewable electricity are not valid excuses for taking serious action. If all countries followed New Zealand’s lead, we would be in for very significant climate change impacts and catastrophic damage to the New Zealand and global economy.“

5. 'Laudato Si' - I was brought up a Catholic and have since lost the faith, but I'm quite a fan of the sorts of things the new Pope Francis is saying.

So is Jeffrey Sachs in this piece for The Atlantic, which looks at the Pope's latest encyclical:

To avoid a catastrophic collision of the world economy and environment, humanity urgently needs to change the trajectory and functioning of the world economy. Yet the world economic system is a juggernaut nearly impervious to coordinated changes at the global scale. “Laudato Si’” opens the path to a veritable revolution of ideas to bring about the needed changes.

As Pope Francis eloquently and accurately describes, the economic juggernaut is destroying biodiversity, dangerously altering the climate and undermining the life-support systems of the planet for humanity and millions of other species. On all of this, Pope Francis offers a compelling summary of the scientific evidence, presented with clarity and precision. His concision and precision on these matters exemplifies the church’s profound commitment to the marriage of faith and reason, with its abiding commitment to science.

6.  There's volatile and then there's China Volatile - The NYT's Upshot section does a good job of explaining the madness that is the Chinese stock market right now.

A couple of figures stand out for me. 85% of the volume on the market comes from retail investors and 17% of the market capitalisation is backed by margin loans....

Here's the NYT and the chart below tells the story:

Why so much volatility? The Chinese stock market is less well developed than those in countries with more advanced financial markets. Many of the strongest Chinese companies list their shares in Hong Kong or New York, with those listing within China more likely to have questionable business models, accounting and corporate governance.

That has helped fuel wild swings between great optimism and great pessimism for Chinese stocks. That is no salve for the pain of individual investors who have lost their savings in the recent market drop, but it does support the idea that they had reason to know the kind of risk they were taking on.

7. Who are these investors? - The NYT has a good colour piece on who these 'Mum and Dad' investors are in China, focusing on a 65 year old shipyard worker, Gong Yifeng:

Mr. Gong, who never attended college, made less than $150 a month in the shipyards. In the mid-1990s, he started playing the stocks, after realizing that his job as a state worker was not going to make him rich. He retired in 2005, and has since built up a $100,000 portfolio.

“I didn’t really have a good income,” he said. “But now, I’m doing better than some people I know who are just living on their pension.”

About three times a week, Mr. Gong visits one of his favorite brokerage houses to meet friends, swap tips and watch the markets gyrate. He was there on Monday, off a narrow street in the city’s riverfront district, in front of an enormous screen arrayed with stock prices, ticker symbols and trading volumes. Scores of people, mostly retirees, watched the screens, jumped out of their seats to trade stocks, and argued about the market’s movements. Many had packed a lunch and spent the day reading the electronic stock boards.

8. US$21 trillion in deposits - Before we get too worried about Chinese investors running out of money, we shouldn't forget that there is US$21 trillion sitting in Chinese bank term deposit accounts. 

One of the reasons why there have been such booms in property and stock prices is that people in China save enormous amounts of their incomes to cope if they get sick or to pay for education and retirement, given the lack of a state safety net or well funded state-run health and education systems. Interest rates in these deposits are repressed so people are desperate to invest in higher returning assets.

At some point some of those savings will start spreading around the world. Lucky for us, eh?

Bloomberg has a nice backgrounder here:

Few events will be as significant for the world in the next 15 years as China opening its capital borders, a shift that economists and regulators across the world are now starting to grapple with.

With China’s leadership aiming to scale back the role of investment in the domestic economy, the nation’s surfeit of savings -- deposits currently stand at $21 trillion -- will increasingly need to be deployed overseas. That’s also becoming easier, as Premier Li Keqiang relaxes capital-flow regulations.

The consequences ultimately could rival the transformation wrought by the Communist nation’s fusion with the global trading system, capped by its 2001 World Trade Organization entry.

Some changes are easy to envision: watch out for Mao Zedong’s visage on banknotes as the yuan makes its way into more corners of the globe. China’s giant banks will increasingly dot New York, London and Tokyo skylines, joining U.S., European and Japanese names. Property prices from California to Sydney to Southeast Asia already have seen the influence of Chinese buying.

Other shifts are tougher to gauge. International investors including pension funds, which have had limited entry to China to date, will pour in, clouding how big a net money exporter China will be. Deutsche Bank AG is among those foreseeing mass net outflows, which could go to fund large-scale infrastructure, or stoke asset prices by depressing long-term borrowing costs.

This quote stood out for me:

“I don’t think you can find any significant economic system where deposits in the banking system are twice GDP,” said Nicholas Lardy, who has studied China for more than three decades and is a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. “That’s the potential.”

 9. Totally John Oliver covering 15 topics in one minute. A good laugh.

10. Totally Clarke and Dawe - Here's their 2010 classic on the European debt crisis. Still utterly on the mark.

11. Bonus Clarke and Dawe - On how well the Australians are doing at Wimbledon...

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.

59 Comments

#1 - now you are thinking - good idea - Can just see that getting legs

Up
0

Except that the supplement is paid to individuals, not house owners. So one would need to put in place the housing WOF and require proof of the accommodation having a WOF with each application for the supplement. And not forgetting that owner-occupiers, I believe, also qualify for the accommodation supplement (based on their mortgage outgoings as a percentage of household income).

Hence, not as easy/attractive as it sounds.

Up
0

Hardly seems fair on renters at all. It would just direct renters to look for suitable properties, thus driving up prices for those at the expense of non-compliant places. Net result: the truly destitute end up stuck with the crappy housing and unable to get the supplement they desperately need, while those a rung up the ladder see their supplement nullified as the $ go more or less directly to the landlord, distributed between the rentier owner and the insulation providers.

Up
0

Spot on Bad Monkey.

After all the only reason this is a problem is because of lack of supply of affordable housing. If more affordable housing could be built then this would make the older poorer quality housing less desirable (.reducing their rentability and rental price) as people rented the newer more affordable housing.

The only way a landlord of these poor quality houses could regain some parity would be to spend the money to upgrade WITHOUT putting up the price.

But the present system allows exactly what you are suggesting.

Up
0

I still laugh over #10.

Up
0

# 1 This highlights how poor our housing stock is and the irrational prices paid as 25% are freezing cold dumps

Up
0

well they should have made boomers and post boomers keep up to standards.
they got cheap entry level buildings (the one I'm in was 1500 pounds originally), and didn't have to worry about inspections of completion certificates, quality sub-foundations, or many of the modern adaptions (insulation, window paddings), they got beautiful top quality rimu and put it everywhere, little regard for pollution or replanting for sustainable stocks - or paying ACC or worrying safety equipment (not in felling, trimming, moving, turning into timber, or building site). They got in super cheap.
Others born a little later, got to add leaking flat roof that wouldn't pass basic modern inspection, poor site drainage with no access, poor roofing without turn-ups, still no insulation or partial insulation, almost no technology improvement or implimentation (such as double glazing, or thermal mass), many older garages don't have required floor height. Many still have lousy chimneys or got to take shortcuts.

Why should the modern generation with all the extra overheads and pensions and high fat arse government wages to pay, have to fix all the problems that their forebearers didn't have to pay for?
And those forebearers had lots of advantages like high employment and low number of years wasted to excess education and education debt.

Problems of the housing stock ... need to be directed at those reasonable (government employees who monitor such things) and those who profited (boomers and older generation). not just more legacy debt dumped on current and new workers.

Up
0

Because it all adds to GDP, cowboy. The all important yardstick for social well-being and prosperity.

Up
0

You broke my sarcasm meter...

Up
0

Well bugger me, I lived in a state house for the first 18 years of my life, low lying area of the suburb. No insulation. Freezing cold in winter. 2 cm of frost on the ground, never wore shoes until I got to high school. Missed exactly 1 day of school in all my school days. No sickness in our family, or in the neighbourhood for that matter

Up
0

I understand one of the main differences between 'then' and 'now' is the 'then' prevalence and affordability of wood, coal and electricity. Husband grew up in Dunedin - his mum didn't work, so was home all day keeping their two fires stoked and in the evening they had those old electric bar heaters going in every room as well. We still have the old woolen blankets from his childhood - unbelievably warm - they don't make them like that anymore - and a new wool blanket will set you back hundreds these days.

Up
0

Nobody is saying that generation benefited *at the time*. The great wealth transfer from young to old is only happening now, with every house purchase from first-home-buyer to cashing-out-boomer at a house value that is 3x or 4x what it should be.

Up
0

that right it's the compounding that hitting the later generations because they can't enter in on the cheap.

yet those benefits for the community have become very expensive for some reason, when the social and economical capital _should_ have reduced the cost over time. Theoretically the accumulated wealth should have paid off power stations, depreciation recovered and advanced planning should have reduced things down to pretty near $0.00 price or just a donation level surplus - yet we're finding that even with lighter materials, machine geared production levels, specialisation and modularisation, and well established technology paths (less R&D, and less need for new answers) things are becoming _more_ costly for the basics ! not cheaper.
A what point do people look at that and say something is wrong that needs fixing?

Up
0

#1. Poor housing is just a result of the new Zealand attitude where we don't invest in doing things well. It's a social attitude we have. Not caused by government .
The really dumb thing is that lifetime cost of New Zealand crappy housing is really high. Much more so than if we built properly.

Up
0

Caused by government, in that NZers are constantly pushed to do things on the cheap.
To improve quality and margins we must break that need, which means breaking the "competition in the marketplace is GOD" attitude.

that's why I want to survival lifestyle at bargin basement levels. Zero tax on suppliers, Zero GST on sales of essentials. Funding to social workers, food banks, and soup kitchens for those basic supplies. Warm, if not beautiful, clothing and blankets provided to those services - recorded to those using the services. recognition of such people being wards of State with regards to food and bedding and basic training (ie budgeting, cooking, houseminding).
If it costs a lot to provide at a survival level, then government has to ask why it is so expensive, and how can people at the bottom be expected to manage that.
non-means tested. no-winz tested. only limited by number and consultancy to the individual families.
I may not like supporting a drinking smoking parent wasting money, but I see no reason their kids or partners need suffer for it. And if it's universally available then theres no reason to buy such stuff on black market, nor market to sell off the kids toys or shoes for more drinking money.

Up
0

definitely keen on this.

Up
0

#1 not suspicious source of data at all. LOL. And HRV is pretty useless - put in a real inverter and be done.

Up
0

#7 The stock market trader, had this to say in warning about the imminence of stock market crashes. I think China may well be in a very similar position.

"Taxi drivers told you what to buy. The shoeshine boy could give you a summary of the day's financial news as he worked with rag and polish. An old beggar who regularly patrolled the street in front of my office now gave me tips and, I suppose, spent the money I and others gave him in the market. My cook had a brokerage account and followed the ticker closely. Her paper profits were quickly blown away in the gale of 1929."

Up
0

#2. the Greek _government_ were told to put the gun down many many times and many years ago.
But they run around waving it saying give us money or we fire.

Feel free to fire. You were told what will happen if you keep playing financial gun roulette. if the side bettors who were urging them on, givning them money and drinks, and laughing about it at the big party at Greeces expense get caught in the mess is that not their own reward? If you're willing to let wasteful well-warned Greece get away with it who's the next one who gets the free pass?

Up
0

Sounds like you didn't read any of the articles, or looked at any of the graphs.

Up
0

I'm not sure you fathom (or maybe dont care?) the speed and depth of contagion that is possible from a Grexit. The EU banks are owed a huge amount, a default will I suspect close more than a few. Even if the banks could survive if all the banks stop lending to each other over fear than the world's financial system could go bye bye in a few days.

Free pass? and how much of the 1s and 0s lent is/was real money?

Up
0

Really, Cowboy? If you were a young unemployed person in Greece you'd have been rushing down to the polling booth to vote yes to another ten years of pretty much guaranteed unemployment and no income? Because that is what the EU is demanding of them. What sane person would accept that deal? Nobody is offering Greece any good options. So it's not surprising to me that the bad option they choose should be the one that is as disruptive as possible to the pricks who are grinding them into the dust.

Up
0

All three of you look into economic articles on Greek private economics from about 5 years before their Euro entry, including what was publicly stated about the concerns of them entering the Euro in the first place.

If I was a young unemployed person in Greece I'd be looking for a sweet job in the government (like all the other Greeks were doing) or getting the hell out of the country (like my Greek friends had done). Friends who have toured were amazed at the place (and it's obsession with the Evil Eye) and how terrible the economic mindset was. Buying a Greek business was almost a cliche for lifting funds from the till for personal spending, and not just within Greece. As for doing business for profit...dirty words. Live for today my friend, worry tomorrow.

Nah, even unemployed as I have been often in my life I could never be that stupid- even without income, as I've been there to.

Remember to separate the Greek people from the Greek government. The government and private sectors are immensely different and the former is a parasitic relationship to the former.

As long as that parasite looks to itself first then there can be no recovery - it is figuratively a fat jockey sitting on a starved horse whipping it for more output. If you want performance you have a thin jockey, on a fit, fed, and well groomed horse.

Just look at their "austerity". Did they shed government total cost to 25% of previous cost? No, they increased the spend. Did they fed the horse of private sector better? No they said we need austerity and cut it's rations. did they groom it better, to make sure more rural communities and local producer providers could invest in themselves, instead of wealthy factories and nightclub owners and diners? no.
When I get made unemployed, especially if I have no income. I stop none essential and consumer spending. I put money into food, shelter, getting income, selling favours, helping others for a reward in kind. I get rid of the debt as fast as I can afford (at the moment 90% of my income is going into deleveraging). I can always reborrow if I can turn my circumstances around - but spending to look as though I'm well off, buying friends, attending the right parties, using debt to service my loans...that will not end well and will not be done even if it looks good on paper or eases my ego.

Up
0

Are you sure about what you said about greek government spending? https://www.google.nl/search?q=greek+government+spending&tbm=isch&tbo=u…
Either an awful lot of people are lying about it, or Greece really did cut it's government spending significantly since 2008.

Up
0

Agree. It wouldnt be 10 years, if you dont get decent employment by 25 or within 5 years your entire life is "ruined"

Now sure Greece has to an extent been its own worst enemy but really their youth is not responsible but is expected to be responsible for their elders incompetence & greed at the voting booth. Funny thing but the middle class seemed to vote yes but they are not seeing the worst of the pain.

Up
0

#8... so the Chinese have all those savings/investments eh?

Investments in what considering they were Communism country not so long ago.
Savings where? In companies and banks.... where do you think the phantom money sneaking out of China is coming from? Have the Chinese done an audit check on the banks vaults recently?

Up
0

#4,Prof is cherry picking data. "useless expert" problem strikes again.

Dear Prof,
Per Capita emissions does not create any pollution or climate issue.
I hope someone revokes your degrees/phd.... Climate change (if it can be said to exist) would clearly be a matter of _volume_ of emissions- Therefore reducing NZ per capita emission is almost pointless which you would know if your qualifications were worth anything. You shame your organisation and industry with your poor attempt at deception.

Up
0

They are well aware of NZ being a small trivial spot on the global emissions landscape. Their point is that we have to set a better example, and it would be unacceptable as a self proclaimed clean and green country that relies on its tourism and food exports to fail to do so

Up
0

So we produce food for others, do we stop doing that? that sure is one way to reduce emissions per capita. So really if our food is for 20million ppl then that per capita should be across 20million and not 4million.

Up
0

Incorrect Leverageup.
They're looking for leverage to use against NZ's image and to scapegoat their own position.
If we could reduce NZ's CO2 equivalent output to zero, do you know how much effect that would have on the changes? None. Nadda. Zip.

That is because "per capita" reductions are irrelevant and misleading - so a scientific professional should not be using them. This also harkens back to what I said last week about "science religion" and how people are misusing higher education and misusing the scientific method.

The "per capita" is irrelevant, only volume counts.
One way to reduce volume is to reduce the population. However volume and per capita are therefore directly inversely proportional, as the Prof should be able to recognise! Reducing the population reduces the volume, but does not reduce per capita.... in fact as our per capita _isn't_directly_related_to_our_human_population_ having low usage per person AND low population, reduces volume but increases per capita ! If we increased our population, and kept human usage steady, our per capita would drop ! and our volume would rise !!

So from the maths, per capita is not a reliable (or direct) causal factor and should not be promoted as such by scientists, academics, or experts who follow _scientific_method_.

As for being clean and green, ... pop into Tokyo, HK, Amsterdam, Sydney, Paris, San Fran, London... tell me Auckland isn't clean and green by comparison.

compare energy usage (average howwater cylinder in US is 300-500 liters per household, those in cold areas use oil burners for heating, those in warm climates continually run airconditioning units). Volume of car pollution in the UK is? And their roads are so much nicer than ours, even through most of Scotland.

We can do better. But it costs, and who is going to bear the burden of those costs? much of NZ is already poor, that's the problem! locally owned big business is sparse, many of those already pay well or have tight margins. foreign corporations really won't help, certainly not without some type of payday (eg ownership control of NZ, profits sent back home).
I'm all for getting stuff of the ground in NZ but is government going to hand out funds to a NZ company? (like they offer for big foreigners). I've had enough of trying to provide funds myself, and the constant NZ government and law demands? Why should I continue to make effort, and wear risk while those fat parasites get most or all of the profits.

Up
0

however politically we need to match and play our part. But certainly the reasons why we should be so bad need to be dissected. Eg we produce food for 20million ppl but have 4million consumers, so do we not produce food for 16million? plain crazy if we are the least polluting per kg of food.

Up
0

Do you have proof for your initial assumption?
It sounds like a salesmans pitch to me. If they weren't already getting advantage from our business they wouldn't be dealing with us anyway, so we're just buying into the BS if we believe that. Do we really believe China is environmental advanced, is that why, politically, we are dealing with them? Not from the pictures I've seen.

And perhaps more importantly, even if we make our production process more expensive IS IT A BENEFIT WE CAN SELL ON? ie will it put the prices up, for reals??? Or is it just margin we'll be losing because commodities are sold on price, and our customers are already paying all they're prepared to pay any way.

Believing that such things will be an advantage or that we need to be hanging with the cool kids, is what keeps giving NZ the easy sell reputation. and that never goes well for the kid thats everyones biatch

Up
0

Proof? we are all in this together and we have a terrible per capita number. I fail to see how if we do nothing or act worse that that fact will be used for others to also do diddly. On top of that if we do not there is the possibility that our exports can be tariffed on entry to Countries that do.

In terms of "expensive" what you are really saying is continue to dump waste / emissions free of charge so production looks cheaper than it really is. So when a product gets "expensive" its "new" price is actually reflecting its true cost.

On top of that lets take some other criteria that reflect cost of production. Farm values, who really complained about rising prices? well no one as long as they also expected to sell at an even higher price on retirement and reap a tax free windfall.

Now if everyone is also paying that emissions charge then the biggest emitters per kg / item should be penalised the most. Interesting when we look at the tars sand oil producers that they want tax on the end user and not on themselves. In this scenario all petrol has the same tax per gallon yet the worst emitters are not penalised on their products thus making their product less competitive/profitable, which they should be.

.

Up
0

Their per capita numbers just LOOK low because they have huge population.

We have much lower density population so we are already doing more than most.

Yes it can be improved (less fireplaces but then we aren't growing much for direct firewood any way, much of what is used is clearings and deadfall)
Yes effort SHOULD be put into using LED bulbs (way better that CFL's or spot halides in light quality)
Yes effort should be made for double glazing.
Yes effort needs to be made in low emission cheap overhead public transport.

Comparing the "expenses" you mentioned. NZ is a young country. What were the historical level s of polluation for developed vs developing nations? They have had years of free environmental abuse to profit from, NZ dairy and industry overall have made far more recent attempts to curtail pollution compared with others, and our pollution far more limited and benign. For the oldsters to tell us we need to clean up our act is ridiculous. It's like a drunken old bum lecturing a young social drinker on the evils of alcohol. They've done all the damage and we're supposed to pay for the sins of our fathers? And no only that but as mentioned a complete zero emission on our behalf wouldn't affect a thing!!

In terms of expensive I saying our product competes on an international market.
We make less pollution individually, and our towns and cities make less pollution than theirs.
Our businesses and factories make far less pollution.
We are lower density so our transport will be higher per capita but lower in total.
So by expensive, I'm saying that taking extraordinary measures to look good will just reduce our ability to compete, that means less income for our country, less for our people, less resources available to fix things! And no benefit for environment at all.

If you really want to play the same game as the big boys, per capita.
Then:
Import food as they do (transferring their animal carbon cost off shore)
Transport majority of industry to China or third world (transferring industrial pollution off shore)
And declare that Auckland, Wellington, and Christchurch must parallel New York or London Population density (as a minimum). Thus transport population and viability of public transport is higher.

cost of production is not linked to farm values. You should know better than even try that one.

Yes, worst emitters need to be targetted.
But targeting a price setter won't change anything as they can just pass their price to customer WITH MARKUP (and costing in a healthy advertising budget). It is literally more money in the emitters hands! They have lawyers on _staff_ not just retainer, such efforts just give them circuits to keep fit on!

Yes we have a terrible per capita number.
If it was a meaningful number - or even related to individuals behaviour I'd be worried.

Did you know the shipbuilding industry has far worse numbers than childcare? should the shipbuilders seek to match the childcare industry?

You must look at what those numbers represent, and what viable opportunities are present to change it.

Much of NZ emissions comes from ruminants...yet the fields that directly absorb those emissions are deliberately excluded from the calculations !

I was one of those pursuing alternatives. I am one of those saying more disposable income (and via revenue) needs to be enforced on the product buyers. I have said so loudly and for a long while. There needs to be a charge to cunsumers, on top of the auction/contract price (a sellers mark) paid directly to _farmers_ for environmental upgrades (including environmental efficiency)..... but what do we see? taxes to reduce available retained earnings, levies going into government and corporation pockets, and crazy low commodity prices that say "the consumer WILL NOT PAY for your environmental clean up". And it is up to the consumer, not the business - the primary business can only operating within the funding given by you, the consumer. Government needs to hold the intermediaries accountable in that matter - as farmers I think have proven that they get no say in the processors activitys (either fonterra or the red meats sector are excellent examples!) In any even more specific example, fonterra suppliers are currently in a negative cashflow position (for last 12 months, and at least next 4)... and do you expect them to pay to upgrade environmental processes? With what?? they _already_ have a negative cashflow !!! Consumers are already saying they won't pay for the current process, let alone more. Increasing costs for such "benefit" has yet to result in an improved macro value - ie look at the uptake of higher priced "organic" brands... very low volume. Consumers are the ones dictating on farm practice., and the lack of uptake on offered "green brands" proves that price IS the sensitive issue. And price reduces the ability for businesses to improve or pay decent wages.

Many modern farmers and businesses _want_ nicer, more modern, cooler, greener solutions. We really do want these things. We want to pay our people well, give them, fast computers, latest safe equipment, nice surroundings, great wages. We _want_ happy and safe people who love what they do.
But it costs money. That means it goes on to the price of our products and services.
Have you heard anyone complain about prices these days? Perhaps that milk or housing is too pricey?

businesses including farming have to price for the market, and stay within budget.
That is what I'm talking about regarding "too expensive" - it's whether the customers are willing to pay for the environmental factor - proof of markets say "No". And that, because of budgetting and scarcity of resources, is the last word in the matter.

Which brings me back to my first comment - Those demands that we do a greener product, are just lies. Customers aren't willing to pay current practice prices with normal margin, let alone environmental premium. When the customer is willing to pay for the premium, then those who offer it won't go broke (unlike now)

Up
0

#8..... yeah right... $21 trillion deposits.... Hard to believe that... Best guess is that it is in yuan..???

Up
0

#5

>>> "On all of this, Pope Francis offers a compelling summary of the scientific evidence, presented with clarity and precision. His concision and precision on these matters exemplifies the church’s profound commitment to the marriage of faith and reason, with its abiding commitment to science."

That well respected scientist, his holiness in the pointy hat of the blood sacrifice cult. And the marriage of faith and reason - what a joke, and a disappointing platitude by Sachs.

Here is an actual scientist's commentary on the encyclical -

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/ideology-subsumes-empiri…

"Whenever religious figures enter into a debate on policy issues that have a strong scientific basis there is a slippery interplay between the desire to do good by addressing real problems, and the constraints that ideology and dogma impose upon the ability to do so objectively. Pope Francis’s encyclical follows this pattern."

The Catholic church is a long way from altering its stance on population control. Religions are fundamentally wired to expand their own membership - otherwise they are over time out-competed by others and die out - and these particular true believers are never going to canonize the mathematical realities of exponential growth at the expense of giving up their assumed authority on the family planning of the faithful flock.

Perhaps it can be rationalized by the cynical vis-a-vis their promotion of AIDS throughout Africa, or general encouragement of poverty worldwide.

On this topic I have noticed a bit of dogmatic and faith-informed content appearing on Interest.co.nz recently. I expect more of a financial publisher, where rationality should reign supreme. The implicit recognition and credence of superstitious and baseless beliefs is unfortunate.

Up
0

Secular Humanism has its own dogma of course.
I think it's healthy to have a news/financial site which doesn't filter every item through the politically correct secular humanistic screen.
The article by Elizabeth was good investigation of motives of financial management regardless of your worldview.
I disagree with the Popes view and his 'status', but you have to acknowledge his influence and figure-head status in Europe and the EU, and probably his organisations contribution to perpetuating poverty and corruption in South America and elsewhere.

Up
0

>>> Secular Humanism has its own dogma of course.

Complete rubbish.

Up
0

I rest my case.

Up
0

The religious or intellectually dishonest usually does, thinking they have won some sort of argument.

It's 'complete rubbish' because secular humanism (since you mentioned it), consequential ethics, atheism, and related positions are based not on any kind of dogma but simply the willingness to form positions based on evidenced facts and rationality. The only prerequisite is the acceptance of testable facts about the real world and the use of simple logic to form consequent conclusions.

Those stuck in a dogmatic mindset will resort to wheeling out the old chestnut that any such position is simply another possible 'belief', no more or less valid than any other. Organized religion has relied on this slander-by-association as a defense mechanism against reason since the beginning of time. But reason and dogma are not different flavors of the same thing - they are opposite and opposed.

The debate then stalemates as it is not possible to use evidence to convince those who deny evidence, and it's not possible to use reason against those who are unreasonable. What logic will you use to convince those who are illogical?

So there is usually little point in going beyond the outright rejection of the BS as "complete rubbish", as there's unlikely to be much gained from it.

Finance media should focus on reasoned discussion and stay well away from superstition. Of course it's not like they all do, and there is more stock tipping and economic tea leaf reading out there than there is sensible commentary - but I suggest Interest.co.nz exists precisely to do what the mainstream media cannot or will not!

Up
0

>>>> I disagree with the Popes view and his 'status', but you have to acknowledge his influence and figure-head status in Europe and the EU, and probably his organisations contribution to perpetuating poverty and corruption in South America and elsewhere.

I certainly do acknowledge it, and it is one reason why the pope and Vatican should be roundly condemned by any rational and moral person. Their influence should be fought against, not given credence and respect.

Up
0

Ok, fair point.
Reminds me of Stalins quote:
" The Pope! How many divisions has he got?"

The Roman's religion lives on, while atheistic communism did not survive quite as well.

Up
0

If you want to go down those lines you will have to have an honest look at the Catholic right's involvement in early 20th century European fascism, outright collaboration in many cases, Christian origins of antisemitism, etc. The Catholic church has had many "divisions" throughout history and using them against the old Eastern Orthodox enemy has been its play for a very long time.

Conversely if you believe the USSR was "atheist" in any manner other than the official propaganda, you have missed the recent easy and fast resurgence of the powerful Russian Orthodox clergy, who wouldn't understand the concept of secularism, complete with their cosy relationship with dictator-of-the-day Putin. They never went away - indeed Stalin himself was on track to the priesthood in his early life. Nowadays Russian imperialism, of which Soviet communism was but one flavor, is alive and well, with thousands of people dead and dying in Ukraine - and the bulk of the Russian public well brainwashed and enthusiastically behind the fight against the fictionalized West enemy.

When has any country or its traditional adversaries suffered for an abundance of secular humanism or rationality (most modern north-western European states, Aus & NZ)...?
vs the irrational motivations of superstition, ultra-nationalism, militarism, and/or state-cults?

Up
0

There are religions which don't rely on population or promotion.
Chances are you haven't heard much about them or from a true follower...for obvious reasons :)

Traditional (Initiatory) Wicca used to be one of these silent minorities.
But certain individuals took it to the US, where it connected with the rising popularity of feminism, and of the Goddess movement. Its US followers were...basically..."Americans". It had to be put in the presses, lots of book sales had to be made, and everyone had to be told .... and if that meant "throwing out the bad bits" to make it popular then that's exactly what they did.

The original systems are still quietly around but the derived Amercian version is all over the place, and it's getting mainstreamed into something completely different, as are similar systems. The consumer friendly version is rather different in pretty much every way from the orginal....including the derived versions push for popularity and converts.

Up
0

Sure but they won't survive in the long term, not in a continuous and recognizable manner, as you say American wicca is a bastardized version that has more in common with other current woo than its genuine pagan roots. Morphing and adjusting to the times according to the whims and moods of adherents of new age spiritualism is not what 'real' religions do.

Wicca has connections with old fertility rituals so it actually does touch on sex. I have no idea if they result in effectively increased reproduction amongst believers. I doubt it has the social influence anywhere to make any measurable effects.

Up
0

Bernard, here are the facts re Greece's creditor situation in 2010 ie who lent the Greeks how much:

French banks: 53 billion Euros

German banks: 33 billion Euros

US banks: 10 billion Euros

UK banks: 9 billion Euros

So guess who had by far the strongest interest in getting their banks bailed out?

Germany, right? If you want to play a bit of cheap bashing, then bash the French. But that of course you would not do. Pitiful.

Any while we are at it, why do you actually think that British sources are the best to understand Euro issues? There are good and free translation programs out there these days.

Up
0

The Greeks were sponsored in.
If the French wear the Grexit bill, if we look at levels between France and Germany including voting blocks, then the Germans have much more to lose from France's damage, than France has to lose from German's Grexit cost.

Up
0

The most important thing for France and Europe is that the French understand that their Socialist economic model is a total failure and needs to be discontinued.

As long as the French are de facto bailed out, they will continue their unsuccessful policies and drag down all of Europe. This is not a matter of a few billions here or there. It is a matter of fundamental choices on continuing failed French-inspired Socialist policies or rejoining the modern world.

Up
0

Piketty: "... will kill the Eurozone as a beacon of hope, democracy and prosperity ..."

Democracy? As in Hollande, Merkel and the rest of the EU mafia making all the decisions, Greeks voting their debt repayment down and the rest of the Eurozone that has so far financed Greek profligacy not getting to vote on whether they want to continue the lunacy. Oh no, the Eurozone is not even close to democratic.

Hope, prosperity? I guess the guy is not getting around much in Europe. Euro credit bubbles followed by busts have laid waste to much of the Eurozone. And now he wants to repeat the game, print money, create more bubbles and cause the ultimate wipe-out.

Why would anyone care about the yarn a spoilt brat public servant professor in Paris with a life-time job guarantee is spinning? To get yet another pretext to blame all the world's problems on Germany? Maybe it is also "Germany hypocrisy" that causes mould in NZ huts.

Up
0

From memory, it was Italy that invaded Greece in 1940, they failed and got driven back into Albania and Germany had to rescue them in 1941.

Up
0

I do not share Bernard's enthusiasm for Ambrose Evans Pritchard as a commentator on world affairs. He carefully followed the US line of propaganda regarding MH17 and in this article claims Tsipras did not expect to win the referendum . How does AEP know this? He is once again acting in service to his paymasters and trying to present the Greek PM as insincere and flakey. Udo Ulfkotte, a German journalists admitted that the CIA operates a program to coerce journalists into presenting their point of view. I think that is what we have in AEP.

Up
0

If you are really into conspiracy theories, you should try RT as your source of news. You can get your fill there.

Up
0

Being concerned that journalists are being fed propaganda is hardly a conspiracy theory, surely. Have you had a look at the main stream media in New Zealand, recently? The Herald is nothing but fluff, all sports and ads and life and style articles.
Reporting on world events is very thin on the ground. If you don't scour the interweb and blog sites for snippets we'd never know anything that's going on.
.
I read AEP's article too, and I was surprised at how he described what Tsipras' expected timeline of events was.
How does he know?
He seems to be the only one that's taking this stance.
Tsipras has not come out and said anything along those lines. Does AEP deduce this from Tsipras asking Varoufakis to step down?
I'm not so sure. Tsipras is a very smart man, insisting that the whole debate be played out in the European parliament, instead of behind closed doors.
It's forced a few ministers to show their colours.
Tsipras knows that his country is being used to set an example, is being sacrificed on the neolib altar. He's just showing an increasingly aware populace (both in Europe and abroad) exactly what's happening, and what the underlying agenda is.
He knows that what he is trying to do, what he's trying to achieve, will not be possible without popular revolt.
I think it's refreshing, a politician who shares the behind closed doors shenanigans, and assumes a level of intelligence of his constituents high enough for them to draw their own conclusions.
Rather that than the deliberate dumbing down and purposeful withholding of information we've been getting for the past 30 years....

Up
0

Especially when you bear in mind that during the Church Committee's investigation into the activities of the CIA during the Cold War, it was revealed that the Agency operated an espionage programme which recruited hundreds of journalists in the mainstream media to disseminate propaganda in support of American national interests. The uproar was so severe, that the newly minted CIA director, George H.W. Bush had to announce, “Effective immediately, the CIA will not enter into any paid or contract relationship with any full-time or part-time news correspondent accredited by any U.S. news service, newspaper, periodical, radio or television network or station.” , though he left a loophole that journalists could conduct such the same activities at their own volition in a voluntary capacity.

http://www.cjr.org/the_kicker/the_interview_negative.php

MI5 promised no such thing, and in the case of credulous journalists in the United Kingdom, they don't even need to pay them to disseminate propaganda to support their insidious agenda.

"Harper is the lead reporter on a Sunday Times story alleging that Russia and China have “cracked” files that were “stolen” by Edward Snowden, a turn of events that forced MI6 to reassign some agencies in key countries. All that, from “senior officials in Downing Street, the Home Office and the security services,” reported the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times...Asked about the nature of the files, Harper responded, “That’s not something we’re clear on, so we don’t go into that level of detail in the story. We just publish what we believe to be the position of the British government at the moment.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/06/15/sunday-ti…

"There is good reason for the confusion, since CIA agents did, indeed, use the journalism cover for many years, posing as agents using fake media credentials. And throughout several decades of the Cold War, the agency recruited hundreds of journalists to do their bidding as well. The cleverly-named Operation Mockingbird was run by top agency officials, including Richard Helms, the future CIA director who started his career as a reporter and famously interviewed Adolf Hitler at the 1936 Olympics."

Up
0

On the matter of Tsipras gambling on getting a Yes vote, I can definitely credit it. especially when one considers that the Party fires Varoufakis who was a thorn in the side of the mad neoliberal Eurocrats, signaling a soften attitude towards negotiations with the Troika. Not to mention this story in the English Edition of the German news magazine, Der Spiegel.

"Martin Schulz, president of the European Parliament, had pulled Merkel aside in Brussels and whispered to her that Tsipras was seeking allies in the opposition, with whom he could push a reform program through Greek parliament even without the consent of the radical wing of Syriza, if necessary. "Can you help me?" Tsipras had asked Schulz. Schulz has good connections in the Social Democratic PASOK Party."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/merkel-s-leadership-has-fail…

Up
0

It's hard to know whether the Daily Telegraph ever publishes news it's advertisers disapprove of. Read more with links

Up
0

Personally I think he is the best journalist out there. Have you ever read his articles thoroughly? He is not an American stooge I can assure you. He brings a knowledge of history and an understanding of finance and politics that is unparalleled.

You overlook how deeply offfended the Brits are with their American "friends". They have been conned into two wars of aggression (not defence) in Afghanistan and Iraq and had their pension funds raided by the US legal system over the BP fiasco (where all operations were carried out by incompetent US companies). They will not say so out loud as they feel indebted to America for saving them in WW2, but they will not be so easily led for a while (this is why they joined the China led AIIB - it's a protest they can make).

Up
0

AEP is also my favourite journalist. The evidence for Tsipras quite possibly not wanting to win the referendum, is that I believe most people, including very much the Greeks themselves, understood the Oxi vote to be a fast track to a Grexit unless the ECB/Germans caved on nearly everything. In reality Tsipras immediately sidelined Varoufakis, and appears to have now conceded many of the austerity provisions the Europeans required, in order to stay in the Euro; albeit the Germans may finally have caved on some significant debt relief. So, Tsipras has done well in general, and the debt relief may be partly due to the referendum. But he probably could just as easily have got to the same result with a Yes vote.

Up
0

I hope he hasn't conceded.
.
I hope he will take the money, and then goes on a 6 month legislation spree to close tax loopholes, increase taxes on the rich and increases the minimum wage.
Which is what they have been proposing all along
But the IMF said no to taxing the rich. Far, far better that the repayments come from cutting the pensions even further (already cut by more than 40% already) and cutting the minimum wage.....
.
How is impoverishing a nation going to assure a future debt repayment?
.
Surely this is not about the creditors getting their money back.....

Up
0