Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand with news that rising inflation is due to more than just oil prices - food prices are now reaching extreme levels.
But first, US jobless claims came in low again reporting only +212,000 new claimants with the prior week's low level revised lower. Now only 1.56 mln people are on these benefits. (This is the actual number; most reports focus on the seasonally adjusted level which is at 1.96 mln, so it may take a while for that statistical twist to work through.)
Supporting these very low rates are the data for layoffs which came in at only 14,875 in November, the lowest monthly total since May 1993.
All eyes are now on tomorrow's non-farm payrolls report where a rise of +550,000 is expected in November. There will be interest too in the tracking of overall hours being worked.
Meanwhile, the threat of another Federal government shutdown seems to have eased with a bipartisan deal agreed, one that still needs to pass votes in both Congressional bodies. It should pass but the Trump desire to cause havoc plays hard in these chambers still.
Japanese consumer confidence remained unchanged but still quite depressed in November. It is showing no sign of returning to pre-recession levels.
Global food prices pushed up to a new recent high in November and now only marginally lower than the record high in February 2011. But in inflation-adjusted terms, these prices are now at their highest levels in 45 years. Meat and dairy prices are not driving the overall index, but they are rising and near their highs as well. It is hard to see conditions coming where food prices will fall back, so this pressure could be long term.
Inflation in the OECD area surged to +5.2% in October, the highest rate since 1997.
European producer prices shot up more than expected in October, and the expectation was for a high rate. Only they got more.
But that hasn't inhibited international trade in goods - yet. Air cargo activity in October shot up +10.4% above the October 2019 level, up +8.6% in Europe, up +18.8% in North America, and up +7.9% in the Asia/Pacific region.
In Australia, demand for home loans fell in October, down by -2.5% from September. For owner occupiers, the drop was -4.1%. The year-on-year data looks spectacular but it is pandemic-affected and it is the monthly retreat that is catching eyes. Not only is housing churn lower, regulatory pressures are building and there is a sense that a credit crunch is coming just as the market itself is tailing off after a long period of unbridled enthusiasm in Australia. With the many regulatory levers being pulled in New Zealand, the latest being the rolling out of the new CCCFA requirements which come on top of a string of others, a credit crunch is probably more likely to bite, and hard, in New Zealand.
In Australia, pandemic cases in Victoria have risen to 1480 cases reported yesterday, and quite a surge. There are now 12,728 active cases in the state - and there were another 10 deaths yesterday. In NSW there were another 271 new community cases reported yesterday, with 2692 active locally acquired cases, and they had no deaths. Queensland is reporting no new cases. The ACT has 8 new cases. Overall in Australia, just over 87% of eligible Aussies are fully vaccinated, plus a bit over 5% have now had one shot so far.
The UST 10yr yield opens today at 1.46% and +2 bps higher from this time yesterday. But the real story is the flattening of the rate curves as short rates rise faster than long rates. The UST 2-10 rate curve starts today flatter again at +84 bps. Their 1-5 curve is a little steeper at just over +96 bps, while their 3m-10 year curve is actually unchanged at +137 bps. The Australian Govt ten year benchmark rate has firmed +1 bp to 1.68%. The China Govt ten year bond is up +2 bps at 2.91%. The New Zealand Govt ten year is down another -3 bps at 2.38%.
Wall Street has pushed on up another +1.5% in early Thursday afternoon trade. Overnight, European markets fell however and by more than -1%. Yesterday Tokyo fell -0.7%. Hong Kong rose +0.6% while Shanghai was fell -0.1%. The ASX200 fell -0.2% yesterday, while the NZX50 closed down -0.4%.
The price of gold will start today at US$1767/oz and down by -US$18 or -1.0% from this time yesterday.
And oil prices are languishing, just marginally softer at US$66.50/bbl in the US, while the international Brent price is now just over US$69.50/bbl. But this overlooks a sudden temporary dive to just over US$62/bbl four hours ago.
The Kiwi dollar opens today softer at 68.2 USc. Against the Australian dollar we are firmer at 96.1 AUc. Against the euro we are also softer at 60.2 euro cents. That means our TWI-5 starts today at 72.9 and at a level it has changed from very little all week.
The bitcoin price has fallen to US$56,199 which is -4.3% below the level at this time yesterday. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been moderate at just over +/- 2.6%.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
124 Comments
So. According to our Attorney-General, David Parker, when asked about Luxon's 7 properties on TV this morning, "any fool on social media can make comments on politicians' property holdings. He has done nothing morally wrong".
Quite right.
And any fool of a politician can give voters their undertaking that they will do something to correct the imbalances they all acknowledge exist - before they are elected, of course. Yet those same political fools can ignore their platforms; change their minds and ignore those who voted them into a job and pay their salaries, and that's quite ok?!
Chris Bishop and his 'expressions of envy' on the same topic can take a bow as well.
I know who I think are the greater Fools - and yes it is us - for believing in, and then voting for, any of them in the first place.
according to MH Four of the properties don't count as they don't earn anything, MH the government (our taxes) pays for his apartment in wellington ( no doubt it is structured to rent off a trust or LLC) and same with his electoral office, so it is only 2 that don't count, he is earning off 5 of them and 2 of them no doubt at all being paid for by parliamentary services, in saying that i have no problem with him using property as a vehicle for investment as long as it is acknowledged that is what he is doing and like many others taking advantage of our tax laws, HC did as well
so one out of ten for MH for his math's for the week
THE RE-WRAP: Pull Your Head In, Northland (newstalkzb.co.nz)
Hosking obviously doesn't think Capital Gains is earnings, because it's not Income, and so non-taxable, is it!
At the risk of repetition - it's not the individuals that are at fault. They are just doing what they've been incentivised to do.
Fault lies with the Taxation and Regulatory settings that allow the imbalances to exist in the first place. The very imbalances ALL politicians acknowledge need fixing, and then do bugger all about.
I would like to know the number of votes cast by property investors. It is actually a powerful bit of information in my mind, since that is the number of people benefiting significantly from house price rises - meanwhile the default media and cultural idea is to use positive language regarding any price gains. If they say it, then it must be so. A capital gains tax is bad? Then that must be true also. Kiwis expect their house values to always increase? OK if you say so.
you would have to add home owners in the mix , because if you change the TAX law they would be caught up in it and who in the right minds will vote for their house value to decrease if still paying it off, not a worry if like me you have no debt as when i buy and sell its in the same market but for those paying off a mortgage CG is a friend
House prices falling is largely good for anyone with 1 or fewer houses. I own the house I live in, and if house prices fell by 20% I still own 1 house and the same mortgage I have now. Negative equity can be brutal if you really need to move of course, but there is the advantage of houses you might want to upgrade to becoming cheaper, faster than your own cheaper house is losing value.
The benefits of rising house prices overwhelmingly accrue to those with > 1 house, who try to recruit the bulk of people with 1 house into supporting their cause against the best interests of the country as a whole.
why is it that we don't vote for parties whose main mandate is a complete overhaul of the tax system
I believe the country did do exactly that. But then you know... the whole incompetency issue and cesspool of lies and failure cropped up.
Don't worry, next election will be different /s
Inflation: the world is waking up to the fact that Govts spraying money everywhere and low interest rates don’t actually produce goods, food & services/delivery during lockdowns and COVID-induced physical paralysis as well as the increasing restrictions/bans on gas, oil & coal.
Is the goal to remove private SMEs and rely on large corporations and Govt depts for everything? A new modern form of communism.
Absolutely Rick. Many commenters seem to like applying one or another political ideology to what is happening, but the reality is no matter what ideology the leaders claim to subscribe to they all move in the same direction. Since at least the 70's it seems that there has been a movement to entrench wealth and power into the hands of a ruling elite. Most of the time this is quite subtle, and even hard to identify, but occasionally it is blatant. Recently it has been getting more blatant and obvious. Likely because the results are also more obviously apparent. Governments are more and more looking to be ruling at the pleasure of the Corporations rather than the people.
Where corruption is more overt such as the US, this is much more apparent. In NZ it is apparent through Governments inability or refusal to effectively address real issues.
The difference between the RBA and RBNZ is light and day. Australia’s housing price increases only really kicked off in Feb and are up about 15% and the regulators stepped in in Sept to stem the market. Meanwhile NZ is at month 20 of its housing boom and 40% up in that time and the regulators only stepped in, in the last month.
Ironically Australia is run by neo liberals who prefer capital markets to operate freely but even they can see that out of control housing markets is not a great outcome for society or the economy
Yes there appear to be plenty of people 50+ who like to sit in their ivory tower and tell young people to stop complaining. Yet if these (primarily) boomers found themselves in the circumstances that younger generations do, there would be blood in the streets. Millennials appear to be far to nice and far to faithful to their boomer parents who have literally shat in the nest…all over the kids.
IO and Rick see my comment above. The perspective you are pushing I suggest is too shallow in thinking. There are many younger generations doing very well, and many older suffering. It is not a generational thing. It more appears to be a political movement, rooted in Governments. The problem and big question is how to fix it?
Next year we will be halfway through the current term and beginning the run to the next election, but what choices will we be given to vote on? Will any of them be able to step outside of and beyond the 'conventional political thinking' that has plagued the world for at least the last 50 years? Since 1980 generations beyond boomers have had a chance to vote and change the landscape, to what avail? Ask yourself why, and do some real analysis.
Agree as like most issues it is multifaceted - although when I talk to most people 45 + the want the status quo to continue for as long as possible because the don’t like the consequences that would come from the eventual, necessary change for future financial/societal stability.
So you can say it’s not generational..but when the vast majority of people of a certain age want change, but a vast majority of other generations don’t want change (gen x and older), my observation is that it is largely a generational issue.
How long before we have our first millennial Prime Minister? That will be like the rise of JFK and the changes that swept through society in the 1960’s.
The 4th Turning is a great read on this topic if you haven’t already.
Brock indicates JA is a millennial. But I would also look at voting numbers. Again your thinking is too shallow. Post boomer generations outnumber Boomers significantly and will now dominate the voting landscape. Boomers are not 45 +, they are 60 +. It is a common human trait for any generation to fear change. People prefer familiarity. We even have an adage for it; "Better the devil we know....".
The juggernaut that is our political and electoral machine makes it hard for non-conventional parties or even just independents get elected, a clue - Winston Peters. He held the Government to account at so many levels, seeing flaws in policies they wished to remain hidden. He was roundly criticised as being a road block, but few if any wanted to ask him why. As a population we are afraid of change and stick with the conventional. But what I see is that we are looking for a maverick, but we kicked the one we had out! What chances would give to someone who presented with radical ideas and a way to fix the current mess?
Chloe is an interesting and reasonably fresh face. But I am yet to see any evidence that she can lead the way out of the current mess. Indeed I suggest that she too is captured by the 'conventional wisdom'. Certainly some of her comments on Green issues were to me, naive.
Was it too witty for you?
She didn't even flinch when she said it, she said it totally off the cuff and shot down the future leader of the opposition on the spot with check mate accuracy.
Love her or loath her it was a great comment, even more so because Muller isn't a boomer but is 50 going on 75.
I agree, she appears similar to Ardern.
As with Ardern, she entered Politics as a career, no real world experience (and I don't mean Business experience - Just general wider life experience). Has been heavily promoted as the New kid on the block by the media, and will likely become leader of a party based on this public recognition alone.
She comes across as "intelligent", but in reading what she has said it appears to be more the confidence/bravado of a student debate team member rather than any greater understanding or logic. Ultimately I think she will prove to be idealistic, but incapable of implementing anything that results in positive change.
What do you mean by 'real world' experience? That's usually used as a code word for 'ran a business' (though it's not clear why that is more 'real world' than anything else). But in any case, she worked in a number of jobs and ran quite a few businesses before entering parliament. If you look at her wikipedia bio, she also lived in a few different countries as well. So what sort of 'real world experience' do you think she is lacking? As for your comment that she will "likely become leader of a party based on this public recognition alone" - she is actually the only sitting Green MP who has won an electorate seat. Your dismissal of her doesn't seem to based on facts, but rather just because she is young ("student debate team member?" That's unnecessary).
A lot of things are only learned via experience. She may have done a "lot", but she is still only 27. She became an MP at 23, after being a recent graduate. She may have "worked" in a range of jobs, but did she really experience a career in an industry? or have time to travel independently (i.e. as an adult).
"she is actually the only sitting Green MP who has won an electorate seat."
As I wrote, she won due to being a Media Darling in 2017, she had a far higher level of media coverage than all the other MPs. So got there on pure recognition. People vote for someone they know and fame gets votes. Ask Trump, Jesse Ventura, Arnold Swarzenegger. Even Ardern and Bridges only got where they were due to being the "Young guns" picked by a certain breakfast TV shows 12 years ago to make a weekly appearance. They weren't selected due to their political acumen. They got in because they were known.
By realworld experience I mean Life/Love/Career/Family/Friends. She entered parliament at 23 (don't get me wrong there is a place for youth in parliament). A 23 year old straight out of Uni has not had a career, they are unlikely to even have a partner, let alone a family. They may have gone on some holidays and seen things. But they didn't experience them.
Also to clarify, the country is not a business, so I don't want "Business people" to run it. A third of businesses fail, a 1/3 are in chronic debt and are barely hanging on, and most of the remaining 1/3 just have better debt. Only a couple are successful long term profitable entities, and I don't see any of those business people in National.
So by 'real world' experience, you think someone has to have a career outside parliament (of some indeterminate duration), have a partner (which I think she does, by the way), have a family (by which you mean children I take it), and travel overseas as an adult, but not just on holiday?
That seems like a fairly narrow definition of 'real world' experience, and one that skews towards the kind of things older, wealthier people would have experienced and done. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a partner. Not everyone has children, by choice or otherwise. I think it's pretty rubbish to hold that such people don't have 'real world' experience and therefore should be excluded from politics. Lots of people have jobs rather than careers as well, and lots of people can't afford to go overseas. Such people live in the 'real world' too.
In summary, I think we should be deeply suspicious of what we are saying when we talk about who has 'real world' experience and who doesn't.
It was not a definitive list, It was just some examples of life that people go through. I could equally have said experienced Cancer, lost a loved one, or struggled on a benefit for years. Everyone's life is different.
But you wouldn't appoint a uni-graduate as a Judge, Director of Health, Teaching HoD, CFO of a Bank, or a wide range of other roles. So why would you make them an MP what actual qualifications do they bring other than being young and idealistic?
For further clarification. I am not saying she hasn't lived, and I am not saying she has no valuable experience. Just that she hasn't lived like any of her constituents or experienced anything like what they have. So how does she accurately represent them.
Just that she hasn't lived like any of her constituents or experienced anything like what they have.
But that's just obviously false. Young people are constituents too. And they have the experience of what it is like to be young under the current social and economic conditions, which is exactly what Swarbrick has also experienced. Further, politicians don't have to have the same life experiences as the people they represent in order to represent them well. If you think that, we might as well not bother with voting. Instead we should just make a list of life experiences and ensure that the 120 MPs in parliament tick all the boxes.
And as for those other jobs, they require particular expertise about a certain subject matter (and in some cases, actual qualifications like a particular degree).
The vast majority of kiwis never get a job with an equivalent salary to an MP, straight out of Uni or not. If that's the reason why you think she doesn't share sufficient experiences with her constituents to be a good MP, then no MPs will ever meet that standard. (Also, what makes you think she had no other work experience? Or that she just 'fell into it'? Both of those are pretty clearly false. She had tons of work experience before becoming and MP, and also ran a mayoral campaign before getting selected for the Auckland Central seat).
Dislike her politics all you want - but it's pretty clear that this business about 'not having real world experience' or 'not sharing experiences with constituents' is just a red herring. When you try to pin down what counts as 'real world experience' it's either going to be arbitrary, so narrow hardly anyone would count as having it, or so broad everyone does.
Do you not think parliament should be representative of different people from different backgrounds and different ages?
I would put my money on Swarbrick being to out think 95% of all sitting MPs, on almost any topic. Suggesting she should not be in parliament and we should only have old fogey sleepy heads like Greg O'Connor deciding the fate of the country is, frankly, stupid. I can only imagine you hold some bias against her, be it age/political disposition etc.
As far as I've been able to tell, she just speaks in soundbites or promotes other people's ideas, usually from countries unlike New Zealand. Every time I've seen her put up a policy I've thought "that wouldn't work in NZ because..." - she has ideas that wouldn't work unless the entire status quo was flipped on its head. If that happened, we'd need more than her ideas to help us because something more deeply wrong would be afoot. Policy changes need to take into account the status quo or they fall flat. Kiwibuild is a paragon.
I do believe she has the right to be there, but I am wary of a person that enters parliament as a career. A career MP only represents themselves.
My bias is probably the same as yours towards O'Connor (For the record I also think he is a waste of space) but he has as much right as she does to be there.
Personally I think she would get torn apart intellectually by quite a few MPs. Most of the stuff I have read of hers is ideological calls to action, without saying what the action is. Protest this, cancel that, but no idea on what to do instead. I have also found her to be quite arrogant. Her reaction to the marijuana vote was that of a spoiled kid.
Suggest you lookup many of her interviews, she tore apart Mark Richardson (not really that hard to do, but given he is/was a poster child of the right, quite apt), regularly goes toe to toe with people double her age and holds them to a draw if not coming out on top. This from someone in their mid 20's who you believe to be unqualified. Sure she might pout a bit more than more "battle hardened" MPs when losing which will change with age, that doesn't make her unsuited to parliament given more mature MPs regularly do exactly the same. And if you don't like career politicians, you must hate 80% of the politicians who represent us now...
Again, this reeks of bias, whether you see it or not. Suggest you take a good hard look at why you don't like a young, intelligent, articulate woman intent at shaking up politics. It's like you are saying you despise these sorts of people, likely because they don't represent yourself or your beliefs. But if these sorts of people are our future party leaders, I am personally a LOT happier compared to have this sort of politician as opposed to the sleepwalkers we have going through the motions and not wanting to change anything right when everything needs changing. There aren't many politicians I would rate (Reti seems very good, Little usually does well, Seymour is also quite good, even Winston Peters is all right as part of the old guard), but she is definitely one of them.
Think you misunderstand my position - I’m not against Chloe or her political stance or ability. What I am saying is that she represents future politics in NZ. It’s a big change from the neoliberal status quo at all costs - people with similar views will be managers and directors of large companies and will be taking higher level roles at state institutions (like central banks). When we come out of the 4th turning, gen x who used to look to boomers for leadership will realise they are a lost cause and will look to millennials to fill that leadership gap.
What we’ve known the last 40 years under mostly boomer centric rule/benefit, will be replaced by something entirely different.
You're starting to sound a little strident now. How long do you think it will take to get the change? Post boomers have been voters for the last 50 years, and look what they've achieved. You're being too superficial. Consider human psychology and behavioural traits and you may come close.
I will say this though, i largely agree with your frustrations, I just don't blame it on voting blocks, rather the politicians and system they've created for themselves instead. Another facet of human psychology and behaviour.
Yes and as the voting block changes, so will the politicians and the policies. Boomers are dying - most have around 10 years of effective consciousness left (if you can call their current thinking effective). What were seeing us the end of their era and a transition to the new.
You haven't paid attention have you?
Boomers haven't been a dominant voting block for quite some time now, so blaming them is like blaming the wind for blowing. With 50 years of post boomers to vote and many, actually most, politicians in government being not boomers, what has changed? Try reading the whole thread. What is your solution? Will you be in your 60's and still ranting against the boomers because things haven't been fixed?
I'm trying to have a rational debate on how to fix things. I try to look beyond superficial arguments to find real solutions and identify what their impediments are. I don't see much of that here.
90% of the way the country is shaped is done by our politicians, and that includes the way they shape the choices given to the voting public. Consider that and come up with a solution.
"Boomers haven't been a dominant voting block for quite some time now" - every political analysis I have read concerning the subject, says that boomers will be the dominant voting block until the late 2020's, partly because they vote more than young people. Somewhere around 2029 they will be overtaken by other voting blocs.
You often need only report observable fact to become the 'bad guy'. Those reacting strongly to such truths may also have a tendency to incorrectly identify root causes of problems and put in place solutions that do not work but at least placate the affronted. In a word, politics.
Australia has a high unemployment rate vs NZ at 5.2%. The RBA will need a 4 number before they can raise interest rates. They also have inflation at 3.9% vs NZ’s 4.9% as inflation hasn’t embedded into wages in Australia yet because of their unemployment rate.
As for NZ if you really think Orr’s inching up of the OCR will stem inflation I have a windowless basement I’m happy to sell you for $1.5million
It's a tightrope of
Viable businesses can pay workers enough so that they are viable consumers to make viable businesses ....
When underlying costs of production become too high, we run out of viable consumers...
And we have past this point for ages... its just a matter of time
The UST 10yr yield opens today at 1.46% and +2 bps higher from this time yesterday. But the real story is the flattening of the rate curves as short rates rise faster than long rates. The UST 2-10 rate curve starts today flatter again at +84 bps.
Indeed: This Is A Big One (no, it’s not clickbait)
No one wants to hear this because CPIs are through the roof and eurodollar futures is hardly anyone’s favorite topic, yet here it is. This dependable, time-tested market pricing up from the actual shadow money system has sent up its signal whether anyone gets it or not. It’s here.
Inversion.
As we’ve been saying all year, it has been deflationary potential in money which has dominated 2021’s landscape. One after another after another warning signs have been met, and now we have a pretty big one staring at us as this year draws toward its thoroughly disappointing close.
But, as noted of the yield curve’s dramatic flattening, this inversion is no isolated case; rather complementary signals that are thoroughly corroborated in all manner of market prices, curves, and data (especially TIC).
What this inversion tells us on top of all those is that another big step has been taken – in the wrong direction toward deflationary conditions. As I noted at the time back in 2018, so many times, it takes a lot for these curves to get twisted upside-down. Flat curves may not be fully normal, but they are at least in the zip code.
Inverted is a different animal entirely, a next-level shift therefore a key signal how some threshold for “bad” has been reached in shadow money and perceptions about near-future shadow money.
"Food prices rises to extreme level"
Really !
Why surprise and is news ? Is not everyone aware of it and shouting just like that Inflation is not transitory.
Government and RBNZ were not held for accountability and were allowed to get away with manipulation.
Even now will be better if instead of highlighting will try to grill RBNZ and government.
The hardest money always wins. Bitcoin has a programmatic emission schedule that no one can change. It gives all users 100% certainty that there will never be a change to the total amount, because people that run a node, like me, have to agree to any changes in the protocol. And why would hundreds of thousands of users want to devalue their savings??
All other shitcoins have someone in charge or a centralised point of weakness that governments can attack. Bitcoin is unkillable and governments can only ban themselves and their citizens from the network.
No way I am going near a CBDC
Absolutely.
When the RBNZ asked for feedback on their published deliberations on CBDCs a few weeks ago the main point I made is that, unless forced, I would not use it unless it was designed to limit supply, rather than govt/RB just making more when broke.
Guess I'll be forced, then.
'Article 6 – Consent
1. Any preventive, diagnostic and therapeutic medical intervention is only to be carried out with the prior, free and informed consent of the person concerned, based on adequate information. The consent should, where appropriate, be express and may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without disadvantage or prejudice.
2. Scientific research should only be carried out with the prior, free, express and informed consent of the person concerned. The information should be adequate, provided in a comprehensible form and should include modalities for withdrawal of consent. Consent may be withdrawn by the person concerned at any time and for any reason without any disadvantage or prejudice. Exceptions to this principle should be made only in accordance with ethical and legal standards adopted by States, consistent with the principles and provisions set out in this Declaration, in particular in Article 27, and international human rights law.'
http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=31058&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SEC…
Very sad day that's for sure. Germans are now trying to exclude the unvaxxed from even the supermarkets now, still its probably a good history lesson for them. I don't think it will end up this way in NZ, we have a very compliant population and most people got the jab.
A little bit melodramatic,everyone still has access to all 'basic' human rights,access to supermarkets and healthcare are available to all without a vax pass.
Like you said,great time to be alive...the key word being alive,many,many overseas are no longer alive,whilst in NZ a total 44 have passed away.
How many geriatric boomers lives did we save at an enormous cost. Cost per boomer is astronomical.
Mental health, physical health, financial health, property market, businesses, all negatively impacted in an immense way that will echo for decades, just to save a few thousand people. Utterly ridiculous.
How many young lives were saved? the fact that you are putting money ahead of lives makes your ideology questionable.
The fact is if everyone had followed the rules, AND the Government had not buckled to pressure to relax restrictions, including the borders, as well as being somewhat firmer on the penalties sooner, this could all have been over a couple of months ago.
The problem is there is no way in hell everyone was going to follow the rules. And yes, the long-term social effects of having house prices blow up because the people who couldn't manage them before weren't suddenly going to be able to manage near zero-percent interest rates need to be considered, because it's going to have demographic, possibly nation-changing consequences over the next few decades.
I don't disagree GV. That is one of the challenges faced by our Government when we are facing a potential disaster such as a plague - how do we limit the damage? This plague as pushed every Government in the world beyond boundaries previously considered reasonable, and few have proven up to the mark. Even the best performers such as Singapore have struggled. COVID has demonstrated so many risks in the modern way of living that I doubt there will ever be a 'normal' as we understand it again. The extreme downside of consequences is pretty frightening, but movement towards that side of the ledger are possibly more likely than an overly positive outcome. I suggest there is too much denial still in governmental circles around the world, as they try to hang onto the status quo.
VTHO wonder how you would have felt if the virus was concentrated on the younger generation and the boomers were immune would you still be cost conscious? . The food issue is of real concern as this will lead to nation stability issues remember the Arab spring , particularly if it is a long term issue as hinted in the article.
Bear in mind VTHO,no one knew what the long term morbidity rates would be for any age demographic when this started,so keeping it out was always a safer option while the world worked on a vaccine.Who knows as well what the 'long covid' scenario could bring for our healthcare system in the long term if we had tens of thousands infected young and old.
Prevention is better than cure.
It was known it wasn't going to be a Spanish Flu from the Diamond Princess data in March last year. It has worked out about the same death rate as the Asian flu in '59 - when our forebears didn't go batshit crazy.
'...consider the 700 people infected on the Diamond Princess. They were mostly from a group of 1,690 passengers over 65 years old. There were 7 deaths from COVID-19 all older than 75 years of age. If you take column two of the Imperial College table (below) and multiply the numbers by 7 (700 passengers, vs. 100 in a percentage count), you would expect 7x(2.2+5.1+9.3) = 116 deaths. This seems to be rather high when the real number of deaths is 7. The aged passengers on a cruise may be healthier but they were crowded together at a population density of 250,000 per square kilometer, and ‘isolated ’with shared ventilation, common dining facilities and lack of a proper hospital.
If we reduce the Imperial College Mortality by a factor of 12 we get a more reasonable 10 on the Diamond Princess deaths (compared to the 7 observed). This changes the conclusion of the excellently reasoned David Spiegelhalter article to say that the risk of dying from COVID is equivalent to the natural risk of dying in the next MONTH and not the next YEAR."
https://medium.com/@michael.levitt/the-excess-burden-of-death-from-coro…
Like I said no Spanishflu and this was known early on. The UK has an IFR of 0.096% - hence the age adjusted deaths rates were higher 1946-2008 than than they were in 2020.
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/202…
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarr…
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.