Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand, with news the death of their monarch in the UK will be grabbing all the headlines today, but the global economy is "keeping calm and carrying on". Here are those economic events.
In the US jobless claims were lower last week, both from the prior week and from what was expected. There are now 1.4 mln Americans on these benefits and still hovering near its all-time low.
In remarks at a monetary policy conference, Fed boss Powell doubled-down on outsized rate hikes in bullish comments. That reinforces market expectations that their September hike will be another +75 bps.
The recent expansion of American consumer credit in July has come in at a tame level and well below what was expected - and well below the inflationary impulse, so a 'real' decline. This is an indication that the Fed's higher interest rates are working to suppress demand.
In Hong Kong, Evergrande's local headquarters has been seized by its bankers, probably state-owned CITIC, after the struggling Chinese property developer defaulted on a loan and twice failed to sell the building. The prime-located 26-story building was valued at US$1.2 bln.
Across China, local governments are getting tough on developers who have stalled projects. Fire sales are about to happen.
In Beijing, they seem to have drawn a line under their exchange rate with the US dollar, working hard to avoid the ignominy of the CNY falling above 7 to the greenback. Their faltering exports and falling FX reserves aren't helping.
The Q2-2022 GDP data for Japan was released yesterday (the second estimate) and economic activity came in better than expected. It was +3.5% higher than a year ago when a +2.9% expansion was expected, boosted by a strong pickup in private consumption and a faster rise in government spending. (Don't forget, this is after inflation has been removed.)
After its +50 bps rate hike in July, the ECB raised them today again, and by an unprecedented +75 bps. The main refinancing rate is now at 1.25%, the marginal lending facility at 1.5% and the deposit facility one at 0.75%. Policymakers also said that interest rates should rise further over the next several meetings. Bank boss Lagarde said the ECB is far away from the rate that will get their inflation rate back to the 2% target. They have significantly revised up their inflation projections to average 8.1% in 2022, 5.5% in 2023 and 2.3% in 2024. And they sharply revised growth estimates lower to +3.1% in 2022, just +0.9% next year and +1.9% in 2024.
In Britain, a change of monarch is underway. They have just changed their Prime Minister. And change at the UK Treasury Department is also underway with the immediate sacking of its top official.
Meanwhile the country said it will cap household energy costs for two years, a substantial bailout aimed at staving off a deep recession and bringing down inflation that is running at more than +10% and the highest rate among large developed economies. But energy cost support for businesses facing the same stresses didn't eventuate.
In Australia, the RBA Governor was been speaking yesterday and left his audience with a dovish message, implying that their next rise might be just +25 bps. These comments moved both rates and currency markets locally. He was expected to be a bit dovish, but in the end he was more so than expected.
Continuing the theme of big numbers being reported yesterday, Australian exports plunged in July from June mainly due to sharp falls in the export of minerals and coal. That tanked their trade balance sharply, in fact the June to July fall was their largest ever, falling almost -AU$11 bln in one month resulting in a surplus of only +AU$8.5 bln (the previous record monthly fall was -AU$6.7 bln in January 2017.) Within this data was the note that Australia's rural exports rose +3.9% on a 'healthy'(?) grain market.
Container shipping costs are falling ever faster now, down -5% last week alone. But the costs of shipping bulk cargoes seem to have stopped falling, and back to pre-pandemic levels.
The UST 10yr yield starts today at 3.29% and up +2 bps from this time yesterday. The UST 2-10 rate curve is little-changed at -20 bps. Their 1-5 curve is less inverted at -21 bps. And their 30 day-10yr curve has steepened only marginally, now at +105 bps. The Australian ten year bond is -3 bps lower at 3.61%. The China Govt ten year bond is little-changed at 2.65%. And the New Zealand Govt ten year will start today at 3.95%, and down -15 bps.
Wall Street is in its Thursday trading with a +0.4% rise in the S&P500. Overnight, European markets were generally positive, up +0.3% on average except Frankfurt which was marginally lower. Yesterday Tokyo ended up a very strong +2.3%, Hong Kong fell a full -1.0%. And Shanghai fell another -0.3%. The ASX200 ended up +1.8% and recovering Wednesday's fall and the NZX50 ended up +1.1%.
The price of gold will open today at US$1710/oz and down -US$7 from this time yesterday.
And oil prices start today +US$1.50 higher at just under US$83.50/bbl in the US while the international Brent price is now just over US$89/bbl.
The Kiwi dollar will open today just over 60.6 USc and little-changed since this time yesterday. Against the Australian dollar we are unchanged at 89.7 AUc. Against the euro we are also unchanged at 60.7 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today at 70.4 and the same as this time yesterday.
The bitcoin price is now at US$19,210 and a 1.1% firmer than this time yesterday. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been modest at just on +/- 1.3%.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
104 Comments
"God save the queen" 96 years.
Thought kiwis were egalitarian... yeah right.
Put in a solid effort till you're 96 and we'll raise our glasses to you too.
We are more egalitarian than the Brits, but the monarchy is not really about that these days. For me it is more about protecting our democracy.
We are not more egalitarian than the British. It may have been true in the past, but it's no longer the case.
Fun fact. Estate taxes are 40% over a certain threshold in the UK. In New Zealand the landed gentry pay 0%.
Exactly.
Exactly - as it should be. Estate/Death Duty taxes are simply legalised socialist envy theft. NZ had these for over 100 years, getting rid of them and other economic dysfunctional ripoffs such as stamp duty was the electoral quid pro quo for GST.
I struggle to understand why taxing truly unearned income is so much more offensive than the heavy taxation we already apply to income earned from actually going out and working for a living.
Stamp duty I'm not a fan of, but sign me up for paying my taxes after I'm dead rather than when I'm alive.
Assets - originally purchased, maintained & if necessary upgraded with after tax income - are still the same assets when left to your heirs. The asset value remains the same, any change in market price reflects the devaluation of the usual medium of exchange - "money" - for a lot of usually govt misguided reasons outside the control of the homeowner. There is no "income"; that's a self serving socialist fantasy from people who will eventually run out of other peoples money..
If someone gives you an asset, that is income. Try paying your employees in assets rather than cash and the IRD will definitely still be interested.
If I get a million dollars handed to my by a dead relative, while my friend goes out and gets a high paying job and earns a million dollars, why do I get to keep all that money which I put no effort into, while my friend will be taxed for 35-40% of what he worked for?
Because we recognise that people make gifts out of natural love and affection. If your kid gets a better Xmas present than mine, should your kid have to pay tax on it? No, that's dumb, but entirely consistent with absolutist approaches to gifting.
The reality is that unless you implement rollover relief, an asset gift with an inheritance tax component will either require someone to take on debt to cover the tax attached or they'll have to sell the asset anyway, even if it may have particularly sentimental value. That's a pretty poor outcome in a country where there's plenty of other stuff we could tax if we actually wanted a functional tax system.
That's the reason for thresholds.
If my kid gets a fancy new bike, no. Not worth the admin. If he gets a million dollar beach house, then yes.
I do not feel terrible sympathy for those inheriting property who have to make do with turning it into a wedge of cash they have done nothing to earn. They remain in a much better position than those whose parents were unable to afford their own home.
I bought an investment property for 1000 ounces of gold, today it’s still worth 1000 ounces of gold. What I exactly do you want to tax?
Gifts are not taxed so why should inheritance be? All it does is create an industry to avoid it.
Logically, you would have to take gifts in a similar way. I think in the UK inheritance tax also applies to any gifts given X number of years before death - maybe 7 years from memory?
Otherwise you just give most of your inheritance away as soon as your health starts to fail, and cross your fingers for no sudden death prior to that.
There are those that believe a man should make something of himself.
There are those who believe in unfettered ancestral priviledge.
They are not mutually exclusive. Lifes not fair Brock, I sense you already know that. It's not ancestral privilege for parents to leave their children the residual of whatever net assets they accumulated.
New Zealand has plenty of the types who think they should get special treatment for their so and so ancestry. I sense that you are one of them.
Ancestral privilege is exactly what it is when vast amounts of wealth are accumulated and concentrated generation after generation.
Estate taxes above a threshold exist for this reason. Not to rob little Kooti Jr of his pittance.
They exist to tax wealth, the issue I have is not just that there may have been costs incurred in maintaining these assets (almost certain) but that some of the increase in these assets value comes from inflation. The value is higher as the buying power of the currency is less. Tax above this level might be appropriate perhaps.
The core driver of the tax is to reduce inequality but the research on this is weak. The OECD has a view here https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/trends-in-… and indeed, they call out NZ as having lost out on 10% growth through this disparity but their conclusions are weak. The actual driver of economic performance they identify is education, income disparity being the proxy for the quality of peoples education. I think we should address the cause of this problem - equivalence of education first.
Lastly I think we should recognised that in regards to consumer goods and health, income disparity allows innovation. That very much lowers the cost of those things to those who originally could not afford them (flat screen TV's, cancer treatments etc).
Because that money was ALREADY taxed?
Do you get similarly agitated about paying GST or fuel tax with your post-tax income?
I just think it is wasteful, why bother with so many layers? One of my comical tax memories comes from the lovely UK, I was taxed 49p in the pound, then 17.5% VAT (now 20%) then 50% (now 43%) petrol tax lol.... ahhh good times. That was in fact the time that caused me to look at off-shore accounts, HSBC used to have a desk in their Pall Mall branch dedicated to processing applications.
False equivalence is a logical fallacy.
What is the false equivalence? If PAYE and GST are accepted, we clearly have no principle that money can only be taxed once.
You said GST & fuel tax above, not PAYE.
GST & Fuel Tax are discretionary consumption taxes that people can make an individual choice to incur; your proposed inheritance/death duties are not.
I said post-tax income, referring to PAYE on the income.
Fuel tax is discretionary, sure. I haven't paid any in months. It's a bit of a stretch to say a tax applied to all food is discretionary though - you have to go pretty out of your way to avoid it. Even then, you're probably paying GST on the bullets you need to hunt with, or the fertiliser and tools you buy to grow food. You cannot make a decision to avoid it without completely withdrawing from society.
There's nothing to understand. You advocated that if a persons house changed in "VALUE" then people should be taxed on it. You expressed no understanding at all that that change in value was not real money unless and until someone did something to realise it such as selling the house or borrowing against that change of value. In the debate while people advocated a capital gains tax, they also denied the ability to claim a tax loss when the house value fell. Not very balanced!
I am discussing inheritance tax, not capital gains tax. Capital gains is more nuanced - it's not necessarily earned in the same way as regular income but you tend to have to expose your capital and take risks to make it. I don't really have a position on capital gains tax on the primary home - there are arguments both ways and I haven't reached a conclusion.
Inheritance tax is much more clear cut for me. You do absolutely nothing to earn that income and should pay your fair share on it - at least as much as if you worked to earn the same income.
The State has done nothing to earn that money either. Especially if it is made up of income that was fully taxed when it was earned.
Why do you feel the state has earned the right to tax our income but not our inherited cash?
If you are arguing against all tax then fine, we disagree but you are consistent. But I don't see how this argument applies just in this particular case? Ideally the income would not need to be so fully taxed if we are getting tax from inheritance instead - we are just moving the point of collection to a less painful position in the timeline. People get to keep more of what they earn and less of what they didn't earn.
I'm not against all tax, I'm against ones with shitty outcomes. You would have to be a blind fool to believe that any such tax would not just be considered extra revenue, income taxes don't even get adjusted once a decade, the idea that anyone in this country is interested in lowering them meaningfully is verging on foolish.
The problem with your argument is that someone did earn it. That's the bit you don't get. You just want to draw a line in the sand when someone dies and say "here's an arbitrary taxable event" to which the state arguably contributed nothing, and therefore hasn't earned it either. This argument only works if your default presumption is that the state is entitled to everything, which is absurd.
And yet you're happy with the status quo where the main outcome is discouraging work, and encouraging hoarding assets?
I do understand someone has earned that money, somewhere in the chain of inheritance. I don't see that as a deal breaker. I pay GST when I buy groceries even though I had already paid tax when I earned the money. That's even worse because I have already paid tax on it, not my parent or distant relative.
I am not my parents - if they leave money to me it is fresh income for me.
My default presumption is the state requires income to pay for our collective essentials (and rational people can disagree on what is essential of course), and they should raise that money in the fairest, least painful way possible while encouraging good outcomes and discouraging harmful behaviour.
Inheritance tax is not painful - noone can go broke from an inheritance tax bill as they still end up with more than they had before.
It acts to make society fairer and encourages equality of opportunity which I would argue are good things.
The negatives have been identified elsewhere - it is tricky when dealing with business transitions, or family farms etc. Sales or debt may be forced. Evasion can a problem. No tax is perfect.
And yet you're happy with the status quo where the main outcome is discouraging work, and encouraging hoarding assets?
Nope, I just don't have a fetish for deciding that the state sitting back and watching someone die somehow creates a taxable event or that the state has more of an inherent right to my property than my family does. Simple really.
If you want to discourage that behaviour, find a more effective way of doing it at the time. Like land taxes, or stamp duties or any of the numerous other options actually targeted at perverse outcomes by people undertaking said activity, not the act of dying. If the State can't design a functional tax system to do that then what justification can it have for a grief tax?
There's little I can really say here other than if you come at this with the presumption that it's somehow 'unfair' for people to leave their own property to their children then you can justify almost anything when it comes to seizing it, which is functionally what an estate tax actually does.
We tend to tax transactions. My boss handing me my salary, a share or house trader selling at a gain, purchase of an item. If you think my boss giving me money for my hard work is a taxable event I think it's absolutely fair game to tax the transfer of money from a deceased relative which I did nothing to earn.
And yes, it's clearly unfair by any reasonable definition. Inheritance occurs by an accident of birth and flies in the face of equality of opportunity. It is as unfair as the state deciding to allocate resources by lottery.
In previous discussions you never differentiated, but only referred to "assets" and in the current context that generally referred to property and CGT.
Inheritance is a different story though. I do recall a case from years ago when such a tax was in place (Death Duties) that a family owned business had to be wound up due the the level of impost the duties imposed. A family and a small number of employees lost their jobs and incomes because of the tax. Until then the business had been profitable but not greatly so.
In the tax year 2019 to 2020, 3.76% of UK deaths resulted in an Inheritance Tax (IHT) charge with the average cost of a house in the UK 299k and under the threshold.
The number of manor houses and farms under administration in the UK due to death taxes is significant and the cost is significant. There are a couple of big trusts that do the work.
Buying assets in an off shore trust has seen significant growth as it avoids this tax. Retirement villages are also common place so as to avoid these taxes. The UK government helps people to do this https://www.moneyhelper.org.uk which I find strange but helpful.
GST was a con job too. The promise was that with GST at 12% (?) it would fully replace PAYE. It was a tax on money being spent. But that promise got broken pretty damn quick, and GST just kept on growing, but PAYE did NOT shrink. Politicians, mostly left wing, stealing from NZs workers!
Politicians, mostly left wing, stealing from NZs workers! Yes right wing would never steal from NZ Workers..just smile and wave
GST was originally set at 10%...
I don't recall GST ever being said to fully replace PAYE. Douglas did promote a next step 20% Flat Tax on all income but lost the argument when he & Lange fell apart.
it was part of the original plan, and how it got of the starting block. It originally started at 10% and PAYE was supposed to reduce which I think did occur slightly but not to the degree originally stated. But they were clear that at 12% it would produce more income than PAYE and personal income tax would be abolished.
did occur slightly?
The Fourth Labour Government introduced a goods and services tax in 1986 and then reduced the top income tax rate from 66% to 48% in 1988 and then 33% in 1989
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_New_Zealand#History
Ta. I couldn't recall when it happened and to what degree, but it certainly wasn't what was promised, and favoured the wealthy over everyone else. Bloody politicians and their lies!
There was supposed to be a comprehensive capital gains tax implemented at the same time, but somehow it never was. Then PAYE could have been reduced.
"There was supposed to be a comprehensive capital gains tax implemented at the same time,..."
Evidence, source...? I was there at the time & recall no proposal let alone a firm commitment to a concurrent CGT.
...and they have carve-outs for spouses and donations, as well as forms of rollover relief. People who want to bring up estate taxes and the fact they exist in absolutist form when comparing them to here, where they don't, often leave out the bits and pieces that make them palatable to the general public.
It's not just estate taxes.
Anecdotally after living there, there's notably more class mobility and opportunity available there than here.
Statistically, the UK is near the bottom of the developed world for social mobility (the US is worst).
The difference will be that the range and scope of opportunity will be higher, because larger markets tend to have more opportunity.
Pretty much most places though, those sitting in the bottom 20% or so are fairly stuck.
UK actually ranks above New Zealand in the Global Social Mobility index.
The US is 27th out of 82.
Thats the good thing about statistics I guess.
This is Goldman Sachs and Deloitte measuring developed nations, they seem trustworthy fellows.
There is nothing more egalitarian than you will own nothing and you will be happy.
That's effectively one class, so success!
dp
I've been there a couple of times (last time a decade ago so things might be changing), I couldn't wait to get back home. Their "class mobility" seemed to be in a race to the lowest common denominator (NZ is now heading into this also).
I'm not sure about opportunity & this article struck me earlier this week
https://www.economist.com/britain/2022/09/01/why-britain-cannot-build-enough-of-anything
If you register with The Economist you can read 3 articles/week without a subscription.
Enter King Charles the third. At long last he may well think but it is difficult to see the same control & disciplines will apply, especially given the various degrees of scandal and disappointment some of his siblings and his and their off shoots have displayed. Man for the time? Maybe but actuallt think his new queen will be the one to provide structure & direction. Anne, Wiiliam & Kate part of that too undoubtedly.
Surreal news to wake up to.
Whatever your views on the monarchy and its future relevance she was still a person who was a family member - and she clearly took her duty of service seriously.
My entire life she's been there, on my money, in my passport, everywhere you looked ... hard to articulate but she was a constant in an ever-changing world.
Well said.
A rock of stability for so many things.
It is apparent from the responses to this comment that the purposes of taxation are poorly understood.
RE:UK- Meanwhile the country said it will cap household energy costs for two years, a substantial bailout aimed at staving off a deep recession and bringing down inflation that is running at more than +10% and the highest rate among large developed economies. But energy cost support for businesses facing the same stresses didn't eventuate.
U.S Consumer Credit spending nearly 50% below forecast - U.S recession has arrived, company profits next, then mass layoffs, all while the Fed Hikes. You can make this *hit up.
Don't get too carried away, it is only the expansion that missed expectations. Overall consumer credit (debt) rose from US$4.582 tln to US$4.604 tln and a new record high. The slowing is a good thing
Yes that is an awful lot of debt per person bet against future incomes! Roughly $11,500. There will be quite a few people in very deep holes there!
I'm not, Atlanta Fed real GDP tracker just plunged from 2.6 to 1.4 in the last 7 days for the 3rd quarter. U.S is now heading for a 3rd quarter of negative growth.
Thoughts and prayers been sent today...
...the death of their monarch in the UK
The death of our monarch too.
with news the death of their monarch in the UK
The death of our monarch.
#notmymonarch
Akin to #notmypm Queen Elizabeth never asked to be queen but was exemplary. Ardern on the other hand wanted to be PM and has been an unmitigated disaster.
At least the Queen leaves the role in the knowledge her will rounded and highly educated children will keep up to her standards....oh wait..!!!
It is going to be a very interesting period. I might see the odds 1) Charles will be replaced by William inside 5 years, or 2) Royal Family ceases to exist inside 10 years.
I reckon a spate of scandals and the commonwealth will leave one by one...
You may well be happy to be a 'subject' of some far off, rather strange English family - personally I find it absolutely ridiculous. For me I prefer to look to the leadership that I at least have some small say in, rather than the feudalistic tradition with now days looks increasingly ridiculous. The Queen did a good job and lived an amazing life, but I must say my respect goes to the local institution, and all the ups and downs that come with it.
Absolutely nothing wrong with that Armin. And the reality is our actual head of state, the person who currently speaks for NZ is Jacinda Adern, our Prime Minister. But , and this is a big but, she serves as our Prime Minister at the pleasure of the King now, but she had to seek the Queen's approval to form a Government, and in that requirement alone stands a protection for the people if our government goes off the rails. We the people could petition the King, through the Governor General to dismiss the Government and call an election. If we had a President, with all the nepotism that goes on, what is the likelihood of that being able to happen? Not much I think.
Let us not forget that any political leader with enough energy to be a functional president is going to come from the same political class that has presided over NZ's decline as a place to live, work and raise a family over the last few decades.
I fail to see how giving these people another crack and higher office given the state of the country at present is in our long-term interests. Let's try and get the actual government bit we have right first, then we can worry about higher constitutional arrangements.
Absolutely GV - nailed it!
Fair point, and to be honest I agree that mechanism (or some similar mechanism) is a good idea. It's the who that sits at the end of the mechanism I am concerned with.
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government - and neither is using the eldest son of the eldest child of the eldest son (etc etc) of some battle winner from 700 years ago (I am aware my history is not at all correct here but I don't have time to work it out and being the internet I am sure someone will correct me).
As to who that should be I am not sure, but I would hope we can work it out.
I think you might be too focused on the people rather than the institution. While the track record of the individuals is perhaps less than what may be desired, it is instead the institution and the laws around it that we should be focused on. And it is those laws that I cited that can be used to protect our democracy. As GV points out, our political elites are all too connected for us to be certain that self interest and nepotism would not impact on the decision making.
But at the end of the day, while every Prime Minister must seek approval to form a Government, once they have done so, for all intents and purposes, and this is recognised all over the world even in the UK, they become our actual head of state. When Jacinda addresses the UN in the next couple of weeks she will not be acting on behalf of the King, she will be speaking for NZ.
It has nothing to do with 'good job' nor 'amazing life'. Being a monarch only requires breathing. They are still effective when mad, bad or unable to speak English. Their strength is the issue of succession. It was "the Queen is dead; long live King Charles" - quite unlike the two months of zombie govt when replacing Boris let alone a Putin or Xi.
If we have to get rid of the house of Windsor - monarchy does require some level of acceptance - and we want a Kiwi then choose by lot a handicapped teenage child from an orphanage. Someone maybe in a wheelchair but that we can all respect.
So much disrespect or probably ignorance. I won't feed the troll.
"our" Māori King? I am no expert, but from what i understand there's only a couple of Iwi that recognise the Māori King.
Māori monarch's influence has not been as strong as it could be partially due to the lack of affiliation to the Kīngitanga of key iwi, most notably Tuhoe, Ngāti Porou and the largest iwi of all, Ngāpuhi.[9]
Mahuta and Cuzband are part of the clan.
Whoever becomes monarch requires general acceptance. I'm an immigrant but I read about our politician's enthusiasm for co-governance and surely on that basis a Māori leader as monarch is sensible - it is their turn - and it is a powerless position. If many iwi refuse to accept the Māori king then it could be any prominent Māori beyond any chance of political success - I can think of a few.
The alternative is president Ardern possibly replaced by President Luxon. I prefer a powerless monarch
I can see some merit in the idea - many NZers (I'm not really one) would relate better to a Maori head of state.
The advantage of the current arrangement is that, if a Hitler bullies/bribes his way into getting the most votes, they are going to have a much harder job bullying or bribing the British Royal family (distant, 15 times the population) to give the Royal Ascent than a local hereditary leader.
In Beijing, they seem to have drawn a line under their exchange rate with the US dollar, working hard to avoid the ignominy of the CNY falling above 7 to the greenback. Their faltering exports and falling FX reserves aren't helping.
The more foreign reserves pile up in any one location, the more you know there must be a lot of dollars required in that location just to keep everything moving along. And if, or when, the dollars stop being there, the more you’ll already know the funding gap will be agonizingly enormous. Link
Sad creature that I am, I was watching the markets at 3am - an apparently unbreakable habit of past work, when it became clear of what was about to be announced in due course, as Keir Starmer had changed his tie to a black one.
No matter how prepared any dealing room, company or country is for a change of leadership, that change often opens the door to unexpected events. What happens from here, especially for the UK, could be unanticipated; part of End of Era stuff.
vive la république!
I'll be watching the aussies. After a suitable period of mourning of course.
Yep. And Scotland, NZ etc. Give it a few weeks and the discontent and the i need a cause mob to make my life better will be all on.
Get rid of the sovereign and the treaty fans can be ignored since there will be no sovereignty to share.
Compare the fate of indigenous people before and after the USA gained independence.
Yes, sure, let's onshore our Head of State function to draw from the same political class that sees no issue with bait-and-switch election policies, implementing constitutional changes like the departure from one person, one vote and presides over an increasingly dysfunctional civil service that grows with each passing year but delivers less and less.
New Zealand should probably figure out how to function as an actual credible democracy before it goes getting carried away with cynical and opportunistic ideas about appointing a president from the same crop of dickheads who are unwinding our standards of living and act like they are answerable to no one.
Do you think the functioning of our civil service will improve under King Charles?
he Queen had zero influence on our politics, what makes you think a ceremonial president would be any different?
President Ardern
I think that would suit her very well she has the waving and hand shaking nailed.
The Japanese seem do be doing very well with their falling population and minimal immigration. Who picks their fruit?
Who picks their fruit?
The migrant workers in NZ.
The Japanese seem do be doing very well with their falling population and minimal immigration. Who picks their fruit?
Really ? Drive north of Tokyo up into Tohoku (and elsewhere) and you will find yourself going through dead and dying towns, many boarded up. If you are a young family, most villages and towns will give you a free house and land and even pay you to relocated so as to keep the town alive. Remember, one a population falls below a certain level, the professionals - doctors, lawyer, dentists etc., start to leave and schools close - a snowballing effect.
And the fruit and rice paddies ? Nature is and in many places has taken over farmland as no one is tending it because the farmers are too old, have already died and their sons are in the cities as very few Japanese women want to marry a farmer. Deer, pigs, antillopes and monkeys have taken over the rice paddies and even penetrated into the cities - even western Tokyo.
Yeah but at least houses are cheap.
Sounds like the Otago rail trail. Nature taking over Japan - sounds like the Japanese are still leading the world because our world has a choice: depopulation or disaster.
Sounds like most small towns in NZ.
Yet the people and economy is doing well. Urbanisation has been going on for a long time. Yes I feel sorry for those left behind, but you can't force the young folk to live somewhere they don't want to. Well not in a free society at least.
Fruit in Japan is on another level, you can pay hundreds or even thousands of dollars for a Melon.
If we made apples $20 each we could probably do away with migrant workers altogether.
So with a new monarch what becomes of the tender? Will the RB be minting new coins this year? Will that make 2022 coins collectors' items since it's the only year in the past 70 where coins may be available with 2 different heads?
So the ECB belatedly hiking.
QEII has been the only British Monarch I've ever known. Next years Kings Birthday weekend already sounds strange. I suppose I'll get used to it.
Looking at the last 200 years (almost) of the British monarchy it has been dominated by two Strong & I would posit quite fabulous Queens & interspersed with a lot of unsavoury menfolk. I hope that doesn't continue.
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.