Breakfast briefing; The US economy shows why it is #1

Business / news

American data resilient and impressive; no labour market stress signs yet; Hong Kong exports dive; Singapore and Philippines rise; freight rates push lower; UST 10yr 3.47%; gold down and oil up; NZ$1 = 64.7 USc; TWI-5 = 71.3

27th Jan 23, 7:25am by David Chaston

Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand, with news American resilience is on full display today.

First up, our weekly look at the up-to-date stress index of the American labour market shows ... nothing. Weekly jobless claims fell last week and fell more than expected. On a seasonally adjusted basis it is a 9-month low. There are now only 1.87 mln people on these benefits, -7% fewer than a year ago. There may be a recession coming in the US in 2023, but it won't be led by their labour market.

However, the tech-sector layoffs keep building, and news about them is everywhere. But demographics and their widespread labour shortages in skilled positions isn't meaning their labour market is buckling. Not yet, anyway.

And there is no sign in America's factories either. Durable goods orders soared +5.6% in December from November, the sharpest gain since July 2020 and well above market forecasts of a healthy +2.5% rise. From a year ago these orders are +11.2% higher, more than accounting for inflation. Capital goods orders were up +25% year-on-year. No sign of recession in this factory order data.

But this data is for the immediate future. We are coming off a flat period in American factories however. The National Activity Index produced by the Chicago Fed, reported little change. And the next Fed district to report its factory activity said it was "mostly flat".

New home sales rose in December from November, but they still languish -16% below year-ago levels. American real estate agents probably think there is a recession in their sector.

Still, despite these apparent 'flat' indicators, overall their economy is still expanding. The advance estimate of Q4 American economic growth came in better than expected, recording an annualised +2.9% expansion which was better than the +2.6% expected although it was a slowing from the +3.2% expansion in Q3. But for such a large economy, and in this part of the business cycle, +2.9% is a Goldilocks outcome.

Another reason to be impressed is that personal disposable income rose +6.5%, faster than personal spending, which allowed personal savings to rise. Of course the distribution won't be even, or even 'fair', but it is better than decreases.

PCE inflation cooled to 3.2% pa, well lower than the 4.8% rate in Q3.

Hong Kong's exports are really struggling now, down -29% from a year ago. But other nations are rising. Singapore's industrial production rose faster in December than a while. And the Philippines reported strong GDP expansion.

In a rare foray outside the US, a 'respected' American short seller is taking on the India-based Adani Group, claiming it is an empire built on a con-job. Adani obviously reject the 'research' behind the claim. You can read the research here. The company making the claims have taken some big scalps in prior campaigns with prosecutions resulting from prior research. But none as big as Gautam Adani. In the day following its release, Adani has lost NZ$8.5 bln. Shares in his company are down -NZ$17 bln. This will be fun to watch.

After their Australia Day holiday, Aussies are supposed to return to work today. But that seems unlikely. Market activity there is probably going to be very light today.

Global container freight rates changed little last week, but what change there was, were slips, especially in freight out of China. Bulk cargo rates fell further and are now well below their long term average levels - and after inflation, at lowest-ever levels.

The UST 10yr yield starts today at 3.47%, and up +1 bp from this time yesterday. The UST 2-10 rate curve is less inverted at -65 bps. But their 1-5 curve is little-changed at -109 bps. Their 30 day-10yr curve is a lot less inverted at -99 bps. The Australian ten year bond is unchanged at 3.50%. The China Govt ten year bond is unchanged of course at 2.96%. And the New Zealand Govt ten year is starting today at 4.10% and down -3 bps.

And we should note that markets have sharply pared back their bets on a +75 bps rate hike from the RBNZ now. +50 bps is currently how the market prices that possibility, which is a very sharp change in just a few days. Swap rates have followed them down. That may all change again however if the labour market data stays strong when it is reported next week. New Zealand inflationary impulses are certainly not beaten yet.

Wall Street has started its Thursday session firmer with the S&P500 up +0.4% in late trade. Some good earnings reports are helping. Overnight, European markets rose from +0.2% (London) to +0.7% (Paris). Yesterday, Tokyo ended up another +0.1% in its Thursday trade. Of course Shanghai is still closed for holidays but Hong Kong caught up an impressive +2.4% in post-holiday trade. The ASX200 was closed for its holiday but the NZX50 rose another +0.2% yesterday.

The price of gold will open today at US$1927/oz and down -US$9 from this time yesterday.

And oil prices start today up +50 USc, at just under US$81.50/bbl in the US while the international Brent price is up +US$1 at US$87.50/bbl.

The Kiwi dollar is little-changed from this time yesterday, now at 64.7 USc. Against the Australian dollar we start today at 91.2 AUc. Against the euro we are at 59.2 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today at 71.3, and also little-changed.

The bitcoin price is firmer, now at US$23,022 and up +1.8% from this time yesterday. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been moderate at +/- 2.8%.

The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».

Daily exchange rates

Select chart tabs

Source: RBNZ

Source: CoinDesk

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.

153 Comments

by HouseMouse | 27th Jan 23, 7:34am 1674758046

USA! USA!

by Foxglove. | 27th Jan 23, 7:42am 1674758546

MUSAGA?

by Advisor | 27th Jan 23, 9:18am 1674764306

Kiwis slowly realising that the US economy is a mega-diverse and complex economy, unlike NZ's labour and housing-dependent economy.

Can't think of many similarities other than neoliberal/libertarian values that drive our obsession for road transport and lack of interest in public infrastructure.

by chebbo | 27th Jan 23, 10:08am 1674767309

The US is certainly competent at making a killing (excuse the pun) off war; $23b last year in military hardware and training to Ukraine alone. A further $25b in humanitarian and financial assistance, but a shame to see Ukrainian officials taking advantage of that generosity and embezzelling these funds for private use. Hopefully it was just a few "bad apples", and not an institutional problem.

by OldSkoolEconomics | 27th Jan 23, 11:11am 1674771102

Not to forget that the USA now supplies a large % of Europes gas (due to ukraine war). Plus as a result all their allies are now buying more arms from USA firms than ever.

I suspect the pull back from globalisation resulting from the pamdemic and ukraine and gepolitical changes has all had an awesome positive effect on usa exports. Plus any any signifiant fund and private investments from other countries are probably deemed safest in usa companies and dollars again.

The war has also enabled the usa to test all its weapons and systems in the field and prove their dominance without any american deaths.

War and pandemic has all worked out very well for the yanks financially in the short medium term ....

by scarfie | 27th Jan 23, 7:46am 1674758796

Rodney Hide saying it how it is on the election. https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/01/rodney-hide-my-single-issu…

by nktokyo | 27th Jan 23, 8:00am 1674759602

The vaccine is not effective against the new variants and may not have been all that effective against the original. We don’t know. It is not to be discussed.

I don't think think anything has been discussed more in the history of human endeavor.

His single vote sounds like my church friends who always vote for the most religious party, which never comes close to winning anything. In fact I know one Rotorua based religious party will be campaigning exclusively on the hurt and humiliation of the anti vaccination folks. If the two forces combine that is going to make for one funny policy document.

by scarfie | 27th Jan 23, 8:01am 1674759709

Awww I dunno, house prices always go up must be up there. No one ever talks about the down side.

What I would say is that the increased death rate isn't being talked about, not really. Sure there is some half arsed speculation, but it is right there in the data for anyone to see. Also a more dramatic increase in miscarriages, and a plummeting birth rate.

by lowercase capitalist | 27th Jan 23, 8:08am 1674760102

I think people are aware of the increased death rate, they just don't care.

What's there to talk about?

by scarfie | 27th Jan 23, 8:13am 1674760381

You make a strong case. Lol.

I came across one relatively young fellow in my sport of Waka Ama. He is trying to fight back from the vaccine induced fatigue, he got two. What he is most fearful about is that he knows athletes have been having medical events on the sports field. He worries he has something happening when out paddling alone at 5:30am.

FYI someone tallied all the athletes that have dropped dead. 1800. He had to go back 38 years to find that many combined.

by LASSET | 27th Jan 23, 10:07am 1674767258

Stop peddling this complete rubbish. It's verifiably false.

There is NO increase in athlete deaths. Zero. None. Zilch. Nadda. Nothing.

"There is no uptick in sudden cardiac arrest or death in athletes due to COVID-19 or from COVID vaccinations. This is total misinformation"

For those who are interested in the data, here it is.

https://www.factcheck.org/2023/01/scicheck-no-surge-in-athlete-deaths-contrary-to-widespread-anti-vaccine-claims/

by HeavyG | 27th Jan 23, 10:24am 1674768270

Keep your facts to yourself... they bore me.

by LASSET | 27th Jan 23, 10:50am 1674769827

HA! Unfortunately that is the attitude of many people.

by OldSkoolEconomics | 27th Jan 23, 11:15am 1674771331

Just love this new world. Trump, Harry, conspiracy theories. Scroll and enjoy. Peeps.

by tim52 | 27th Jan 23, 11:29am 1674772150

That's fact checking at it's finest. We found an "expert" who you have never heard of before to say it's not true.

Said experts final words were “How do you rebut something like that?” ... “It’s like they make up the numbers.”. The whole thing relies on credentialism, no alternative higher quality numbers are produced. How is that expected to change anyone's mind.

by GV 27 | 27th Jan 23, 12:08pm 1674774482

Are you applying the same level of scrutiny to the initial assertion? I've never heard of those people either.

The burden of proof always lies with someone making the original claim, it doesn't automatically become higher in order to disprove something if the initial claim is baseless or knowingly made in bad faith.

People are very good at not trusting things they are told that they don't like but not very good at questioning things that reinforce their own beliefs with the same intensity.

Thankfully I come from the position of not being allowed to use scissors without adult supervision so I have to distrust close to everything that someone tells me.

by tim52 | 27th Jan 23, 1:30pm 1674779404

"The burden of proof ... doesn't automatically become higher in order to disprove something" Yes, it does for the purposes of "fact checking".

All this does is finds two randoms who say we don't like their numbers and they must have done something wrong. This is not an equal rebuttal, you can make their argument with same authority. The self referencing from factcheck is ridiculous.

by LASSET | 27th Jan 23, 2:09pm 1674781744

Here's a selection of medical papers on this terrible issue that has only ever started to happen after Covid vaccines.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?linkname=pubmed_pubmed&from_uid=6446987

Sudden death in young athletes - 1980

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy: a common cause of sudden death in the young competitive athlete - 1983

Causes of sudden death in competitive athletes - 1986

Sudden cardiac death in athletes - 1992

Sudden death in young competitive athletes. Clinical, demographic, and pathological profiles - 1996

Clinical profile of congenital coronary artery anomalies leading to sudden death in young competitive athletes - 2000

by tim52 | 27th Jan 23, 2:58pm 1674784730

So, that fact check was so good you have to try to prove it your self. I'm just here to ridicule the fact checking. (There's some presented evidence in the fact check that deaths were normal upto mid 2021. I don't know how many athletes were vaxed then, if you want to chase that down.)

I believe the argument is it its happening too often rather than it's never happens.

by Carlos67 | 27th Jan 23, 11:38am 1674772702

“It's Easier to Fool People Than It Is to Convince Them That They Have Been Fooled.” – Mark Twain

The vax was bad news and people now have their heads in the sand at the outcomes that are being supressed.

by Gummy Bear Hero | 27th Jan 23, 1:33pm 1674779627

.. enjoyed your post ... but , around here you'll just stir up a hornet's nest of the antivaxxers . .

The statistics tell a simple truth : the Covid19 jabs have saved millions of lives worldwide ... and they've vastly reduced the pressure on hospitals ...

Great post : Cheers !

by Prickle | 27th Jan 23, 10:06am 1674767197

You do realise the mRNA vaccine simply targets the memory aspect of a cell, telling it to recognise a certain spike protein and disarm it. That’s it. Nothing to do with an actual virus, zero to do with DNA which is isolated in the cell nucleus and unaffected. It is extremely safe and more and more vaccines are going to be mRNA. If there are increases in deaths it’s more to do with COVID itself and an ageing population.

by Jonny.Foe | 27th Jan 23, 10:27am 1674768441

Don't waste your time - the rabbit hole is deep and sticky.

by Zen20 | 27th Jan 23, 10:37am 1674769023

I usually appreciate your posts, but calling an opinion you don't agree with a 'rabbit hole' is very lazy. It's the same with calling something you don't agree with as 'PC crap' or 'Virtue Signaling'.

by northman46 | 27th Jan 23, 11:03am 1674770619

Hardly. It's been debated on this site almost daily for over a year. If they're not getting it at this point, then they never will.

by Nzdan | 27th Jan 23, 11:11am 1674771072

No, I think we need to put more effort into calling out opinions like this. Particularly when people try to dress them up as fact.

Most of the time they're just "word of mouth" stuff being peddled, with each passing slightly more exaggerated.

by Jonny.Foe | 27th Jan 23, 1:23pm 1674778990

I have a few family members deep into this and I have had enough of the crap that people spread. I am educated enough to actually understand the science behind the mRNA vaccines, and I read dozens of medical journal papers before and after getting vaccinated (and recommending the same to my kids). I am pretty anti-establishment (and certainly no fan of big pharma), but I think peoples distrust of Govt has clouded their judgment, and nefarious actors have seized on the opportunity to sow division.

by Gummy Bear Hero | 27th Jan 23, 1:49pm 1674780540

... luckily the Gummster clan are steeped in medical science ... we all got our jabs on the dot , even though we all despise the current government & their former leader ...

But we're smart enough to overlook those Labour twats , and to follow the science : vaccines have been saving lives for over 400 years ... it's nothing new ...

by profile | 27th Jan 23, 10:45am 1674769531

Rubbish. The experimental gene therapy doesn't work by "telling it to recognise a certain protein". Try google before commenting? It is not "extremely safe" - it is documented to cause a net harm in some age groups. You ageing population theory doesn't stack up either - our population is not ageing 10% faster all of a sudden. Going by the last decade age increase explains 1.4% of excess death not 10%.

"These vaccines use mRNA that directs cells to produce copies of a protein on the outside of the coronavirus known as the “spike protein”.

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/understanding/therapy/mrnavaccines/

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070

https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/births-and-deaths-year-e…

by northman46 | 27th Jan 23, 11:04am 1674770673

Take a day off profile

by Carlos67 | 27th Jan 23, 11:40am 1674772838

Pointless going on about it Profile, just think how lucky you are you never took that shit.

by the Joneses | 27th Jan 23, 12:06pm 1674774398

profile - "The experimental gene therapy doesn't work by "telling it to recognise a certain protein""

From your link, the mRNA makes your cells generate spike proteins before the mRNA is destroyed. The spike proteins are recognised by your body as foreign, and it creates antibodies to fight off those specific proteins, immediately and into the future.

That to me sounds exactly like "telling it to recognise a certain protein'. Instead of injecting denatured virus with the proteins on it, you trick the bodies cells to create the protein themselves. Kind of like what a real virus does, takes over cells to make them produce viruses.

I learned something today.

by the Joneses | 27th Jan 23, 12:14pm 1674774863

Oh, and the excess death thing, you can't just point at the vaccine as the cause with no other proof. Correlation does not equal causation. If there was statistics pointing to specific types of deaths as being the cause of the uptick, and proof that the vaccination caused that sort of death in that sort of timeframe then that is worth looking into. But I see none of that, just finger pointing because people want to be vindicated.

by Gummy Bear Hero | 27th Jan 23, 1:50pm 1674780659

... pushing it uphill with these guys , but bless you for trying .... cheers !

by D-Back | 27th Jan 23, 3:01pm 1674784909

And there lies the conundrum. We can't say definitively that vaccines are causing the excess deaths. Or some unknown after effects of Covid. Or Lock-downs. Or deferred care.

But the data is showing that right across the heavily vaccinated Western world excess deaths are well above the 5 year average. In the UK last week they were 20% above the 5 year average. Yet there doesn't appear to be any enquiry into what the cause is, no 1.00pm press conference discussing the problem, no political intervention. Why did we spend the best part of three years letting Covid reign over every aspect of our day to day existence, but now when we're seeing terrifying increases in excess death numbers there is complete radio silence?

Where is "The Science" to help explain what is going on?

by murray86 | 27th Jan 23, 12:23pm 1674775431

Some of my developed concerns are around that. I think you're being to simple though. ANY vaccine is supposed to show the immune system how to recognise a virus. mRNA though provides the recipe for the body to produce a protein produced by the virus so it will supposedly recognise it and attack it. My concern/question on this is that if the body produces the protein, why then would it recognise it as a foreign body/virus? Can any one tell me?

by tim52 | 27th Jan 23, 8:57am 1674763069

Depending on explanation of the increased death rates lots of things to talk about but I think it's because it's too unpleasant to discuss and think about rather than they don't care.

If you want to attribute it to lockdowns and delayed testing and treatment you might need to think about if some or all of the lockdowns were worth it because some our leaders want to it again.

If you want to attributable it to vaccination then maybe you should get a cardiac and cancer check-up and maybe plant the idea that maybe we should avoid the next boosters.

If you think it's due to (long) omicron you will have have to risk looking stupid, there's a little over 1500 deaths coded with covid as the cause and the majority are over 80 years old. When was the last time you heard he/she died from omicron?

by profile | 27th Jan 23, 9:25am 1674764744

Buyers remorse. No one wants to talk about the $106 billion thing they just bought in to is a piece of junk. Especially when you publically shamed your neighbour for not buying in to it.

by tim52 | 27th Jan 23, 9:58am 1674766699

The NHS recently put out some numbers needed to vaccinate to prevent (severe) hospitalisation. While I question the methodology the numbers are so bad that I can overlook it. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uplo…

Supposedly they needed to vaccinate 1200 people with the primary course in the 60-70 age group to prevent 1 hospitalisation of the group (the numbers get larger fast in lower ages and increased severity). Even if you assume the vax is safe it's a colossal waste of money to vax 1200 people to save one bed, that's a lot of extra care we could have provided.

It also shows there is also no tangible benefit of being vaxed if your healthy and under 60 (also visible in our data). Boosters are not worth the labour and ad space to inject. Increased care would save more lives.

by profile | 27th Jan 23, 10:12am 1674767567

There is net harm for young people going by this paper. Places like Denmark no longer recommend experimental gene therapy for under 50's.

"We estimate that 22,000 - 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation. Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable."

COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters for Young Adults: A Risk-Benefit Assessment and Five Ethical Arguments against Mandates at Universities

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070

by Carlos67 | 27th Jan 23, 11:45am 1674773125

What I still cannot believe now being age 56 is how I never got Covid. How can you not be vaxxed and NOT catch Covid ?, it was one of the most highly transmissive diseases to ever come out. I have to run with the theory I actually did catch it at some point and it had zero impact.

by GV 27 | 27th Jan 23, 12:14pm 1674774882

Statistically that was the most likely outcome of an infection. But also, statistically you were far more likely to have a worse outcome than someone who was vaxxed, depending on what strain you got and when you got it relative to being vaxxed. Both those things can be true. Over a wide enough population, that overlap will result in some fatalities, just like some people who were vaccinated and get it will die as well. I'm not sure if the NZ population is big enough to draw effective conclusions once you get into much further detail than that.

I only tested positive as a precaution before going to visit a family member. I had no idea or clue I had it. We all got it. On Xmas my whole family was exposed to it again and only the people who hadn't had it already got it.

by rastus1 | 27th Jan 23, 1:45pm 1674780306

I'm older than that and covid virgin. Partner has had it, some of my family have, some haven't. One of the haven't' works front line nursing. We have all been vaxed. I'm not boosted and don't intend to be.

Maybe myself and the family that haven't, have some genetic advantage? Luck?

Dunno.

by rastus1 | 27th Jan 23, 2:49pm 1674784193

by ShoeboxCharlie | 27th Jan 23, 1:57pm 1674781055

Don't know if this is related to CV or not. But I seem to know a lot more people that have been diagnosed with cancer in the last two years. So I googled if there was a cancer epidemic. First article that popped up,

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/10/14/health/early-onset-cancer-increase/i…;

I have a friend who deals with the death industry, his words, "business is booming". Its hard not to draw assumptions around the events surrounding the last two years.

by False economies | 27th Jan 23, 1:59pm 1674781188

"Correlation does not equal causation"...

Can you think of other reasons why there might be an increase in cancer rates?

by ShoeboxCharlie | 27th Jan 23, 2:09pm 1674781791

Trying to, but nothing has touched more people around the world than the virus and the vaccination drive. We could talk about obesity, but I am sure not all cancer sufferers are over weight. We could speculate about a number of different causes, but would they really relate to a high percentage of cancer sufferers?

by False economies | 27th Jan 23, 4:19pm 1674789566

Off the top of my head i can think of numerous reasons why cancer rates have increased:

Plastic/chemical pollution, air pollution, diet (as specified in your link, which is actually about long term increases not since covid...) to name just a few

by ShoeboxCharlie | 27th Jan 23, 4:36pm 1674790602

Thanks FE. This is why I like following interest.co.nz. At least we can openly discuss subjects. You have shined a light for me for me to research further!

by dumbthoughts | 27th Jan 23, 10:23am 1674768189

Such a shame that all of this could have probably been avoided by simply, I dunno, letting people decide if they wanted to take it or not. How many of the most at-risk population wouldn't have taken it? Most elderly I know would have a dose with their morning newspaper every day if they could.

Instead we had to have all the tedious "well we aren't technically forcing you, you are free to choose" nonsense, and then the gaslighting about "well we never told you it would prevent Covid, and we had always known you'd forever need n+1 doses".

FWIW I think the vaccine is safe at a population level, but it clearly isn't effective enough (unless you are elderly or immune-compromised, in which case you'd be bonkers not to take it) to warrant the level of societal insanity we reached over it. Based on some recent publications, it seems that even the government's own health advisers didn't think that young people should have been forced into it.

Vaccinating a whole population en masse is always going to yield some side effects; I should know as I wound up hooked up to an ECG machine after my first dose, and having all sorts of blood tests following unpleasant heart palpitations. Of course when I told some of the true believers about that experience, they claimed I was lying - I don't think my relationship with the in-laws has ever been the same.

Was the juice really worth the squeeze? I guess we will find out eventually.

by D-Back | 27th Jan 23, 11:14am 1674771288

My ECG moment happened 4 weeks after my second dose. I have two male friends in the 35 to 45 age range who've had similar 'episodes'.

Nobody can say for sure it was vaccine related but I've consigned it to the "things that make you go hmmmm" basket.

I elected not to get a booster as I had covid about 4 months after my second shot.

by OldSkoolEconomics | 27th Jan 23, 11:26am 1674772013

The west simply had to take a risk and vaccinate everyone to avoid an overload of our health systems which would have been far worse. Nothing is infallable so a % of people for sure would have negative consequence but if politicians advertised that then too many people might not have done it but that doesnt make it wrong. It was for sure the best outcome and strategy.

I get a few selfish people disagree in case they had had personally had a bad outcome.... but nobody from the 'i dont want the vaccine camp...) presented viable alternatives to protect the bulk of people and society. Apart from complaining, running pointless protests and spreading nonsense arguements.

As i see it... as a society we all had trust the science and personally to take a slight risk with the vaccine - to protect the many. Its just how life works and being a good citizen. What % of risk was acceptable can be debated now but we had no choice.

by D-Back | 27th Jan 23, 11:35am 1674772553

but nobody from the 'i dont want the vaccine camp...) presented viable alternatives to protect the bulk of people and society

Change that to... nobody from the 'i dont want the vaccine camp...) was allowed to present viable alternatives to protect the bulk of people and society

There was a huge amount of censorship and demonisation of alternate viewpoints when the vaccine rollouts were underway.

by blobbles | 27th Jan 23, 11:32am 1674772356

The way to think about it is like seatbelts in cars.

Some people can't wear seatbelts in cars due to one condition or another. Young people probably need special seats so they are safer. Some people after an accident happens actually die BECAUSE of their seatbelt (car upside down in water, for instance). But by-and-large, wearing a seatbelt in a car is going to mean you get less injuries than someone who isn't. This is backed up by years of crash stats and some very obvious physics. Yes, seatbelts will kill the occasional person still, but concentrating on an individual being unlucky doesn't work when you are trying to create policy to make as many people safe as possible.

The pandemic is akin to everybody getting in a car and having an accident at varying speeds and in various situations. Do you want a seatbelt on at that point, given the evidence?

Yes, you had a reaction to the vaccine, as did thousands of others. But what would your reaction have been to COVID if you didn't have it? You simply don't know, at an individual level. The counterfactual is unknown. But at a SOCIETY level, the counterfactual is very well known and now backed up by a lot of statistics. Governments have to write policy for the society, not for the individual, so blaming them for a minority problem in a time of emergency, is the height of folly. Yes the vaccine could have been better, but almost certainly not given the time constraints.

by D-Back | 27th Jan 23, 11:46am 1674773170

It's interesting that in making your point you explore all the positive outcomes and much rarer negative outcomes of using a seatbelt.

Regarding Covid, there was no such nuance, all we heard was "Safe and Effective" from the single source of truth. Anyone who challenged the mantra with even the most level-headed and scientific analysis was immediately labelled 'anti-vaxxer' or 'anti-science'.

As for the counter factual on not knowing how I would have reacted to Covid without the vaccine, your correct, how could I know? Although the data does overwhelmingly show that age and co-morbidities are the greatest risk factors in terms of severe outcomes. So for a 39 year old in good general health the data would suggest I was in a low risk category for a sever outcome.

by blobbles | 27th Jan 23, 12:33pm 1674776039

Ahhh, so you don't wear seatbelts because someone somewhere died while using one?

If you didn't have the vaccine and got infected earlier/more, how many people would you have passed it onto before isolating? And how many of those people would have died?

That's the problem when dealing with an entire society of social animals and the difference with a virus vs a seatbelt. You can talk about nuance all you want but unless you want to live in a country by yourself and make your own policy about every tiny thing, you will have to accept policy and governance by elected officials who are taking advice from experts in their field. But if you simply don't want to trust anybody about anything and are more inclined to believe in loud voices with little substance, then that's on you.

by D-Back | 27th Jan 23, 1:29pm 1674779390

Ahhh, so you don't wear seatbelts because someone somewhere died while using one?

Not sure how you inferred that from my answer? I always have and always will wear a seatbelt, I'm aware of the risk/benefit of doing so.

What we didn't have with Covid was informed consent and an accurate risk/benefit analysis, one of the fundamental tenets of medical care. What we did have was a government propaganda and mandate campaign. And for the most part the campaign worked, over 90% of eligible population got the shots. If only the shots worked as well as the propaganda we may have been out of the mess a lot sooner.

by blobbles | 27th Jan 23, 3:21pm 1674786096

We had as good as a risk/benefit analysis as time allowed. Pfizer took months to test and release the papers they had written on the vaccine. If we had waited longer, COVID would have got into the country and killed more people.

You can whine all you want about the government doing the wrong thing, but the results speak for themselves. That's not to say the government shouldn't do it's review and apologise/fix stuff for the next one. But can you think of a country where you would have rather been? We measured up pretty well against those we normally compare ourselves to.

by D-Back | 27th Jan 23, 3:45pm 1674787514

Yes true, on the whole most countries we measure ourselves against had similar results. NZ certainly had lower death rate in the earlier waves due to shutting down the country. The long-term effect to the country for that policy will take a long time to play out and we may never know for sure if those were the correct policies or not.

Perhaps you'd agree we may have been a bit on the slow side to finally open up the country and remove the mandates?

My original point was regarding the actual efficacy and potential unknown side effects of the vaccine, and my concern is both of these are being ignored because of the stance that was taken.

by tim52 | 27th Jan 23, 12:05pm 1674774319

"But at a SOCIETY level, the counterfactual is very well known and now backed up by a lot of statistics." How do know the counter factual?

Our over 12, unvaxed are at least 9% of the population, account for 3.5% of cases and 11% of hospitalisations since the beginning. There's no simple counterfactual there.

by blobbles | 27th Jan 23, 3:24pm 1674786279

Not sure where you got your data. Stuff did analysis of MoH data and found this: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/127791762/covid19-h…

At the time I looked at their sources and found the analysis to be rock solid. So not sure what your sources are.

by tim52 | 27th Jan 23, 3:53pm 1674788018

Sorry missed the links

https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-data-and…

"Vaccination details" table

https://www.health.govt.nz/covid-19-novel-coronavirus/covid-19-data-and…

Stats at the top subtracting single vax (could be closer to 10%). But I still think the current HSU pop is low due to 100 percent vax in ages 75-79.

Stuff would likely be using the old HSU population which indicated >95% vax among other things.

by blobbles | 27th Jan 23, 4:52pm 1674791577

I think you have mangled your stats.

The only thing you should look at is:

Hospitalisation of Unvaxed/Num cases unvaxed (3.6%)

Hospitilasation of Vaxed/Num cases vaxed (0.84%)

So the links you provided are very clear. Getting vaccinated improves your health outcomes.

If you look at the ICU rate of cases, it's 0.17 for unvaxed, 0.02 for vaxed. Which is even better. Note these are pretty much the same stats found all around the world (4-5x less hospitalisation rates).

by tim52 | 27th Jan 23, 5:34pm 1674794085

No. A small minority of us are at risk of hospitalization and a tiny minority are at risk of ICU regardless of vax status. We don't have the information to determine what proportion of these at risk groups are vaxed. If your getting sick at a third of the rate but having severe cases at three times the rate your still better off (we are at 40% reinfections now with about 40% of the pop worth of cases).

Thanks to the UK's NHS. You could estimate (for us) that if your healthy and younger than 60 you have almost no real risk of hospitalization regardless of vax so all that's important is if you catch it.

Why the unvaxed are only getting sick at a third of the rate of the vaxed (combined boosted and primary) really needs to be dealt with. It could just be under reporting by two thirds but I doubt that (sick leave that can't be taken). If they are getting sick less then we definitely don't know the counter factual. (Yes, I am suggesting the Vax has negative efficacy in healthy people and that would effect our R value)

by blobbles | 27th Jan 23, 6:26pm 1674797191

You are tying yourself in knots overthinking it.

Hospitalisation rate of vaxxed vs unvaxxed is probably as good a proxy as you will get for efficacy. Sure, ask them to break it down by age groups if you want and we will see the obvious - it's slanted toward the elderly. The rest of your first statement appears to try and muddy that, by bringing at risk groups into it, which is a tiny percentage of people who will get severe side effects. Then combine with some dodgy maths and claim people are better off?

"Why the unvaxed are only getting sick at a third of the rate of the vaxed...". You are arguing vaccine efficacy using a table that explicitly states: Note that the rates given in Table 1 are crude rates by age and vaccination status and should not be compared with one another to infer vaccine effectiveness. Rates will be affected by previous infections and other differences between groups. For example, those unvaccinated are likely to have had higher prior infection rates than those vaccinated which can reduce recent incidence in this group.

The actual efficacy is getting lost in reinfections and them saying they didn't stratify the groups well. Basically "Don't use this for an efficacy calculation", so don't.

by tim52 | 27th Jan 23, 9:49pm 1674809381

Don't conflate the UK and NZ data. The UK data just shows almost no hospitalization risk from infection for most people, that's all. The disclaimer may well be true for the UK but here we had negligible infections before vax.

As far as not using mass pop data to calculate efficacy sure there are plenty of confounds but that effects all calcs using this. Using bad outcomes/cases is just as bad here. Public health rely on this to argue for us to get the booster.

Don't assert the "maths" is dodgy, argue it. It is the correct absolute risk of outcomes. If you consider the lower case number just under reporting (a plausible assumption) then your risk of hospitalisation is 10-20% or so greater.

Edit: Just incase you still care about the maths, it occured to me: we have 2 sets of absolute risk with their own confounds and errors (cases and hospitalisation) using them separately is somehow inappropriate but combining them and their problems is somehow valid?

by blobbles | 28th Jan 23, 12:05am 1674817535

I aren't conflating NZ with UK data. You are by bringing UK data into a NZ context, then using it to infer something the authors said you shouldn't use it for.

Again, you are way over thinking it so making it impossible to get anything meaningful from the stats. Where it's simple. Take the number of cases in NZ that we had who are unvaccinated and divide it by the number of hospitalisations from this group. Compare it to the vaccinated. Then you have vaccine efficacy of vaccinated vs unvaccinated in NZ. Just because that doesn't show what you want it to, doesn't make the data wrong and contorting yourself into all manner of what-abouts is not going to change that.

by tim52 | 28th Jan 23, 9:36am 1674851763

You have calculated the relative cases per hospitalizations for vaxed and unvaxed. True, its not that hard to convert it a population wide hospitalisation risk reduction effectiveness for a case (not infection) but its still not the right maths. This is not a traditional measure of vaccine efficacy and defiantly not the implicit one we assume without context.

This calculation has the most error (it accumulates everything but population size) and requires most assumptions to be useful. If you don't like the unvaxed case count for one calc you can't use it for another. I can't see how if you have completely different relative case numbers you can think your calc is meaningful. I guess you are assuming the unvaxed are going to catch up in cases eventually? You can't calculate effectiveness with these figures but you can determine what a plausible range for effectiveness is.

We can spiderman meme here: This case hospitalization figure indicates the best vax benefit so that's why stuff, govt and MOH use it. Your just projecting. More seriously, why when other things are not equal is case hospitalization a definitive figure?

by blobbles | 28th Jan 23, 10:10am 1674853848

It is fine to infer efficacy from real world data like this, because it informs us about what we do next. Its not perfect math, but its good enough for us to understand general efficacy as its real world with a large population size and fairly standard recording of outcomes. It gives the likely range of efficacy, the exact number will follow a standard distribution from this in likelihood, as you would expect. But we can't wait for exact numbers when working in real time, perfect is the enemy of good.

Yes, traditionally you use a placebo group as well to judge efficacy, which was done by Pfizer and unsurprisingly, real world results match their mass trail results fairly well. You can argue until you are blue in the face that we don't know EXACT numbers around efficacy because we haven't given half the population a placebo, but you have to admit, doing so would have been stupid given the trail results.

by tim52 | 28th Jan 23, 11:32am 1674858732

Now your just incoherently rambling. It's almost all double standards and contradictions.

If we can use the population data and assume a constant linear relationship between cases and infections we can calc vax efficacy at -200% (1sf) for all vax. It also shows favorable primary dose efficacy to boosters in recent times. (I'm not saying that we can just do this.)

The headline efficacy for the pfizer trial was 95% protection against symptomatic infection. This is absurd but the most obvious refutation is when significantly over 5% of the vaxed population has had symptomatic infection.

by blobbles | 28th Jan 23, 2:54pm 1674870876

Yawn, more terrible math based on faulty assumption. You are telling us that the vaccine efficacy now is negative, in direct contradiction of every major indicator from a sample size of billions! And you question my statistics?

Let's just say I am so happy that overbearing "perfect data" dolts such as yourself weren't in charge of public policy nor advising the government during the pandemic. Instead it was people who thought along the same lines I did, doing the best for the highest number of people, knowing there are some holes in the data but also knowing it's good enough to act on. And we have one of the best country responses based on almost every health measure.

by GV 27 | 27th Jan 23, 12:21pm 1674775286

In the fullness of time we'll know more about the links between the vaccines and the side effects, but we'll know a lot more about long Covid and the actual levels of resistance the vaccines offered. Neither of those things could have been known to people at the time they would have been choosing to take it or not, so there's a bit of a black hole when it comes to 'informed' consent in the midst of a pandemic.

I mean... if it were Ebola we got instead of Covid, and people were bleeding out of their eye sockets on the steps of parliament, I suspect there would almost zero resistance to something that might work as a vaccine, so I guess these things are relative, even more so when it comes to the ins and outs of rapidly developing biotechnology and to what extent people can really be informed about that kind of thing as mere laymen.

by Neddludd | 27th Jan 23, 2:23pm 1674782615

The uninformed consent,one size fits all approach 'works' but has consequences, I suspect 100,000 younger folk had sub clinical myocarditis zaps etc and luckily the body healed and with some luck no deadly heart attack due to destroyed muscle in 5years.

I never once saw the relative risk factor of hospitalization with covid with obesity being 3 x in our media.

Then there are the released emails on twitter - from head Dr (forgot name) to Bloomfield describing children and teens should not get it, which was ignored.

It became a religion, and was quite fascinating. Get your protection from the evil, wear your filtration device to keep out the devil, repent and listen to Pope Bloomfield. Report transgressors!

Moderna is building a mRNA vaccine factory in Australia to get those vaccines out quickly within 100 days for the next pandemic!

by False economies | 27th Jan 23, 9:56am 1674766572

Please can you guys provide some (credible) links to data which backs up your assertions? (e.g. dramatic increase in miscarriages) Thanks

Edit: The only data I can find on excess mortality is here https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/excess-mortality-p-scores-projected-baseline?country=~NZL

I don't see anything weird in that chart...?

by IT GUY | 27th Jan 23, 9:54am 1674766444

UK re excess deaths - I have no personal data on miscarriages....

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jan/15/britain-excess-de…

Here in NZ the media seems to not want to go anywhere near mentioning excess death rates.

by profile | 27th Jan 23, 10:05am 1674767156

"The increase in deaths in the June 2022 year (9.7 percent) was higher than the average annual increase over the previous decade (1.4 percent).

...In the year ended September 2022 compared with the year ended September 2021 there were 38,052 deaths registered, up from 34,578."

There are a lot more deaths for whatever reason - in multiple countries. Media, like interest.co.nz, that used to list daily death tallies don't seem to have a modicum of interest in our record high excess rates in the experimental gene therapy era. It is not great press for our incumbent politicians.

https://www.stats.govt.nz/information-releases/births-and-deaths-year-e…

https://mpidr.shinyapps.io/stmortality/

by blobbles | 27th Jan 23, 11:03am 1674770637

Nice casual reference of blaming the vaccine for the higher excess mortality, rather than, you know the COVID pandemic which is still going on.

by Carlos67 | 27th Jan 23, 11:48am 1674773331

Yep probably 30 people a day still dying in New Zealand of Covid but not a single word about it now in the media. How about we just took that stance from the get go and didn't bother with the vax at all ?

by profile | 27th Jan 23, 11:56am 1674773812

Nice try Blobbles. Missed the "There are a lot more deaths for whatever reason - in multiple countries." bit?

by blobbles | 27th Jan 23, 12:27pm 1674775657

Nope, because you then go on to casually allude to the era of gene therapy. Did you not read your next sentence? Maybe you didn't write it?

by profile | 27th Jan 23, 1:26pm 1674779207

Whatever reason encompasses any tortured casual allusion surely? Big Oil wrote the comment - all the cool kids know that.

by False economies | 27th Jan 23, 1:57pm 1674781064

OK, thanks.

And your theory is that those excess deaths are down to the covid vaccine and not some other factor(s)? Why?

by Neddludd | 27th Jan 23, 2:33pm 1674783181

I found a legitimate link relating to germany on Twitter, cant find it now. Follow Malhotra,Malone and McCollough and youl see some interesting stuff.

by murray86 | 27th Jan 23, 7:59am 1674759557

Excellent. I too have managed to some more reading while avoiding the conspiracy centres, and the more I read, the more questions I have.

In some of our early discussions I challenged some of your claims Scarfie, about immune systems, and stand by those (I caught COVID, my wife still has not, I am fitter and more active than her, we have the same diet which is comparatively healthy and well balanced, and not excessive). But Rodney really does capture my concerns extremely well about what we were told and why.

by scarfie | 27th Jan 23, 8:09am 1674760188

Just back from this Murray. https://www.maoriplus.co.nz/playback/item/6318932884112 I keep improving. Have to do three of these races in one day, not like olympic 800m running. Bronze again also in the premier mens regional final, top 12 in each region head to head. Was in an open mens team this year to help develop them, so another four races. Total of eight in four days, the 1500m the most brutal as it takes a bit over 8m.

Interesting thing is that over 8 years or so of training my resting heart rate has come down from 68 to 60. Hasn't been my focus, it has happened organically.

Oh 26th fastest time at the regatta, and this was the fastest regatta ever. So pretty much a national ranking. An old hand at the sport is one year off coming up to senior masters and was 6th overall in the 500m, 2nd in the 250m dash. He is sorting of proving what I was planning on doing, age is no barrier it is our mind that limits us.

Still haven't caught covid. Maybe your wife is less anxious than you, look further into terrain theory. You need to make her life more stressful :-P

by murray86 | 27th Jan 23, 8:22am 1674760927

Not anxious at all, but she really is! Anxiety is one of her issues, not mine. I'm very much more philosophical than she is. So that won't work. Genetics on the other hand...... Her immune system seems to be almost bullet proof regardless. I am so jealous..!

by scarfie | 27th Jan 23, 8:29am 1674761393

I've long theorised that the veracity of the sperm and egg plays a part. Then development in the womb.

I know development of the human body is related to protein intake, you can tell by the length of the legs. Plenty of research on this. One thing I noticed with criminals, which is a generalisation, is they have short legs. In general they are shorter than average, which goes against the idea of the big burly gang members. Some are, but on average your criminal is likely to be shorter.

While I was still serving as a Police Officer I learnt that some Police forces in England still have a 6'1" height requirement. Not just a matter of self defense, but they know that a taller person has a lower chance of mental illness. They probably didn't know about the leg length connection when forming this policy.

by murray86 | 27th Jan 23, 8:55am 1674762915

So the crims can't run as fast? Sort of works against them doesn't it?

by MediumPangolin | 27th Jan 23, 9:53am 1674766413

Quite right my chap. I recall that the first thing they taught us in the Bow Street Runners was to always be on the look out for the sloping brow and cranial bumpage of the career criminal. After several bouts of fisticuffs on the Watersham beat, I quickly became adept at discerning, even under a bowler, whether 'twas a “savage round-head” or a “gentle long head” that I was arresting. That being said, while there's no doubting that the inherent nature of a man is intrinsically linked to the shape of his bones, when the war came I was more than happy to have a few cheeky darkies in the trench next to me. One of those fellows was wroth a half dozen Irish, I tell you!

by IT GUY | 27th Jan 23, 9:56am 1674766568

You don't hear that expression much in the trenches these days

by scarfie | 27th Jan 23, 10:21am 1674768060

Adele Davies covers off bone structure in this book from 1972 https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1546386.Let_s_Have_Healthy_Children…;

Straight up forehead and good wide jaw that doesn't need braces are some factors. Sloping forehead is bad. My mother was learning this stuff as she went, she widened my jaw, and that of my brothers, with the addition of Cod Liver Oil to our diet. Vitamin D. I still take it, keeps my eyes healthy also.

by singautim | 27th Jan 23, 2:16pm 1674782161

For the last 250 years the western skull has a jawbone that is getting smaller. Teeth overlap because it is not big enough to accommodate them. Sometimes it leads to breathing troubles that interrupt sleep and of course good sleep tends to cure most problems. The issue is rarely discussed since measuring skulls and comparing across ethnicities is out of fashion.

It is caused by feeding children softer foods. It will be getting worse judging by the way my grandchildren refuse to eat the crusts that my siblings and I used to fight over.

by rastus1 | 27th Jan 23, 10:01am 1674766879

Related? I recall a study where they compared height to a degree (re income). Height was worth more.

Economists have known for a long time that it pays to be tall. Multiple studies have found that an extra inch of height can be worth an extra $1,000 a year or so in wages, after controlling for education and experience. If you’re 6 feet tall, you probably earn about $6,000 more than the equally qualified 5-foot-6-inch shrimp down the hall

It pays to be tall. (slate.com)

by scarfie | 27th Jan 23, 10:15am 1674767756

Time magazine ran an article on it a couple of decades ago. I think National Geographic have covered it also, so it is reasonably well studied.

British Navy has height records going back 400 years. Difference between officers and enlisted me 4". Cabin boys, taken from lower class backgrounds just before puberty, got to eat officers food and halved the difference. Two key growth periods are between 5&10 years, and puberty.

You can raise the average height of a population by 6" over two generations by giving them more protein.

If you give more protein people grow down, not up. Difference is the legs and arms grow longer.

Today we are getting shorter again, probably since the early 90's. Too may refined carbs crowding out protein is my belief.

by dollar_bill | 27th Jan 23, 10:11am 1674767466

Rodney Hide and now this - on a roll. Any scarfie reckons on the flouride dosing of water? gender identity? I guess it provides a bit of humour on a slow rainy day. It is joke Friday after all.

Why did the chicken cross the road?

To get to the idiots house.

Knock! Knock!

Who's there?

The Chicken.

by General Comment | 27th Jan 23, 10:20am 1674768025

As someone with the approximate physical dimensions of a gorilla, I'd like to thank you for opening my eyes to the possibility of alternate legality professions as a career option. If only I wasn't cursed with this damned upright forehead and above average height.

by Carlos67 | 27th Jan 23, 11:52am 1674773554

Yep genetics plays a big part. I kept an eye on my cousins in the UK at the start of the outbreak and none of them were seriously impacted and it was one factor along with my fitness level and age that made the decision easy for me not to get the vax.

by Mr T | 27th Jan 23, 9:05am 1674763506

ICYMI/FWIW: Pfizer Exploring "Mutating" COVID-19 Virus For New Vaccines

"Don't tell anyone this...There is a risk...have to be very controlled to make sure this virus you mutate doesn't create something...the way that the virus started in Wuhan, to be honest."

https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas/status/1618405890612420609 

by Mr T | 27th Jan 23, 12:11pm 1674774683

Now updated: (WATCH): Pfizer Director Physically Assaults Staff; Destroys iPad Showing Undercover Recordings About “Mutating” Covid Virus

https://twitter.com/Project_Veritas/status/1618737936920633344

by blobbles | 27th Jan 23, 9:58am 1674766681

My god. What a column, full of revisionist history and short on facts or references. If he doesn't reference anything real, you know he can't back up his claims with actual evidence. I feel stupider for reading it. He has a slight point around mandates, but its surrounded in irrational conspiracy like bulldust.

by kiwimm | 27th Jan 23, 11:31am 1674772312

COVID is so last year and concerns about it will fade away once you can't pay your bills

by nktokyo | 27th Jan 23, 7:49am 1674758954

The BBQ committee is in full swing about the cost of living, that's for sure. Everyone is pulling back and reinforcing that by hearing it from everyone else. Can we short the retail industry in this country?

by nguturoa | 27th Jan 23, 7:57am 1674759460

Are the consumers really pulling back in the country or is more of a media FOMO again? Roads are just as busy during the week and more on the weekends.

Still so many shoppers walking around with bags full of stuff. The courier vans are all around in more numbers. Even NZ post is hiring more to cope with the ever-increasing demand.

I kind of do not trust these media surveys anymore as they don't seem to reflect the truth.

by nktokyo | 27th Jan 23, 8:03am 1674759805

I was at a BBQ two days ago, 20 people there and we basically went around the table. Small sample size I know. Even a family with no mortgage has 5 kids so their food cost is up 30% and they are on one income so it's across the board at the non-surgeon income level.

Once the school holidays finish this is going to get interesting.

by Yvil | 27th Jan 23, 8:50am 1674762657

a family has 5 kids so their food cost is up 30%

Can you please explain the logic, why the food cost increase in %, is dependant on the number of kids?

by paashaas | 27th Jan 23, 9:08am 1674763691

as kids grow they eat more ?

by sit23 | 27th Jan 23, 12:45pm 1674776723

Could it be that the "official" figure bears no relation to reality. That is my own observation as well.

by unaha-closp | 27th Jan 23, 1:02pm 1674777774

Try putting if or when after the so.

by JimboJones | 27th Jan 23, 1:01pm 1674777698

We use 800 kWh of power a month and every kW has gone up by 7% giving us a whopping 5600% increase in our power bill.

by JimboJones | 27th Jan 23, 12:57pm 1674777421

20 people taking turns to complain about inflation sounds like a fun BBQ. Boomers by any chance?

by dumbthoughts | 27th Jan 23, 8:49am 1674762541

I have no statistical data to back this up, but talking to my clients over the past couple of weeks since starting back up, all of those with exposure to retail (typically importing and distributing into retailers and/or manufacturing to sell into retailers) are telling me their retail partners are seeing weakness.

In particular, the "middle ground" purchases that have often been financed are pressured, e.g. cheap furniture is selling ok, expensive furniture is selling well to cashed up retirees, downsizers etc but it's the middle-of-the-road, financing a first house full of furniture on 60 months' interest free that has fallen off a cliff.

Hospitality seems to be holding up for now, because it's typically a small $ value purchase. Grabbing some sushi for lunch, or going out for brunch on a Saturday morning is a lot less expensive than a new TV or bedroom suite.

by IT GUY | 27th Jan 23, 8:57am 1674763035

Lower rate of house sales

by HouseMouse | 27th Jan 23, 9:59am 1674766758

Yeah I think that middle ground offering will be hit the hardest.

Just at our own household level, we are much less likely to go out for ‘cheap’ (more middle now) Vietnamese every two weeks, now the dishes are $21-$23 per head rather than $16-$17. That will become perhaps a once every 2 month thing.

so generally sticking to things like the cheap and cheerful Chinese, kebabs (last night) or fish and chips

And yep my wife and I still go out just as much as we used to for a coffee and a little slice of something.

by scarfie | 27th Jan 23, 7:58am 1674759513

I stopped commenting on the abysmal state of our urban design years ago, but the abysmal part hasn't changed. Not only is our housing overpriced, it is pretty poorly designed. On top of that we have a high energy lifestyle built around the bad urban design. The transition to green energy isn't going to happen. First thing we need to do is be smarter about how we use our energy, and ultimately what will happen, by default rather than design most likely, is we'll use less energy.

NZ gets a mention. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/black-and-white-gold-brics-and-mortar…

by nktokyo | 27th Jan 23, 8:05am 1674759901

Loved living in Japan where housing density is based around train stations and bus routes. Here? 3 houses on any section anywhere, no carparks, chur.

by HouseMouse | 27th Jan 23, 10:02am 1674766927

Yes, well the ‘Medium Density Residential Standards’ that the government (with support from the opposition) introduced is going to mean there will be those sorts of developments popping up in an ad hoc manner across large areas of our cities.

by JimboJones | 27th Jan 23, 1:03pm 1674777802

Had the councils just zoned the obvious areas (such as where you live) then they wouldn't have had to do it!

by murray86 | 27th Jan 23, 8:27am 1674761262

Considering a couple of recent urban projects in Wangavegas recently and wonder where the Council found their idiot urban design engineers and planners, and what is being taught in universities these days. Seems the designs, which were resisted by some locals, are based on old paradigms and really are not very progressive. Don't have to look too far nationally to find the same issues either.

by Baywatch | 27th Jan 23, 9:09am 1674763774

Well at least you have to pay to go to University now...imagine if it was free?

by rastus1 | 27th Jan 23, 9:06am 1674763615

Scarfie I find most of your comments on the mark. Carry an amount of intellect that doesn't see much light in our msm. Why I like int.co.

by scarfie | 27th Jan 23, 10:07am 1674767276

Thanks Rastus. I generally like your comments also, but that is confirmation bias for you :-)

I've been called a polymath 3x in the last 10 years or so. So IQ about that of Einstein. Someone who calls you that has to be smart enough to understand what one is, I doubt anyone in MSM, and few around here, actually do know. I won't always be right for sure, but it means the odds of my opinion being backed by more information, and being well considered, is higher. Doesn't make me a better person, it is just information about processing power.

Took me a while to get my head around this myself, as it didn't really show itself until I went to Architecture School. I was working on a scale different to those around me. Once I questioned a drawing by a lecturer, a bit of detail which turned out to be a hypocaust floor. He said "I've been giving this lecture for 10 years and no one has ever asked me that". So perhaps the biggest thing about my mind is that I see things other people can't see, even other very smart people. The worst thing about this condition is that even when I can see, I can't help most others see it. They just can't, or won't.

People don't get interesting until an IQ of 130, so I generally have to stay away from people.

by murray86 | 27th Jan 23, 10:21am 1674768094

My experience Scarfie is asking those questions is a great way to really piss people off. Then you can cap it off by being proven right - the ultimate sin!

Most government departments are like this, as is the peace time military.

by scarfie | 27th Jan 23, 11:03am 1674770596

Man I am top of the bell curve in pissing people off!

Great read on government departments from last year, "Parkinsons Law - in the Pursuit of Progress".

by IT GUY | 27th Jan 23, 1:14pm 1674778482

You have really got them going today Scarfie, are the waves too big to surf today?

Normally a vacine introduces the de-activated virus in one hit and the body reacts, but telling the cells to create the spike protien is super new, never before have we told major organ cells or heart cells to create these protiens and then have them one the surface of these cells of vital organs. You therefore cause the antibody impact on these cells in those organs.... mRNZ is pretty casual, it tells cells everywhere it reaches to create the protien. I am not sure that this is the smartest way to do this. Some very senior health professionals are now asking questions.

by Pa1nter | 27th Jan 23, 8:01am 1674759694

I wonder if customer service is going to get better when the recession kicks in or they'll just lay people off and it'll stay crummy.

by nktokyo | 27th Jan 23, 8:25am 1674761145

Based on my interaction yesterday with someone at the Warehouse (picking up stationary) there is not a lot that can get worse.

by FCM | 27th Jan 23, 8:32am 1674761531

Yep went to our local one, one checkout open, a large queue waiting in line at lunchtime, and about 6 staff stacking shelves next to everyone and chatting, instead one or two could of jumped on a till. Badly organised.

by nktokyo | 27th Jan 23, 8:49am 1674762598

I went over and asked one of them if they could help me with a checkout error and she rolled her eyes at her friend. Holy smokes.

by Pa1nter | 27th Jan 23, 8:57am 1674763024

I was on a construction site last week and one of the apprentice builders refused to dig holes. Too hard wants another task.

by Advisor | 27th Jan 23, 9:01am 1674763269

You pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

Wellington can muster up $2.4 million for a pedestrian crossing (500k went to consultants) but can't pay bus drivers well.

So now we have overworked frustrated drivers operating heavy machinery in our neighbourhoods, who can't be bothered to even slowing down when a mum with 2 kids approaches the crossing.

by Nzdan | 27th Jan 23, 9:49am 1674766143

Not just $2.4 million for any old pedestrian crossing though, it's a pedestrian crossing on what really should be classed as a motorway (the main arterial route to the airport) serving no purpose other than to give a few people in Evans Bay a convenient place to cross so they can access a 1.5km footpath to nowhere.

by unaha-closp | 27th Jan 23, 11:03am 1674770608

Auckland spent $51million to not build a cycle bridge across the harbour, while the ferries that do transport cycles across the harbour suffer chronic staff shortages.

by HouseMouse | 27th Jan 23, 9:19am 1674764375

Hmmmm… I have said here in the past few months how poor, overall, quality of service is here, at least in Auckland. By comparison I found customer service very good in Napier when I was there last November.

by bw | 27th Jan 23, 8:46am 1674762397

"personal disposable income rose +6.5%, faster than personal spending, which allowed personal savings to rise."

That, is not conducive to rate rises ending any time soon.

What better time could there possibly be to normalise interest rates than when the stock market is stable; personal incomes are rising; unemployment isn't rising and there's a foreign foe to blame for any mishap?

None.

by profile | 27th Jan 23, 8:47am 1674762430

That time Bill admits to CNN he really should have looked at the Diamond Princess data, and talked to Ioannidis, Levitt, Bhattacharya etc.

Really sums up why he should not have the influence he does over political/media class.

“We didn’t understand that it’s a fairly low fatality rate & that it’s a disease mainly in the elderly, kind of like flu is, although a bit different than that.”

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cuNWRoHRzkU

by nktokyo | 27th Jan 23, 8:48am 1674762513

"The Bank of Canada signalled that it would become the first major central bank to stop hiking interest rates. After inflation slowed from 8.1% in June to 6.3% in December, it raised interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point, to 4.5%, their highest level since 2008. The bank’s governor said it would implement a “conditional pause” on further hikes."

Despite ideas to the effect that we need to instantly raise interest rates to above inflation and crush everything, this is what we should expect. Banks will raise until CPI starts to decline and then wait because if CPI declines you can get your central bank rate above it anyway, with les collateral damage. Coming off such a low base, any significant increase is going to be acutely felt. Hiking for the sake of hiking will lead to an equally fast retreat.

by Jonny.Foe | 27th Jan 23, 10:56am 1674770179

There are some excellent Canadian economists that have been making a strong and evidenced case against medieval monetarism - they are getting some cut through. Sadly, majority of the economists in NZ that get any airtime just repeat the same old dogma.

by Brock Landers | 27th Jan 23, 9:17am 1674764235

ChatGPT: Write a breakfast briefing in the style of interest.co.nz

by waymad | 27th Jan 23, 9:27am 1674764846

I thought that 7.2% of the comnent stream was already generated That way.

by morepork | 27th Jan 23, 10:44am 1674769487

Not in the right style, but not awful

Good morning, it's [current date]. Here's a quick overview of the top business and financial news this morning:

The New Zealand dollar has continued to rise against the US dollar, currently trading at [current exchange rate]. Analysts are attributing the increase to positive economic data and a weaker US dollar.

The Reserve Bank of New Zealand has left the official cash rate unchanged at [current OCR], citing ongoing uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The bank also noted that the economic recovery is continuing, but at a slower pace than previously predicted.

In company news, [specific company] has reported a [percentage] increase in profits for the [quarter/year], citing strong sales in [specific market/region].

In international news, [specific development in global economy or market].

That's all for this morning's briefing. Check back in with us for updates throughout the day.

by rastus1 | 27th Jan 23, 10:53am 1674770006

Family member tested it out in her work enviro. Was shocked at what it wrote...our writers would take all morning and produce something similar.

by General Comment | 27th Jan 23, 11:51am 1674773498

I tried asking it for a basic overview of the section of the payments industry in which I work. It told one side of the story but didn't even allude to the other half. Asking it further questions about the gaps in information slowly started to fill them in, but to the causal observer the initial answer would have been convincing enough for them to think they had the full story, and they likely never would have pressed further.

by morepork | 27th Jan 23, 11:53am 1674773627

So just like most articles then

by rastus1 | 27th Jan 23, 2:56pm 1674784561

yes have done same and told it the answer was incorrect....it then came back, apologized and gave a more correct answer. Things is, it's learning all the time. Amazing answers for such an early stage. Imagine how correct it will get and how quickly this will happen.

by profile | 27th Jan 23, 9:19am 1674764376

New York goes Rotorua.

"The Paramount Hotel, a 600-room Renaissance-style gem opposite the Richard Rodgers Theatre where “Hamilton” has been playing since 2015, is the fifth Midtown hotel converted to an “emergency” shelter in as many months. Earlier this month, tourists were paying $330 a night to stay there and prices hit as high as $1,000 around New Year’s Eve.

The Paramount is around the corner from the $400-a-night Italianate Row Hotel on Eighth Avenue, whose 1,300 rooms were handed over to illegals late last year.

Where are the tourists supposed to stay, the ones who actually spend the money the city needs to pay for all the social services Adams likes to splash around?"

by IT GUY | 27th Jan 23, 9:26am 1674764795

QE has been very kind to socialists.....

by Squishy | 27th Jan 23, 10:08am 1674767285

There may be a recession coming in the US in 2023, but it won't be led by their labour market.

...

But demographics and their widespread labour shortages in skilled positions isn't meaning their labour market is buckling.

The world has plenty of capital, we are drowning in it, but too few workers. When Reserve Banks finally get inflation back within target I think we will find that the benefits of growth will substantially be accruing to workers for many years.

by Jonny.Foe | 27th Jan 23, 10:34am 1674768889

Just a reminder that hiking interest rates in the US basically slows down residential construction a bit, but has very little impact on disposable income as mortgagors are on very long-term rates. Those higher interest rates do however increase the flow of free money from the Govt to the banks who are getting billions of dollars of stimulatory interest. The Govt is also committing serious cash to infrastructure projects - again, stimulatory. The positive data we are seeing coming out of the US shouldn't be a surprise.

Meanwhile in NZ, our rate hikes are sucking billions out of disposable income as mortgagors roll onto higher rates, whilst at the same time the Govt is taxing about the same as it is spending, and private debt growth (which fuels our economy) has stalled. We are teetering on the edge of a major collapse here.

by DDDDebt | 27th Jan 23, 11:11am 1674771090

Teeter Teeter Plummet?

by Jonny.Foe | 27th Jan 23, 2:54pm 1674784497

I am pessimistic at best.

by DDDDebt | 27th Jan 23, 4:03pm 1674788630

I agree we are teetering on the edge of a major collapse… and the rollovers this year to a more normal cost of debt at around 6-7%, that will determine exactly how hard we land

There’s some pretty scary DTI’s out there from the last few years - far too many with a debt to income over 4, a level banned in Ireland after their property collapse

https://www.rbnz.govt.nz/statistics/series/lending-and-monetary/residen…

https://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/111708/david-hargreaves-looks-some-o…

by singautim | 27th Jan 23, 1:56pm 1674780989

The majority of comments this morning are about Covid vaccination. As expected with Interest.co.nz readers there are considerable disagreements but it is mainly fact driven and intelligent. I have my own opinion.

Is our intelligent discussion leading to the severe drop off in vaccinating children against known killers? NZ Herald page A5 today: Only 65% of six year old children in Manukau are fully vaccinated. So 35% have these known risks: measles, mumps, rubella, whooping cough, polio, diphtheria. There is no debate about the danger. If your child is not vaccinated and all the others are then the only risk is meeting infected foreigners. If somewhere about 95% of children are not vaccinated against measles, then sooner or later there will be an epidemic, children will die and be disfigured. Serious complications include pneumonia and encephalitis.

by Whatwillhappen | 27th Jan 23, 2:57pm 1674784647

Short answer: yes. No-one deserves to get polio, and yet that appears to be where we're heading. Expect to see a reduction in life expectancy in about 50 years. Roald Dahl's daughter died of encephalitis after measles. For his other faults, he spent a good amount of energy after that promoting vaccination.