Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand, with news all eyes have been on Washington DC and the US Fed.
As expected, the American central bank's September policy review was a "hawkish hold". It kept its policy rate range at 5.25%-5.50% following a +25 bps hike in July but signaled there could be one more hike this year. They pointed out that their labour market strength isn't wavering and inflation risks remain high. Tighter credit conditions haven't dampened activity to the extent they need and they remain "highly attentive to inflation risks".
In the economic projections they released with today's decision, the 'dot-plot' shows most voting members see a higher rate by the end of the year (12 of 19 whose projections were plotted). Essentially they are signaling that rates will stay elevated well into 2024 with fewer projected cuts.
Market reactions included the USD rising +20 bps vs the NZD, the UST 10yr benchmark was little-changed having fully priced in the outcome, it seems. Equities (the S&P500) fell -0.3%. So overall, markets have taken this review in its stride.
Somewhat surprisingly, American mortgage applications jumped +5.4% last week, the first rise in three weeks, and the biggest since mid-June. And this was despite benchmark mortgage interest rates rising again, to 7.31% plus points.
In Japan, household assets are growing, and in a different way to the usual cash-priority they have had traditionally. Total financial assets rose +4.6% in the year to June and to US$14.3 tln (NZ$195,000 per capita). But the cash portion only rose +1.4% (or 53% of them), while equity holding jumped +26% (to 13% of those overall holdings) and funds in investment trusts rose +16%. The re-emergence of inflation is changing Japanese household investment motivations.
After a good surge in 2021 and 2022, Japanese exports slipped -0.8% in August from a year ago, a second month of no expansion. Their exports to China dropped -11%. But at least overall they are holding on to their earlier gains. And the August slip was less than feared. Imports however fell more than expected, the most in three years. But most of this can be attributed to big falls in oil products (-33%), and it is encouraging that Japan is learning how to do with significantly less oil.
Taiwanese export orders fell -15.7% in August from year-ago levels, although they held at the value levels we have seen every month this year. Still the year-on-year fall was more than expected and extends the retreat to 12 straight months.
China held its Loan Prime rates in its monthly review yesterday. This is what analysts expected. The one-year loan prime rate (LPR), which is the medium-term lending facility used for corporate and household loans was kept unchanged at a record low of 3.45%; and the five-year rate, a reference for mortgages, was held at 4.2% for the third straight month.
China is worried about the outflow of funds by foreign investors. Yesterday it held a 'symposium' for JPMorgan Chase Bank, HSBC, Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, UBS Securities, Mitsubishi UFJ Bank, Tesla, BASF, Trafigura, Schneider and other foreign financial institutions and foreign-funded enterprises to hear of their concerns, and provide reassurances.
In Germany, fast-retreating energy costs are allowing producer price inflation to cool fast. Their PPI tumbled -12.6% in August from a year ago, matching market forecasts while very much faster than the -6.0% July retreat. It was the second straight month of decline and the steepest pace since data collection began in 1949, largely due to a base effect. Energy prices slumped -32%, with electricity prices dived -43%. They will appreciate the relief.
British CPI inflation fell marginally to +6.7% in August from +6.8% in July, and this was lower than the expected +7.0% rate.
An Australia, the Victorian State Government said (page 20) it will tax short-stay rental platforms 7.5% from 2025. There are more than 36,000 short-stay accommodation places in Victoria and almost half of these are in regional centers. More than 29,000 of those places are entire homes. The goal is more affordable long-term rental accommodation. But their tourism industry is livid.
They need to build more houses too. Nationally, housing starts by their major builders slumped -23% last year to a decade-low as insolvencies soared. The legacy of fixed price contracts and fast rising input costs was behind the pullback. But there is now some evidence that the houses now being built are being done so for more than cost.
The UST 10yr yield starts today unchanged bps at 4.35%. Their key 2-10 yield curve is more inverted at -77 bps. And their 1-5 curve is now at -97 bps and marginally more inverted. Their 3 mth-10yr curve inversion is little-changed at -106 bps. The Australian 10 year bond yield is now at 4.21% and little-changed from yesterday. The China 10 year bond rate is up slightly to 2.70%. And the NZ Government 10 year bond rate is now at 5.14% and up +5 bps.
Wall Street is now down -0.3% on the S&P500 in its Wednesday session. Overnight, European markets were all up an average of +0.8%, all before the Fed of course. Yesterday, Tokyo was down -0.7%. Hong Kong ended its Wednesday session down -0.6%. Shanghai was down -0.5%. The ASX200 ended down -0.5% and the NZX50 was down -0.2% at the end of trading.
The price of gold will start today at just on US$1943/oz and up +US$13 from yesterday.
And oil prices are -US$1 lower from yesterday at just over US$89.50/bbl in the US. The international Brent price is now at US$92.50/bbl.
The Kiwi dollar starts today still in its recent yo-yo range and up a net +30 bps from this time yesterday at 59.5 USc. Prior to the Fed decision it was up to 59.8 USc. Against the Aussie we are holding at 91.9 AUc. Against the euro we are a little firmer at 55.7 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 is also up about +20 bps at 69.
The bitcoin price has barely moved from this time yesterday, and is now at US$27,215, a rise of just 0.1%. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been low at just on +/-0.8%.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
96 Comments
"Higher for longer ", now ingrained into the system..
Banks will start re-pricing their longer term rates.. await the next round of hikes
Couple of bps higher on the 2yust and it will be the highest in over 20 years..
What are the implications
I see asset prices are trickling up and barring a worldwide meltdown, buyer interest building
Trickle down is moments away.
Followed by a flood
Haha. As I got to the bottom of the article a voice in my head (not schizophrenia) said "Higher for longer" and sure enough the first comment????
DGM has 4,000 "higher for longer" t-shirts printed they need to shift.
I think they'll have as long a lifespan as "do the Bartman" or "Nek minnit".
The rates pause vs Powell's signalling is worth some consideration. If it's that bad, why pause? Oh yeah, cause the bigger the mess, the more clean-up the central banks will have to do.
They'll go out of fashion, to be replaced by "High Forever" and "OMG WTF"
The short-stay tax is only 7.5% of revenue - unless the operators are running stupidly low margins (and one suspects they're on AirBnB etc. to ensure the opposite) - it might be slightly inflationary, but otherwise a non-event in the grand scheme of things? Both operators and tourists will adjust, and I don't see it as being a high enough value to actually make AirBnB less attractive than selling/renting - hence why the tax is going into social housing, which is where the actual difference may be felt - though my back-of-the envelope calculation is it might be enough for about ~500 homes a year - barely a dent on the 29,000 lost to short-stay operators.
Note also the removal of any already existing council levies effecting the same purpose.
Yes, not a game changer. But traditionally a new tax is introduced at low rate to minimise screaming, and then ratcheted up...
Instead of building social housing, they could build and sell. Build 500 in the first year and sell them, then the next year you can build 1,000 (using the tax and last years sales), then 1,500, and so on. Or better still, leverage it and build 2,000 in the first year and ratchet up from there.
Or, you know, we could lower the build costs for everyone and then people can just build their own houses.
They are trying to fix a problem, but they are solving if for the few.
How do you think the government can lower build costs? Its a fine line between lower costs and leaky homes and density done badly.
Personally I would leave it all up to the market, with a small amount of red tape to protect neighbours sun and ensure the houses are safe, otherwise buyer beware. This would significantly reduce costs and allow the right types of houses in the right locations. But not many people/voters agree with me, not even the supposedly liberal ACT party wants that.
The worst case is somewhere in between - we still have most of the red tape, but we also have leaky buildings and density in all the wrong places. This is where I think we are heading...
We could lower build costs by adopting the earthquake prone Californian and Japanese building codes this afternoon, allow some competition in the building materials market.
It doesn't rain much in California. Also I watch a few house renovation shows based there and it does not seem cheap to build there anymore.
If anything the Gib crisis told us that competition wasn't the issue - we couldn't source cheaper alternatives elsewhere! In fact the reason we have to use Gib brand is because we are so cheap we use it for bracing, and the other brands do not certify their product as bracing. Architects could submit plans with proper bracing (like they do overseas) and then the council would let you use any plasterboard AFAIK.
A big part of the problem is that we have run out of quality flat land near cities, so we are building on hills and flood plains. That pretty much rules out the cheap cookie cutter housing they do in the US. Then there is also the infrastructure - we can't pipe the poos and storm water out to sea and build a gravel road like they did in the 1950s.
And we expect a lot more these days. A 1950's house had 8 plug sockets, no insulation, 2/3 beds, 1 very basic bathroom, very basic kitchen. Now its like 50+ plugs, tons of lights, 2+ bathrooms with double vanities, double separate showers, walk in wardrobes, double glazed, insulated, large slider doors, kitchen full of built in appliances and maybe a butlers pantry, covered decks, and we have to fit it all on a tiny weird shaped plot so it requires an architect and custom plans.
Change of council rules is needed so GIB is no longer considered the only plasterboard able to be used in NZ.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/business/300548336/gib-and-the-competitive-prob…
I think this line sums that article up: "Thirty-four years we’ve been here, and we’d argue our bracing board is slightly stronger than GIB". Should council's just accept their "argument" in an earthquake prone country?
As I said, if Gib wasn't used in the architects bracing calculations (which it isn't in any other country), then I think it would be fine to use another product. But if it is used in bracing, of course the council want to ensure it is certified as bracing, otherwise if there is an earthquake and all the houses fall over it would be the council's liability (and then you would be blaming them for being incompetent).
The only real fix is buyer beware.
MBIE has approved Elephant plasterboard and others for bracing. Without this directive councils would not allow them as substitutes for GIB despite them being comparable, if not "slightly stronger than GIB".
https://www.interest.co.nz/property/116929/twelve-importers-have-100-co…
Whose palms did GIB line to corner the market to such an extent that a crisis and Government intervention was required to open the market?
Suggest that element had its genesis during the Muldoon years. The inner circle, cronies if you like, Trotter,Davis,Cushing, Myer and on, remember the much vaunted Round Table in that regard, and that has evolved into the lobbying that blights our politics today.
If you replaced Gib with a competing product, you might save a grand or so over a $500,000 build.
Most of the costs are (in order)
- compliance
- labour
The plasterboard is just an example of the inefficiencies in the current build process and unnecessary compliance costs councils put in place. Reducing unnecessary compliance costs and allowing use of cheaper comparable materials will result in savings of both money and time.
If you're in Auckland, out at Muriwai sometime, check out an area just NW of the golf club. It's paddocks of products being tested out in the elements, to test for durability to sun, wind and salt spray.
Much of our products are bespoke to NZ, because our climatic conditions are fairly unique. I've encountered over my career a raft of products bought in from overseas, that start failing after 5-10 years, because they're not compatible (mostly due to our sunlight).
The compliance we have is to satisfy our councils, banks and insurers. I can't see it reversing anytime soon, can you?
Likewise I can't see construction labour rates lowering, or getting more efficient.
I think the only possible change is that we may see builders going back to focus on single builds.
Currently many builders cover 2 or 3 jobs at once which is pushing timetables out a long way. Normal builds taking over 12 months increases to costs and I not sure anyone really benefits from this approach.
They have no choice, because jobs overlap, and builders aren't required on site for every stage of the build process, but do have to come back and forwards.
More likely the delay is one element, like the window joinery or roof, being held up for supply or scheduling issues.
You could pay to have the builders sitting there waiting for things to happen, I guess.
If you wanted to increase efficiency, you'd want to build many houses, in one location. Production line it.
Another example of councils been told to pull their head in is when MBIE issued guidelines that made it clear moveable tiny houses on wheels did not need building consent. Tiny homes are now a viable option for people to avoid councils sticking their nose in where it does not belong and also allows people to have somewhere to live without having to offer their first born to an Aussie bank. Any government that can offer more reductions in councils' stranglehold of building in NZ gets my vote. Also, a lot less labour is need when constructing a tiny home.
Tiny homes are generally pretty bad.
More expensive per square metre than a fixed dwelling.
The people getting into them usually park them on someone else's land.
I wonder if higher borrowing rates will fix that build cost problem? There's this idea that build costs are this inelastic floor. Okay, so when mortgage rates fell from 9% in 2009 to 2.5% in 2021, that made zero impact on build costs?
Everyone can effectively borrow double the amount (P & I) but somehow supply and demand doesn't apply, there's just this magical void that gobbled up $500k+ for zero value add, and that's before you consider new homes are 20% smaller.
Are you being sarcastic? Material costs for build have gone through the roof. Margins on manufacturing have increased massively over the last 10 years despite increases in production volumes.
I present to you the Fed's 2008 forecasts compiled back in October 2007: - GDP growth: 1.8-2.5% - Unemployment rate: 4.8-4.9% The reality: - 2008 GDP was -2.5% - 2008 Unemployment Rate was 6.9% Link
No mention if the Sunak announcement - really the biggest news of the day.
The unsaid inference is what I've been hammering on about for some time now; modern society is unsustainable - unmaintainable - ex fossil energy.
And fossil energy is leaving us, rapidly. As the industry knows; the lack of refinery-build is because of business-case projections, not because of proactive carbon-abandonment moves.
He's kicking a dented can and the road stops just ahead. Yet we fixate on economic growth... there should be a journalism award for Most Studious Avoidance.
"Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has pushed back the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in the UK from 2030 to 2035.
Sunak says he still expects that by 2030 "the vast majority" of cars will be electric, because of improving technology.
He also says there will be "far more time" to transition from gas boilers to heat pumps.
A boiler upgrade scheme, which gives people cash grants, will be increased by 50% to £7,500.
And there is a new exemption for people in the poorest households, "so they never have to switch at all".
He says he remains committed to net zero by 2050 but wants to "bring people with us".
The aim of net zero is for the UK to take out of the atmosphere as many greenhouse gas emissions as it puts in"
"Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has pushed back the ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars in the UK from 2030 to 2035"
I wonder why he did that? Ideology? Or is it a vote winner (surely not)?
2030 is a long way away, why not worry about it closer to the time?
He did it because on no sensible analysis was it a credible policy. They were never going to have the grid to support that amount of evs and risked locking many out of cars altogether.
Also the opposition announced the same strategy so he had no option as it is a popular move with the electorate.
The lesson here is that politicians will abandon net zero when their political future is on the line.
Rishi Sunak takes axe to Tory net zero plans warning current 2030 target would cost families £15,000 Link
Cost, its always cost. The cost was going to be too high for the Brits. Its all so predictable its almost boring.
To climate as to housing and tax policy (like in NZ): why live within our means if we can live beyond them and pass the cost to following generations to pay?
Why now? Big Oil. The UK Tories are like the US Republicans. They represent the interests of the biggest bidders.
Sunak has been put into a bad position because previous leaders promised the earth (literally) but didn't make any of the changes needed. Its like Phil Goff's climate emergency; it sounds dramatic but he didn't actually do the one thing needed to reduce CO2 emissions - make it more expensive. Instead its just a whole lot of lefty tinkering and focus groups and food scraps bins.
Its the same story the world over: the left can't deliver, the right are stuck in the 1950s, and we are all screwed.
Didn't do anything?! per capita emissions are at 1850 levels (when the weather just so, so perfect). Though one can never do enough to appease the climate gods.
OK that is pretty impressive. Our chart doesn't look so great. I wonder if it includes international flights?
Supposedly China's per capita emissions have crept past ours! Yikes. Although I guess it is no surprise when the world has offshored all of the manufacturing there.
Yep but a few more people now than 170 years ago. If we dropped population back to 1850 levels then we could all (well, all of us that are left) emit more without breaching planetary limits.
Got it in one - Profile always puts up skew - too easy.
I guess that's why he gets paid the Big Oil bucks.
Great to keep the climate whingers happy we have to drop the population back to 1850's population - based on some communist' "planetary limits" theory. After you chap.
The left have delivered in NZ with Shaw's cap and trade scheme limiting emissions and making them progressively more expensive. Now we just need the centre to stop fumbling the policy - labour have been disappointing and I can't see the nats being much better.
Vehicle kms travelled is still well up on ten years ago. Have the reduced emissions have mainly come from ICE engine technology improvements?
The politicians are hoping technology fixes it - which it may well do. They wouldn't want their constituents to occasionally have to walk / cycle / buy less crap.
No, personal transport is quite low down the list. Lots of low hanging fruit to take on first. For example, current (or recent - I might be out of date) carbon prices roughly double the price of electricity generation with coal. Meanwhile, they add I think 10-20c to a litre of petrol - not enough to really change behaviour.
Here in NZ we have a market-driven approach which will see emissions fall in the most efficient way, rather than the government picking favourites (or we would, if the proceeds from selling carbon permits weren't doled out to big emitters like NZ Steel...).
If you exclude agriculture which is 50% of our emissions, then transport makes up about 35% of the remainder and is probably the easiest to reduce.
We'd probably need to overrule NIMBYs to do so though.
The ETS doesn't change behaviour, it just causes inflation. Is this simple point not obvious yet? Not a single km of travel, whether by air, sea or road, has been cancelled due to the ETS and net zero. It is just another cost that is added to business and the State and feeds through to pay rises.
I cannot believe why this is not better understood.
If we stick to our guns, NZ's carbon emissions will fall from 72.4 Mt CO2e to 50.6, in the early 2030s. All the government has to do to achieve these falls is sell fewer permits. Behaviour will change, and the government does not have to take a position on how or where behaviour will change - it will happen wherever it is cheapest to do so. It will certainly be inflationary, proportional to the emissions associated with the thing you want to buy, just like a carbon tax. Those who emit more will see higher inflation.
I cannot believe why this is not better understood.
https://environment.govt.nz/what-government-is-doing/areas-of-work/clim…
"I cannot believe why this is not better understood"
...because NZ's 0.17% of global climate emissions will make absolutely no difference to climate change & is seen as very expensive virtue signalling
Our very low population & population density enjoy a reasonable std of living in a temperate climate (that could enjoy a couple of degrees warmer) a very long way from anywhere else so pc emissions will always be quite high & difficult to reduce without eg. breakthrough technology. No one is going to vote to be poor.
The whole world is made up of groups of people that could be seen as insignificant. If we all suffer the same logical fallacies as you, nobody does anything and we end up in a world very different to the one we evolved in - probably one that can't support so many people, and certainly not in the same places we live now.
Luckily, the generations that tend towards a 'head in the sand' mentality are dying out and losing political power. Now a majority of the Western world would "vote to be poor", about 62% in favour of carbon taxes and growing fast.
https://globescan.com/2021/11/05/new-global-poll-shows-growing-public-s…
Calm down MFD, I didn't say we shouldn't do anything. I said it is inflationary and not altering peoples behaviour (EV's I grant you but their carbon break-even is very high). What I said is that the costs are transmitted through higher prices and wages. Who do you think pays the Ute tax and carbon levy on gas for builders, farmers etc etc. That's right - you and I and we then lobby for pay rises to cover it.
I disagree with the 'not altering behaviour' conclusion - in a few years, there will be fewer permits, therefore fewer emissions, therefore less emitting behaviour. I'm not sure which part of the logical chain you are disagreeing with? I can't tell you which behaviours in particular will be affected as we have a decentralised approach - the Right would be screaming blue murder if the Greens and Labour had taken a centralised, choosing winners and losers approach of telling particular industries what actions they need to take.
Price is the signal to the market that will drive change. This does mean inflation, proportional to associated emissions.
What actions do you think we should be taking instead?
"Now a majority of the Western world would "vote to be poor", about 62% in favour of carbon taxes and growing fast."
Yet only 0.7% of seats on AirNZ flights pay to "carbon offset". Saying you are going to do something and actually doing the thing are quite different. Especially for people who can't afford to virtue signal.
Lots of people support means-testing of NZ Super but few give it back. It takes central action to apply changes fairly.
Carbon offsetting is a farce, that's why no-one pays it. If flights are more expensive then less flights. But you know this.
I'm talking about today, not what might happen in the future. As a cost the ETS and clean energy charges are flowing straight through to consumers and wages and therefore inflation.
You're asking what is different about NZ today and the hypothetical NZ today with no ETS? Tricky. The obvious place to look is electricity generation where in the last few years the gentailers have pressed the accelerate button on all things renewable. There is a lot of noise in this data with weather affecting hydro generation, but essentially no one wants to touch coal any more as the associated permits are so expensive.
The bottom line is, recently NZ has ticked along at around 80Mt CO2e emissions per year, and over the period 2022-25 we will be reducing this to an average of 72.4 per year. I can't tell you exactly where those emissions will fall - we don't have a central command and control economy. Would you prefer that we did?
https://www.stats.govt.nz/indicators/new-zealands-greenhouse-gas-emissi…
https://environment.govt.nz/what-government-is-doing/areas-of-work/clim…
The carbon break even point on an EV powered by renewable energy is only a year or so (it takes about 4 tons more carbon to manufacture).
It's also looking likely that the life of an EV may be around 30% longer than an ICE vehicle.
Yeah nah, you can make an ICE car last 30 years, no chance doing that with an EV. No matter what you do that battery is going to fail. The problem is people in general do not look after their car and they also get bored and sell it after 5 years. The problem is not the ICE its that people don't look after their cars. We could halve the waste but reality is, people are not interested. As newer battery tech comes out so better range, people are dumping their EV's, already happening in China, fields of EV's sitting there abandoned.
The point isn't to compare ICE to EV the difference between the two is only tiny compared to car vs non-car. Most of the emissions and other downsides are related to car use itself and the associated infrastructure (new roads, road renewals, parking spaces, etc...)
Increased price doesn't reduce demand?
Price inelasticity entered the chat
It wasn't Phil Goff's climate emergency. The whole council signed up to that. Left, Right and everyone in between.
"Sunak said ‘governments of all stripes have not been honest about costs and trade-offs‘, adding: ‘Instead they have taken the easy way out, saying we can have it all.”
Reality check.
Reality check. Not really, his decision is based on denial. This is the opposite of a reality check.
Kicking the can makes a lot of sense actually when you are talking about technology. And that is what EVs are. Just a lump of rapidly developing tech. They have and will continue to get cheaper, lighter (less energy to build) and longer lasting over time.
We all have old tech which is now just e-waste.
Early adopters satisfy their urges. But they are still mugs.
Don't be a mug.
The technology is sufficiently mature now and switching to one reduces emissions by two thirds over the total vehicle lifecycle. You could easily run an EV now until 2035 then replace it with the latest and greatest and would save more emissions than just holding out.
The cost to the planet of building a new car is not just the carbon emissions.
But you do get to show off to your mates how green you are. Incredible our political parties push this just to garner a few votes.
"Cobalt is used in the manufacture of almost all lithium ion rechargeable batteries used in the world today.
..."You have to imagine walking around some of these mining areas and dialing back our clock centuries," Kara says. "People are working in subhuman, grinding, degrading conditions. They use pickaxes, shovels, stretches of rebar to hack and scrounge at the earth in trenches and pits and tunnels to gather cobalt and feed it up the formal supply chain."
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cob…
"Today, researchers at Sheffield Hallam University have published a report which concludes that almost the entire global solar panel industry is implicated in the forced labour of Uyghurs and other Turkic and Muslim-majority peoples."
https://www.shu.ac.uk/helena-kennedy-centre-international-justice/resea…
Most of the new EV's are being made with cobalt free LFP batteries so it becomes irrelevant.
It's amusing the people who trot that out, in general they couldn't give a s**t about child labour but just want to oppose climate change action.
It will be come irrelevant when we go back to pre EV cobalt demand. A heavier, lower range LFP battery. Are you going to pay more road user charges or go for the shorter range?
How are you going to recycle said LFP battery with no cobalt to pay the bills? Chuck in landfill with the composite wind turbine and solar panels? It is amusing how self preening green virtue signalers haven't figured out how to clean up their own mess.
"In 2022, about 60% of lithium, 30% of cobalt and 10% of nickel demand was for EV batteries. Just five years earlier, in 2017, these shares were around 15%, 10% and 2%, respectively."
"Both processes produce extensive waste and emit greenhouse gases, studies have found. And the business model can be shaky: Most operations depend on selling recovered cobalt to stay in business, but battery makers are trying to shift away from that relatively expensive metal. If that happens, recyclers could be left trying to sell piles of "dirt," says materials scientist Rebecca Ciez of Purdue University."
https://www.science.org/content/article/millions-electric-cars-are-comi…
I glad your brought up Cobalt. This is being phased out of EV batteries to make them cheaper. LFP batteries which make up half of all new EV batteries have 0% cobalt and 0% nickel.
The other main use for cobalt is for refining sulphur out of petrol, for I assume you will take a moral stance against this too?
Also add the following Cobalt uses to you outrage list: airbags in automobiles; cemented carbides (also called hardmetals) and diamond tools; corrosion- and wear-resistant alloys; drying agents for paints, varnishes, and inks; dyes and pigments; ground coats for porcelain enamels; high-speed steels; magnetic recording media; magnets; steel-belted radial tires; animal feed supplements.
All of these products were made without out Congolese child labour prior to rampant EV battery demand. Should I not be making a moral stance against child slavery? It is so hard to hard to keep up with green virtue signal logic.
It's pretty hard to agree with someone when you're paid to disagree.
It's a rock and a hard place. We spent the last 100 years designing, building, and growing civilization around FF. To think we could just cease them in the timeframe they were looking at was lunacy.
So Sunak had no choice to push it, but to what end? There are still no alternatives on the horizon.
There was a reason that for millenia humans lived in small localised self sufficient settlements and rarely ever left their hometown.
"So Sunak had no choice to push it" he hasn't pushed anything. The limits are still there he's saying don't worry about it.
Rishi is driving along with the wind in his hair and the scientist in the passenger seat says slow down we're heading towards that cliff 100m away and Rishi says "No way, the cost of having to give up the nice feeling of the wind in my hair is too nice, I can't possibly give it up, I'll just slow down in 150m"
11% decline in uptake. Electric car sales switch into reverse Costs and lack of charging network deter drivers
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/electric-car-sales-switch-into-rever…
This was warned about back in January: https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-11689993/EV-revolut…
Electric cars are the solution to people who want to drive a car and save money on petrol, nothing else. In terms of fossil fuel emissions they are nothing more than a delaying distraction to the policies we'll be forced to adopt whether we want to or not.
Suspended Student loan payments helped fuel the auto market over the last several years. Auto loans pass Student loans in consumer debt load for the first time in 13yrs, which means consumers face a double-whammy starting in Oct w/existing auto payments & resumed student loan obligations. Auto loan delinquencies are on the rise and more consumers could fall behind if unemployment increases. https://wsj.com/articles/pro-take-auto-loans-pass-student-loans-in-consumer-debt-load-fed-data-shows-b3a4a53?st=rkc7rhbgi7s1xy1 (via @knowledge_vital) Link
At least when they come to collect the student loan arrears the ex-students can escape in their nice new cars.
Borrowing to buy cars. Apparently it's standard. Weird.
If you can't afford to buy a depreciating asset with cash, then you can't afford it.
Are you talking about New Zealand houses?
When student loans were introduced to NZ many years ago, there was a big rash of undergraduates using them for annual overseas holidays. And skiting about it, including IIRC several subsequent Green MPs.
Uni student entitlement mentality & arrogance is never far from the surface
That's more of a generational thing, you know the generation that's going to save the planet while jet setting about the place for a holiday.
Hilarious how olds assume everyone else is like them.
I guess you don't have to feel so bad about your own moral failures if you project them onto the rest of the population.
I remember being 18 and getting $1000 course related costs, went to Fiji for schoolies and hooked up with THE MOST hottest Aussie chick ever, punching well above my weight.
Wonderful core memory of mine and the government could not have spent that money any better IMO (plane ticket, accom and some vodka lemonades).
Everyone is entitled to be 18 once in their life.
I have since paid the $1000 back and planted 4 acres of poplars to offset both the debt and carbon PDK. A lot of work for 1 night fling if you ask me.
Totally agree!!
And hot Aussie chicks also happens to be the best reason to move to Aus if you are young. Money is so overrated.
I found mine on a Queensland beach and dragged her home.
Joh Bjelke and Russ Hinze somewhat put me off staying over there, back then.
Some did that, but not all or even most. And they were charged 7% interest on everything they borrowed from Year one onwards. Their loans grew while they studied. It wasn't free money then. Also there was a time when the student loan interest rates were higher than mortgage rates. There are always people who take advantage in any situation. It was shut down after a while and payments were made to the tertiary providers directly.
...aren't these current interest rates actually historically quite modest? I keep hearing 'higher for longer', shouldn't it be 'the new normal'?
It's like people haven't looked back at rates before COVID-19 and the GFC.
Exactly! Before the GFC I had friends who were envious we were paying 8.7% interest on our mortgage, it topped out at just under 9% I think? It's not exactly ancient history.
Agreed. We are coming off a massively abnormal period of very low priced debt, in all likelihood never to be seen again. We are around the long term average now and as long as inflation shows no sign of slowing there is more risk upside. That access to 2% debt is unwinding and those strung out on expiring loans are facing real problems. A friend needed to free up some cash for his business recently. He had three rental so sold one. The expected capital gain cash the bank forwarded to his business account was zero. They kept it all to pay down debt on his other loans.
Yes they can do that.
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.