Americans chase yield away from banks; China profits may have bottomed out; Australia has sticky inflation; Aussie job vacancies slip; UST 10yr 4.64%; gold down sharply and oil up; NZ$1 = 59.2 USc; TWI-5 = 69.4

They will open the spigots - there is no other 'tool' in their 'toolbox'. 

But that isn't what will determine the future course of the world 'economy'. 

The reduction in resource availability - both per-head and outright - and the reduction in energy-input ditto, are what is/will do the determining. 

https://ourfiniteworld.com/2023/09/25/can-india-come-out-ahead-in-an-en…

Note the OECD energy-take, first graph. Tells us all we need to know; sure, some will have forced efficiencies; some will represent offshoring of real activity, but the percentage is telling. 

sounds a lot like $tuff

Yes.  It's global, but we can only manage our small part.  Gotta act as best we can for New Zealanders.

Maybe not that scenario.

But if you transfer the same couple to Auckland, with two school age children, and a 700-800k mortgage- different story!

Maybe its a "stretched middle", here and in Switzerland etc

• previously comfortably middle class
• kicked down a notch by the covid era (in comparison to the rich who got richer)
• stretched between desire for upper class things - EVs, concert tickets, holidays and instagram moments... while relying on underfunded and crumbling public services

I think it's partly a political invention to get people on board with things like tax cuts, because obviously anyone who knows a family who is truly middle class knows there is a lot of wasteful spending that can be cut back on easily enough. I think there is a truth to it when looking at people who should be in theory 'middle class', such as those with decent  degrees but still starting out their careers who are finding it hard. There is a psychological element too, because housing has become such a daunting and all consuming aspect of peoples' lives and at least over the last decade moved away from being perceived as something attainable through regular and diligent saving. 

Things don't always go smoothly too. Not everyone holds down steady jobs with good salaries forever. I've been supporting my partner through several years of studying and we have basically been breaking even in terms of household finances. It's honestly been a humbling and somewhat rewarding experience living within tighter constraints. It definitely makes you appreciate everything more and to be selective with how you treat yourself (and makes you want to vote for a party proposing income splitting, because it sucks giving up 33% of your wages when you take an extra job over summer). 

$95k is the most a teacher can earn. Most are on less with the median around $60k.

Fix the money, Fix the world. Fiat money is destroying our purchasing power. 

Tribal democracy put on hold then?

Brooke Van Velden, Nicole McKee, Karen Chour 

Easy.

Yes, and given that two-thirds of our energy supply comes from oil, those high oil prices push up the cost of basically everything we do. There is no better leading indicator of CPI than imported diesel prices (for example). Our mistake is thinking that we control prices in NZ to any significant degree (and that we have independent monetary policy).

On our planet earth – as opposed to the very different planet that economists seem to be on – all markets are rationed. In rationed markets a simple rule applies: the short side principle. It says that whichever quantity of demand or supply is smaller (the ‘short side’) will be transacted (it is the only quantity that can be transacted). Meanwhile, the rest will remain unserved, and thus the short side wields power: the power to pick and choose with whom to do business. Examples abound. For instance, when applying for a job, there tend to be more applicants than jobs, resulting in a selection procedure that may involve a number of activities and demands that can only be described as being of a non-market nature (think about how Hollywood actresses are selected), but does not usually include the question: what is the lowest wage you are prepared to work for?

Thus the theoretical dream world of “market equilibrium” allows economists to avoid talking about the reality of pervasive rationing, and with it, power being exerted by the short side in every market. Thus the entire power dimension in our economic reality – how the short side, such as the producer hiring starlets for Hollywood films, can exploit his power of being able to pick and choose with whom to do business, by extracting ‘non-market benefits’ of all kinds. The pretense of ‘equilibrium’ not only keeps this real power dimension hidden. It also helps to deflect the public discourse onto the politically more convenient alleged role of ‘prices’, such as the price of money, the interest rate. The emphasis on prices then also helps to justify the charging of usury (interest), which until about 300 years ago was illegal in most countries, including throughout Europe.

However, this narrative has suffered an abductio ad absurdum by the long period of near zero interest rates, so that it became obvious that the true monetary policy action takes place in terms of quantities, not the interest rate.

Thus it can be plainly seen today that the most important macroeconomic variable cannot be the price of money. Instead, it is its quantity. Is the quantity of money rationed by the demand or supply side? Asked differently, what is larger – the demand for money or its supply? Since money – and this includes bank money – is so useful, there is always some demand for it by someone. As a result, the short side is always the supply of money and credit. Banks ration credit even at the best of times in order to ensure that borrowers with sensible investment projects stay among the loan applicants – if rates are raised to equilibrate demand and supply, the resulting interest rate would be so high that only speculative projects would remain and banks’ loan portfolios would be too risky.

The banks thus occupy a pivotal role in the economy as they undertake the task of creating and allocating the new purchasing power that is added to the money supply and they decide what projects will get this newly created funding, and what projects will have to be abandoned due to a ‘lack of money’.

It is for this reason that we need the right type of banks that take the right decisions concerning the important question of how much money should be created, for what purpose and given into whose hands. These decisions will reshape the economic landscape within a short time period.

Moreover, it is for this reason that central banks have always monitored bank credit creation and allocation closely and most have intervened directly – if often secretly or ‘informally’ – in order to manage or control bank credit creation. Guidance of bank credit is in fact the only monetary policy tool with a strong track record of preventing asset bubbles and thus avoiding the subsequent banking crises. But credit guidance has always been undertaken in secrecy by central banks, since awareness of its existence and effectiveness gives away the truth that the official central banking narrative is smokescreen. Link

Yeah

The big difference is now we have high inflation

It’s a much more wicked problem now than in 2008-2009

And the fix long interest only tax avoidance crowd. A double whammy for them.

Yeah and probably Torpedo 7

Also have you been into a Noel Leeming recently?

Poor selection, poor pricing (and extremely deceptive specials pricing especially on big ticket items like TVs) and presumably because sales are slow you can't so much as let out a breath without a salesperson trying to sell you an extended warranty on your lungs.