Holiday briefing: Common sense & common ground rarer as binary politics rises

Economy / news

US shutdown circus rolls on; US inflation firms; Taiwan export orders rise; China bond yields dive; Japanese inflation firms; UST 10yr at 4.51%; gold up and oil holds; NZ$1 = 56.7 USc; TWI = 67.1

21st Dec 24, 8:20am by David Chaston

Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand with news of more moves to screw the scrum in favour of billionaires.

The US shutdown circus is nearing the end; the Federal Government technically runs out of funding at midnight Friday US time. The debate is exposing deep fissures in the Republican camp. But there is still a chance it could get resolved but a few Republican holdouts plus Democrat votes. Who knows? But we all will in about 10 hours.

(And just how broken the US leadership has become, billionaire power-broker Elon Musk has just endorsed the far-right AfD political party in Germany. “Only the AfD can save Germany,” Musk wrote. And apparently he will be bankrolling Nigel Farage in the UK. Musk is a key figure in the Trump transition, and a key figure pushing for a US shutdown.)

Meanwhile, the widely-watched US PCE measure of inflation came in at 2.4% in November, up a tick and its highest since July. Core PCE inflation stayed even higher at 2.8%. But these results were actually a tick less than expected. The 2.8% inflation level is what the University of Michigan consumer survey also reported.

American personal disposable income rose +2.6% from a year ago, a slight undershoot. But personal spending remained strong, up +2.9% and similar to the gains over the past six months. Personal saving as a percent of disposable income rose marginally to 4.4% from the prior month and ending the longish decline from the start of the year when it ran at 5.5% of personal disposable income. The 4.4% level is where it ran for most of 2023.

Across the Pacific, Taiwanese export orders stayed elevated, up +3.3% from the same month a year ago which itself was elevated.

China reviewed its loan prime rates yesterday and kept them unchanged - at record lows.

In China, there have been recent reports of officials calling in bond traders to lecture them about 'responsible trading' - and the consequences for not. Chinese bond yields had fallen to record lows, as readers here who tracked our monitoring of the Chinese 10yr yield below will know. But today, the fear of losing money won out over the fear of officialdom's wrath.

China’s one-year bond yields broke below levels last seen in the GFC to the lowest since 2003, driven by bets on aggressive policy easing and demand for haven assets. The yield on one-year government debt plunged 17 bps yesterday to just 0.85%. The ten year is down to 1.72%. While it might be too harsh to call it 'panic mode' there is certainly a hard edge here in fear of where the Chinese economy is headed.

Japan reported November CPI inflation, and that rose again, now at 2.9%, with the widely-watched core inflation rate at 2.8%.

Japan also said its population fell to just under 124 mln, a fall of -325,000 in a year, and -3.1 mln in a decade. Now 29.3% of that population is 65 year and older, with only 11.1% under 15 years. In China, which is also thought of as having a similar demographic problem, those spread details are 14.3% over 65 years and 16.8% under 15 years.

Following the recent +200 bps out-of-cycle interest rate rise in Russia and the central bank guidance then, they were expected to raise their policy rate by another +200 bps again overnight to 23%. But they didn't. Apparently the Kremlin isn't keen on the independence of the Russian central bank governor any more.

The UST 10yr yield is now at just on 4.51%, and down -8 bps from this time yesterday but that is a net +18 bps rise for the week. The key 2-10 yield curve is less positive, now by +21 bps. Their 1-5 curve inversion is +8 bps positive. And their 3 mth-10yr curve is less positive at +18 bps. The Australian 10 year bond yield starts today at 4.47% and down -2 bps. The China 10 year bond rate is now at 1.72% and down -4 bps from yesterday to a new all-time low. The NZ Government 10 year bond rate is now at 4.65% and up another +7 bps.

Wall Street has opened its Friday session with a +1.4% rise on the S&P500. If it stays like that, it will have fallen -1.9% for the week. Overnight European markets were all down about -0.3%. Yesterday, Tokyo also closed down -0.3% for a weekly -2.2% fall. Hong Kong closed down -0.2%, down -1.1% for the week. Shanghai was down -0.1% and down -0.7% for the week. Singapore fell -1.1%. The ASX200 ended its Friday session down another large -1.2% to be -2.8% lower than a week ago. But the NZX50 ended with a +1.2% jump which allowed it to also close up +1.2% for the week.

The Fear & Greed Index ends the week still in the 'fear' zone but near the 'extreme' end, a big shift from 'neutral' last week.

The price of gold will start today at US$2625/oz and up +US$33 from yesterday. But that is down -US$33 from this time last week.

Oil prices are unchanged at just on US$69.50/bbl in the US while the international Brent price is still just under US$73. A week ago these prices were US$71 and US$74.50 respectively.

The Kiwi dollar starts today just on 56.7 USc and up +20 bps from yesterday. But that is down almost -1c from a week ago (57.6c USc). Against the Aussie we are up +10 bps to 90.4 AUc. Against the euro we are down -20 bps to 54.3 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today at just on 67.1 to be little-changed from yesterday at this time but down -50 bps from a week ago.

The bitcoin price starts today at US$97,137 and down another -3.8% from this time yesterday. A week ago it was at US$101,536, so down -4.3% from then. Volatility over the past 24 hours has remained high at +/- 3.8%.

Daily exchange rates

Select chart tabs

Source: RBNZ

Source: CoinDesk

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

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.

67 Comments

by powerdownkiwi | 21st Dec 24, 8:43am 1734723799

It was always about screwing the scrum - in a time of permanent depletion what else did you expect?

Their problem is that their wealth/status, relies on the existing accounting system staying intact - without which they are merely bags of flesh containing few useful skills. And that system requires endless growth - so is, by definition, stuffed. Temporary. And it's been on life-support since 2007/8.

They have run out of things to monetize - stuff which was 'commons'; stuff we did and enjoyed for free. There isn't much left, and it's all being depleted/degraded. So no more real underwrite. So no more real growth. So an increasing Ponzi-overhang.

The question now, is whether the system freezes up and implodes, or whether we adopt a permanent demurrage arrangement. I suspect the former....

by Let me be Frank | 21st Dec 24, 8:49am 1734724148

"The question now, is whether the system freezes up and implodes, or whether we adopt a permanent demurrage arrangement. I suspect the former...."

....or whether the dispossessed simply cease to play the game en masse.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 21st Dec 24, 8:54am 1734724448

Who is the 'they' you refer too?

by Palmtree08 | 21st Dec 24, 9:06am 1734725167

Politics, finance, industry, media?

by Let me be Frank | 21st Dec 24, 9:16am 1734725810

I expect that PDK is referring to the holders of the debt....and the banks that create it.

by interesting1234 | 21st Dec 24, 10:29am 1734730149

I think you know exactly who they are Chris ;P

by ChrisOfNoFame | 21st Dec 24, 12:04pm 1734735881

Actually, I don't. Hence why I asked. In many extremist theories "they" is used, but seldom defined. That's one of the ways extremism takes root. Or, alternatively, if "they" becomes "just about everyone", well, let's say 'raving at the moon' can become equally productive. If a problem is due to "just about everyone" then railing from a mountaintop about how bad "they" are seldom works and alternative, more targeted, solutions, of which there are many, must be defined and marketed.

by powerdownkiwi | 21st Dec 24, 6:15pm 1734758126

No. you don't.

And shooting the messenger, doesn't obliviate.

The comment was about the extreme winners, who currently are the cohort at the top of the global corporates - who have superseded elected governments. DC called them billionaires - but that falls for the nonsense that measures by money. It's the power they wield to alter human resource-extraction, not their 'worth', which is the problem. But the power will likely vanish if they accounting system does - hence the desperate efforts to extend and pretend.

But it also includes the next echelons down - you are part of one - who also 'value' things in a keystroke-issued debt-token. In other words, improperly.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 22nd Dec 24, 8:57am 1734811047

"But it also includes the next echelons down ..."

How far down does it go, PDK?

... to the low wage family that lives on the outskirts of a town (all they can afford)?

... and burns through huge amounts of energy because their house has substandard insulation (all they can afford)?

... and must drive everywhere in an old gas guzzling banger (all they can afford)?

Are you sure you're not getting into "just about everyone" territory with such levels of vagueness? Sure feels like it me.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 22nd Dec 24, 10:39am 1734817148

But yes, I wholeheartedly agree with you on where many of our problems come from - billionaires !!! But you don't want to target them directly, nor explicitly.

Instead, you say "power" and/or our "accounting /banking systems" are the problem. Isn't that just further prevarication? And the absence of specificity in such a line of argument will ensure its failure.

Contrast my line of argument to save the planet to yours. I am specific and blunt: Obscene levels of wealth concentrated in the hands of a few means little gets done unless they say so.

Worldwide, the majority of people in every country want much more action on climate change, and how we use (waste?) energy. And yet sweet f.a. gets done. Why? Because it is not in the interests of the extremely wealthy minority. Clearly, "democracy" isn't working the way most expect it to. (Just an aside, your chosen flagpole is 'energy' - mine is far broader and includes not just our planet, but also the dignity of all lives on it, including all non-human life.)

So what to do?

Once again, I am specific. It is clear from American politics that billionaires control the policy of both parties. Further, it is clear that billionaires care very little about our planet given how little they actually spend - either directly or through the political parties they control - trying to fix a deadly climate situation that is getting worse. They may not be 100% of the problem but they sure aren't helping. And now American billionaires are going global in their influence pedaling (which isn't new btw).

So I am specific. The Reagan tax cuts of the 70s, that has been copied worldwide, and has been furthered everywhere, must be unwound. This will dramatically reduce the power and influence of the billionaires. Elected officials will be forced to listen to the will of the majority once again.

And I am very specific on how this can be done. Tax !!! We need to get back to pre-70s tax structures where the wealthy paid their fair share and governments spent the taxes on the collective good, which obviously includes planet saving activities, but also many activities that are important to the bulk of us. Further, a greater tax take will also dramatically slow the obscene growth in the money supply which has grown because governments must borrow more and more to make up the shortfall in tax the billionaires are pocketing.

Further, I am also specific in that all that is needed to achieve my solution already exists, and is already in place. All we need is the majority to wise up a little and see where the real problems are so we can get stuck into real solutions.

Just an aside: Most people struggle to understand what a billionaire is. This may help.

one million seconds is about 11.5 days - imagine that as a prison sentence
one billion seconds is about 31 years and 8 months - Now imagine that as a prison sentence
one less billionaire could be a 1,000 more millionaires
one less Musk could be 439,000 more millionaires
this link will help of you want more than one. Total net worth is US$14.2 trillion ...14.2 million more millionaires

by ThoughtsAndTorts | 21st Dec 24, 8:55am 1734724511

So rising inflation in the number 1 & 3 largest economics alongside FED rate cuts and no movement from the BoJ. Russian inflation high but no rising interest rates for political purposes.

Trump having difficulty getting a debt limit removal, but of course the real ticking Timebomb are entitlements being offered to the elderly. Every major economy on earth basically knows they can't be paid but we are all acting like they can be. And when you point this the answer of "responsible" economists is more or less "hey, we can always print the money".

The financial system is insolvent, some group or combinations of groups is going to lose their shirt. Will it be the elderly? Lot of votes there, so will be tough. Demographics mean there is a limit to how much workers can be taxed beyond what they are, we also risk lowering the living standards of younger people which can have very negative political consequence. Asset holders seem another obvious choice but attempts to take more of that money via capital/land taxes will drive down silly valuations and could worsen the govt financial situation not to mention the catastrophe it will be for the banks.

Look at the numbers and realise the inflation has already happened. Been going on for decades in our rubbish currencies hence why everyone throws all the money they have into housing/stocks/etc for a long time now.

Prepare for more inflation. No politician wants to be the one holding the bag (and electoral career consequences) for decades of currency debasement. So they will pump more money into the system. Same thing has happened time and again with fiat, when you build on a rubbish foundation it becomes the last ditch effort to stave off the inevitable before the currency gets rejected.

Or apparently everyone's pension is gold-plated, everyone's house is worth a million bucks, everyone's stock portfolio can get 15% gains a year, wages will rise for everyone, government debt levels don't matter.....I know which answer Occam's razor makes me think is more plausible.

by JimboJones | 21st Dec 24, 9:02am 1734724969

Many commentators here want NZ govt to keep printing money. Personally I like the fact both parties want to return debt to 30% of GDP.

by powerdownkiwi | 21st Dec 24, 10:44am 1734731091

JJ would be better going back to first principles and applying non-assumptive thought. Same with another upthread.

Who said GDP was a/the valid measure?

It isn't. Relating debt to the remaining planet, is the only valid ratio in town.

Why the fierce need to default to a garbage measure?

by solar tiny house | 21st Dec 24, 9:32am 1734726720

An across-the-board, no-exceptions CGT would be a positive for the country/government, I believe. What is your evidence to back the claim that it would be a negative for the governments financial position, when surely it would generate vast amounts of revenue?

It should be in place for all sales, no matter how long you have held the property, or when you bought it. The gain should be assessed as the gain on the land valuation, after inflation adjustment.

It would allow a rebalancing of the tax system, with less of the burden having to be shouldered by the productive workers of the economy. And guess what, they are the ones that spend most of their earnings. There would be a bit of a reduction in discretionary spend from the rentier class, but hey, I am sick of having an economy that relies on creating/selling more and more gadgets and unnecessary services to the wealthy.

Claiming that the 'only' answer here is to inflate away the debt is rewriting the narrative to suit the asset holders and will only impoverish the majority further. This may not be your intention, but that is the result of the narrative

by ThoughtsAndTorts | 21st Dec 24, 9:47am 1734727626

Fair point and I agree with a land tax in NZ's context. Think there is a very strong moral and economic case for doing so. I have some concerns about the balance between private property right and political liberty but there are other forms of private property that are strongly custodial that can help fill this role.

My understanding, which may be incorrect on this point, is that one of the reasons that a CGT tax is assumed to be so lucrative is due to the massive capital gains on property that have occurred in the last 30+ years. But those capital gains and the prospect of them is a major reason people have been willing to leverage themselves to the eyeballs to get into the housing market. If that changes, which it should, I expect it would mean severe downward pressure on the housing market which in the short term would have cascading negative impacts on government finances (not to mention the banks balance sheets but I'm not going to weep crocodile tears over the banks).

In the medium-long term, a land tax would be a great thing and be a much fairer and stronger foundation for rebuilding the economy as would a return to harder forms of money.

All that being said, I do not believe when you look at the situation globally this is a solution. Most countries have a CGT/Land/combination of the two and are facing very similar issues. The root cause is that fiat currency is bad money and money is one of humanity's most important social technologies to allow for effective cooperation and economic coordination. Until we fix the money, we are just painting over cracks.

Inflating away the debt isn't the only solution but I strongly believe based on historical evidence of similar situations that is the path this will all go down. Countless governments throughout history have followed that exact method time and time again and I don't expect that because this time the fiat experiment is global it will be any different.

P.S. I think the arguments for taxing capital are much weaker than the arguments for taxing land. The traditional economic models split the economic factors of production into Labour/Capital/Land before Capital/Land were combined under "Capital" and I think separating them out and focusing on them individually would lead to much better economic governance.

by interesting1234 | 21st Dec 24, 10:31am 1734730311

I hope you voted TOP last election then, or will be voting accordingly to your post next election. That many people turned coat on election day and went back to their old views in the booth, i pray the majority agree with your view and actually act.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 21st Dec 24, 12:36pm 1734737774

"Most countries have a CGT/Land/combination of the two and are facing very similar issues."

In almost all overseas tax jurisdictions the rates of these taxes are set ridiculously low. They were implemented in times when capital gains were low and haven't been adjusted to recognise just how much more income is being derived from CG. The other reason is that rich pretty much control government policy and the majority simply don't understand how hugely the rich benefit from these low tax rates - probably because the majority simply don't own enough to experience a CGT at any significant level.

Ergo - Other countries "are facing very similar issues" because the tax rates of these taxes are unrealistically low - and not, as you imply, because they don't work.

Edit: Those railing against the ever increasing money supply (which seems very fashionable at present) should be 100% behind capital gains taxes. i.e. If the benefits of low CG tax rates are removed, not only will governments struggle less to balance their books while creating new money to make up the difference, banks will think twice about creating new money where it is secured over an asset that the the government has first dibs on when it is sold for a CG.

by ThoughtsAndTorts | 21st Dec 24, 12:35pm 1734737746

> They were implemented in times when capital gains were low and haven't been adjusted to recognise just how much more income is being derived from CG.

And why did this change? Why has asset price growth far outstripped wage growth?

Address root causes first. The fiat money is the problem.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 21st Dec 24, 12:37pm 1734737844

See my edit.

by ThoughtsAndTorts | 21st Dec 24, 1:00pm 1734739216

Complete non-sequiter and very shallow thinking, frankly. The continual debasement of the unit of account can't be effectively patched over via legislation.

In no other area of life do we do this. We don't change what a kilogram means every year with a 2% target, we don't change what a centimetre is, we don't change what a Volt/amp are, we don't change a litre, we don't change what a degree Celcius is, we don't change a second/minute, we don't change a calorie/kilojoules.

But I'm supposed to believe the brilliant minds of the central bank constantly changing the meaning on a unit of currency is fixable by govt? Pure inanity and I won't entertain it. If you want that argument, go find a dimwit and enjoy.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 21st Dec 24, 3:11pm 1734747061

Whatever.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 21st Dec 24, 3:23pm 1734747782

ThoughtsAndTorts | 21st Dec 24, 1:00pm 1734739216

The continual debasement of the unit of account can't be effectively patched over via legislation.

In no other area of life do we do this. We don't change what a kilogram means every year with a 2% target, we don't change what a centimetre is, we don't change what a Volt/amp are, we don't change a litre, we don't change what a degree Celcius is, we don't change a second/minute, we don't change a calorie/kilojoules.

But I'm supposed to believe the brilliant minds of the central bank constantly changing the meaning on a unit of currency is fixable by govt? Pure inanity and I won't entertain it. If you want that argument, go find a dimwit and enjoy.

This drivel is so just so amazing it needs to be kept for reference. Staggering stuff.

by Let me be Frank | 21st Dec 24, 1:14pm 1734740062

"Edit: Those railing against the ever increasing money supply (which seems very fashionable at present) should be 100% behind capital gains taxes. i.e. If the benefits of low CG tax rates are removed, not only will governments struggle less to balance their books while creating new money to make up the difference, banks will think twice about creating new money where it is secured over an asset that the the government has first dibs on when it is sold for a CG"

It is the destination/use of the ever increasing money supply that is the issue and I expect that CGT are largely ineffective for a couple of reasons...firstly they tend to provide opportunity to be avoided (no surprise when those with the gold make the rules) and disposing of assets is contrary to the overall mode of operation of the wealthy...asset accumulation being the goal. As always the devil of any form of taxation on accumulated wealth would have to be judged on its detail and importantly, its enforcement....history indicates both are likely to be found wanting.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 22nd Dec 24, 3:40pm 1734835231

What if CG was treated as outright income and taxed exactly like PAYE tax?

E.g. You make a $500,000 capital gain over ten years on a single asset. Thus, $50,000 is added to each of your last 10 year's PAYE income tax returns with the sum of the CGT payable being the 10 years at whatever the marginal tax you were on in each of those 10 years.

Food for thought, ay?

Thought I'd get that in as you made statements about the effectiveness of CGT without addressing my opening paragraph where I indicated there is widespread agreement among economists & tax specialists that CGTs are way too low worldwide when compared to other taxes in the same jurisdictions.

But I do agree that most CGT systems - because they've been unduly influenced by politicians pandering to vested interests - have far too many exemptions, exceptions, and other nonsense, that pollutes their effectiveness at either raising revenue and/or being in any way fair when compared to how other taxes are applied (hence my progressive KISS approach above).

by Let me be Frank | 22nd Dec 24, 4:32pm 1734838372

Im not sure that a CGT can produce the desired results in any form....there is an industry of exceedingly clever people who will defend the assets of the rich, for a price, and we would likely end up chasing our tails. Better IMO to restrict their ability to impact those things essential to the common good...let them wave their dicks around in areas that do not impact wider society.

If we ensured that the essentials such as power, housing, health, education and possibly food distribution (not sure about that one...will require further thought) were unavailable to them then they can wager against each other to the cows come home and good luck to them....that means the likes of power generation, social housing, healthcare , education and critical infrastructure are provided by the state...the discretionary economy can be their playground, and if they fuck it up it dosnt matter too much...unfortunately we are heading in the opposite direction as we have allowed them to retain so much wealth (due to the previous lack of taxation) they are running out of things to bet on so now everything is up for grabs.

by Murray Falconer | 22nd Dec 24, 7:57pm 1734850639

Agree a CGT that you had to stump up each year (retrospectively in your example) would be much better than one only triggered on point of sale. However, when ANZ is talking about a CGT, you know it's not a particularly useful solution.

No matter which way to do it, a CGT still wouldn't be as useful (at improving housing affordability and encouraging development of land) as an annual Land Value Tax. A CGT, if the C = land + capital, will always discourage the deployment of capital where it would be taxed. We had it right to begin with in NZ (most govt revenue coming from an LVT).

KISS is indeed a worthy approach and another reason to back an annual LVT over a CGT.

by JimboJones | 21st Dec 24, 9:00am 1734724854

Is Musk a nut bar, or is it a cunning plan? Seems crazy to align with the far right when you sell “woke” cars - but maybe he will end up in a niche market, with all the other car makers battling for the left wing buyers.

by Palmtree08 | 21st Dec 24, 9:09am 1734725382

Yes, Musk is nuts. Far right and cars? Marketing opportunity? The left have certainly fallen out of love with Musk.

by JimboJones | 21st Dec 24, 9:18am 1734725933

I think Tesla was always going to become uncool. But now all right wing / republicans will buy Tesla. Sure many would never touch an electric car, but some will, and that could still be a lot of sales.

by LASSET | 21st Dec 24, 12:36pm 1734737804

I''m very much not aligned with most of Elon's current positions. But to be honest I don't consider, or look into the personal views of the CEO on any product I want. Especially when it's the best in it's class. Those who do on both ends of the political spectrum, really have too much time on their hands. You're only hurting yourself.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 21st Dec 24, 12:45pm 1734738334

Are Teslas still the best in their respective classes? The field is way wider now.

And thanks to existing and planned tariffs in the US, the US market on price/performance basis (however you want to define 'performance') is going to be quite different to ours, and that of many other countries.

by jbman | 21st Dec 24, 12:36pm 1734737805

I think you're reading way too far into it. Not everyone feels the need to politicise everything. It's just a car.

by kiwikidsnz | 21st Dec 24, 9:05am 1734725158

...this can’t be true. IIRC around a decade ago the EMAs CEO was forced to resign for even suggesting it.

“The hidden costs of periods could be more than $4 billion a year…work efficiency”

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/537313/the-hidden-costs-of-periods-could-be-more-than-4-billion-a-year

by Kate | 21st Dec 24, 9:21am 1734726092

What seems odd to me is that there has been little MSM detail/discussion on what a US government shut down looks like - and they're less than hours away. But here's a taste of it;

https://nz.finance.yahoo.com/news/the-us-government-could-be-headed-for…

And what I find the most ironic is that the planning/execution for the inauguration ceremony (and subsequent transition) could become chaos - yippie :-). A great lesson in how the back room of government (the non-essential workers who don't have to turn up for unpaid work by law) is actually where all the work gets done.

by kiwikidsnz | 21st Dec 24, 7:54pm 1734764098

All sound & fury now over. Again. Till the next time.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cqjzwq7pg0go

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1869865296376303763

by profile | 21st Dec 24, 9:22am 1734726156

Basically Dr. Evil.

"Who is Germany's far-right AfD leader Alice Weidel?

...Weidel lives in a civil partnership with a woman who originally comes from Sri Lanka. Together, they have two adopted children.

The 45-year-old Weidel has a doctorate in economics. In the late 2000s, she worked at the Bank of China and lived in China for six years where she learned to speak Mandarin. She would later write her doctoral thesis on the future of the Chinese pension system.

Weidel is an admirer of Margaret Thatcher, Britain's prime minister from 1979 to 1990. Speaking of Thatcher in an interview with the tabloid Bild newspaper, she said: "I'm impressed by her biography, her swimming against the tide even when things get unpleasant."

https://www.dw.com/en/who-is-germanys-afd-leader-alice-weidel/a-70436714

by HouseMouse | 21st Dec 24, 11:02am 1734732159

This sad event won’t hinder AfD’s chances:

https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360531537/car-has-driven-group-peopl…

by DMC45 | 21st Dec 24, 6:12pm 1734757965

Speaking of Germany and China linkages, this is quite fascinating: https://unherd.com/2024/12/how-china-burned-german-industry/

by profile | 21st Dec 24, 7:48pm 1734763708

Who was Merkel working for all those years?

"Merkel joins Castro, Nixon in ranks of China’s ‘old friends’

Xi Jinping praises the German chancellor in a farewell call."

https://www.politico.eu/article/chancellor-angela-merkel-china-presiden…

by ChrisOfNoFame | 22nd Dec 24, 9:16am 1734812200

Germany is a huge foreign investor in China. At a national level I expect they'll be taking a lot out of China as the years role on. The problem, of course, is that the money returned to Germany will be concentrated in the hands of a few. The average German workers won't receive much at it all.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 21st Dec 24, 9:32am 1734726741

One of the unsaid things about the US government not increasing the debt ceiling is there are two ways to deal with a cap. We only hear about 'slashing' government services. The other - unspoken - option is to raise taxes. (Or a combination of the two.)

It won't happen - but what a great time to raise taxes on the mega-wealthy whose tax bills have been slashed disproportionally since Reagan sold the big con about 'trickle down economics' back in the 70s.

by number8wired | 21st Dec 24, 8:36pm 1734766600

It's such an extremely obvious answer, that anyone not including it as a consideration is clearly compromised by ideology.

by Chaosinflesh | 22nd Dec 24, 7:41pm 1734849675

Pretty sure Reagan was president in the 80s. And his major tax reforms were 1981 & 1986.

by MikeM | 21st Dec 24, 9:32am 1734726772

Donald Trump's second term won't be much different to his first. The media will shame him, he'll do and say some weird stuff, he won't achieve anything substantial while he's in office, and then he'll leave and those who oppose him will be relieved he can't seek a third term. The End.

by kiwikidsnz | 21st Dec 24, 9:41am 1734727268

Wait for it...if only Musk was a "natural born US citizen"

by MikeM | 21st Dec 24, 12:40pm 1734738048

That's a possibility.

by M0ralHazard | 21st Dec 24, 1:14pm 1734740097

I disagree. Trump and his circle of sycophants will be chaos, but there is a much more organised group hiding behind the chaos with a plan this time.

by valueformoney | 21st Dec 24, 9:37am 1734727049

musk, oh bad billionaire because he used to support left and now hes centred.

meanwhile, good billionaire supporters, soros, gates, zuck.

wake up.

by Baywatch | 21st Dec 24, 9:45am 1734727510

Musk centred? Go back to sleep

by LASSET | 21st Dec 24, 12:42pm 1734738147

I think we can all agree, that anyone who has become a billionaire probably doesn't have our * best interests at heart.

* The poors = everyone else

by number8wired | 21st Dec 24, 9:25pm 1734769524

None of them are your friend. You're half way there.

by gladtobekiwi | 21st Dec 24, 10:04am 1734728699

Does Bill Gates get same scrutiny as other billionaires on this site?

by powerdownkiwi | 21st Dec 24, 10:51am 1734731490

Yes.

He's one of the few who now drive what used to be government(s)-driven. Global corporates now dominate - but they were an end-game product of exponential growth on a finite planet. That was temporary, meaning now they're trying to hold on not only to their status, but the doomed system which gives them it.

In that, Gates is Zuckerberg is Musk is whatever. They all have to conform to physics (no rocket will ever be battery-launched) and so are all in trouble at this point.

by IT GUY | 21st Dec 24, 12:44pm 1734738288

FARTS POWER HIS ROCKET AND WE HAVE COWS!!!!

SpaceX rockets use a variety of engines and propellants, including:

Raptor engines

These reusable methane-oxygen engines power the Starship system. The Raptor engine has twice the thrust of the Falcon 9 Merlin engine. The Starship will have three Raptor engines, and the Super Heavy will have 33 Raptor engines.
Merlin engines

These engines use rocket grade kerosene (RP-1) and liquid oxygen as propellants. They are used on the Falcon 1, Falcon 9, and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles.
Raptor Vacuum (RVac) engines

These engines are similar to the Raptor engine, but have a larger exhaust section and expansion nozzle to maximize efficiency in space. The Starship will have three RVac engines.

by Let me be Frank | 21st Dec 24, 8:34pm 1734766443

All require fossil fuels in their manufacture...not to mention a high functioning society to create.

by ChrisOfNoFame | 22nd Dec 24, 9:20am 1734812408

Very little of which couldn't be replaced by electricity.

by pacifica | 24th Dec 24, 1:10am 1734955818

All metals, plastics and the material used to transmit electricity cannot be replaced by electricity but please go on it is a sad and tragic look into how bad NZs science education is that people these days have no clue how electricity gets to homes, businesses, and how literal buildings and vehicles are made. It is almost amusing if it were not such a huge deficit in scientific education on a primary level.

by Murray Falconer | 21st Dec 24, 12:47pm 1734738424

I guess if you hire a 'journey manager' then they'll have to find something to do in order to justify their existence:

NZTA closes passing lanes to help holiday traffic flow

To help traffic flows, NZTA Waikato journey manager Andrew Brosnan said it would be closing some passing lanes.

"Queues might be a little longer when the passing lanes are closed, but there will be minimal impact on your journey time. A slightly slower speed doesn't make for a longer journey, overall, as traffic moves more steadily," said Brosnan.

So we're closing lanes, to help traffic flows, which in turn will have no impact on journey times. Perhaps if Andrew deploys enough traffic cones it will bump GDP enough to pull NZ out of recession.

It seems unfair to remove the only place slow drivers with a queue behind them feel confident enough to speed up!

by kiwikidsnz | 21st Dec 24, 1:01pm 1734739313

All part of NZTAs nationwide speed reduction by stealth: the limit for towing vehicles & trucks is 90km/h

by solardb | 21st Dec 24, 3:11pm 1734747118

Always has been. And not going 100 is better than stopping when everyone tries to merge not like a zip. The problem is a lot of drivers nort used to driving outside the city. Hence heaps of crashes on the first tricky part of road off the motorway.

by agnostium | 21st Dec 24, 6:20pm 1734758408

It makes traffic go faster.

There are lots of things about traffic that do not conform to people's common sense reckons.

For example, on saturated motorways you get more efficient traffic throughput at lower speeds. It doesn't seem to make common sense but that's because most people are not experts and have never studied these things.

Removing the overtaking lanes helps traffic flow. Nothing to do with conspiracy theories about forcing lower speeds.

by Murray Falconer | 22nd Dec 24, 1:42am 1734784969

When you state, "It makes traffic go faster.", does that mean you disagree with Andrew's "there will be minimal impact on your journey time" statement?

There are lots of things about traffic that do not conform to people's common sense reckons.

Am I one of those people? If so, what common sense reckon did I make which you regard as false?

For example, on saturated motorways you get more efficient traffic throughput at lower speeds. It doesn't seem to make common sense but that's because most people are not experts and have never studied these things.

Is it the lower speed or the avoiding grid lock with onramp rush hour light restrictions that enable more efficient traffic throughput? If it's the lower speed, then why not set all our speed limits to 10kph? But really, we're off on a tangent since the article is about open road highways with passing lanes.

Removing the overtaking lanes helps traffic flow.

Great, so why is helping traffic flow a desirable outcome? Does it result in shorter/longer/about the same journey times? Are journey times even relevant (Andrew seems to think so)?

Nothing to do with conspiracy theories about forcing lower speeds.

I'm questioning the reason given for an action that is being taken which costs money. I'd like to know why it's worth lifting a finger (or road cone). You've said it makes traffic go faster (which would imply shorter journey times), which is in direct contradiction to Andrew in the article who hints at little to no change. If there is no change then why bother spending the effort removing the overtaking lanes?

[hint] Perhaps there is another reason (nothing to do with faster or slower traffic) not stated by Andrew that might justify removing passing lanes?

by solardb | 22nd Dec 24, 7:49am 1734806968

It's all to do with average speed, vs top speed. The faster you go the more you have to slow down, that has a domino effect on cars in a que, you get 100 cars, the front one slowing down 10 km/h will probably result in the cars at the back coming to a stop.

You see this with truckers in motorway congestion holding back, one it saves them a zillion gear changes, but 2, they've learnt holding a steady slower speed is quicker than a faster stop start.

by kiwikidsnz | 22nd Dec 24, 8:42am 1734810145

"...has a domino effect on cars in a que, you get 100 cars, the front one slowing down 10 km/h will probably result in the cars at the back coming to a stop."

That was my point.

by solardb | 22nd Dec 24, 10:29am 1734816584

No, not going 10 KS slower constant speed, slowing down because the faster you go the more you have to slow down.

by Murray Falconer | 22nd Dec 24, 7:59pm 1734850774

I tend to leave large gaps and smooth my own speed, driving a high 1st geared manual on an Auckland commute will do that to you plus I like the extra space to stop. I also find smooth driving is better for fuel economy and making brake pads last longer too.

Other reasons I can think of for removing passing lanes would be less accidents - due to what you've alluded to in both your comments about merging.

However, this isn't mentioned by the article which seemed to be justifying it not having an impact on journey times i.e. so what's the benefit of doing something that costs money if the best reason Andrew can come up with is that it has no or little effect on travel times. Then agnostium said it makes traffic go faster, which implies shorter journey times (in contradiction to Andrew in the link). I was interested to know how agnostium, or those giving the thumbs up for that matter, came to that conclusion.

The only people I said would take longer were the slow, relative to other drivers, that now wouldn't speed up once they hit the passing lane as is my typical experience - once the passing lane appears everyone seems to find the accelerator before losing it again once the road reverts back to a single lane!

by Tim Depositor | 21st Dec 24, 3:37pm 1734748621

The way Musk is rolling a Telsa may become the new Nazi Germany people's car . Looks increasing like fascist.