Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand, with news many countries are awaiting news of a new barrage of US tariffs, although the fear level is nowhere near as high this time as this weapon has proven relatively limp in the past, and mainly hurts US consumers.
First today, the overnight dairy auction surprised somewhat with an end to the recent weakness, rising +1.5% in USD terms although down almost -1.0% in NZD terms on the firmer NZD. Perhaps surprisingly, milk fats did quite well, other than cheddar (-6.5%). Powders were all up. Some say that northern hemisphere heatwaves have buyers nervous that this will soon weigh on production levels there, so stocks are being built in case.
In the US, the slower hiring trend that started in early May continued last week with the ADP weekly tracking reporting its lowest level since March, just after this weekly tracking series started.
US timber prices are rising and quite sharply recently. That is because of forest fires in the US Pacific Northwest states, and in British Columbia, the main exporting Canadian province to the US. Trump's new tariffs on Canada are making things worse for US housebuilders.
The early outcomes for the Q2-2026 earnings reporting season (with 10% of S&P 500 companies reporting actual results), 88% of these companies have reported a positive EPS surprise and 85% have reported a positive revenue surprise.
The US summer holiday season is starting to peak now and will stay like this until early August. The season overall ends on their Labor Day on September 7. We note this because commercial activity is different during this period and financial market activity is lighter than usual.
The same is true for Canada of course. But US border states are doing it tough because Canadians are choosing to avoid the US for their holidays as the insults and tariff actions from Trump's Washington swamp stay aggressive.
In China, new stimulus is being rolled out. Its gigantic "Six Networks" buildout is getting a major boost as part of more infrastructure spending. Those six are: water networks (canals), power grids, data centers, 6G development, undergrounding pipelines, and supply-chain efficiency upgrades. But they are also trying to get their service sector re-energised as well with targeted 'investments'.
Meanwhile, China is re-thinking its tax rebates that are driving its export competitiveness. It needs those funds for its domestic projects, and it doesn't need the international alarm their mercantalist export policies are creating.
In Europe, the ECB's Q2 lending survey has found banks have tightened credit standards moderately for firms on higher perceived risks and lower risk tolerance. Corporate loan demand rose while demand for housing loans and consumer debt decreased. Interestingly, companies seeking green loans were found to have much better financial profiles.
Germany's ZEW sentiment survey recovered notably in July after four months on weakness, and this is mirrored in their wider survey for the EU.
The price of copper is rising again, getting near the record highs it posted at the start of the Iran-US conflict. Driving some of this are unusually low copper stocks in China.
Meanwhile the FAO is reporting that hunger in the world fell again in 2025 and for a third consecutive year. Around 645 million people, or 7.8% of the world's population, experienced hunger last year, down from 8.1% in 2024 and 8.6% in 2022
The UST 10yr yield is now just on 4.63%, up +3 bps from this time yesterday and approaching its recent mid-May highs. The key 2-10 yield curve is now at +37 bps (down -1 bp). Their 1-5 curve is now at +30 bps (+1 bp) and the 3 mth-10yr curve is at +92 bps (+2 bps). The China 10 year bond rate is down -1 bp at 1.73%. The Japanese 10 year bond yield is now at 2.72%, unchanged. The Australian 10 year bond yield starts today at 4.98%, also unchanged from yesterday. The NZ Government 10 year bond rate is at 4.71%, down -2 bps from yesterday.
Wall Street is +0.9% higher today on the S&P500 with the Nasdaq up +1.3%. Overnight, European markets were higher too between Frankfurt's +0.7% and Paris's +0.3%. Yesterday Tokyo ended recovering +3.3%. Hong Kong was unchanged but Shanghai was up +1.8%. Singapore ended up +0.5%. The ASX200 was essentially unchanged however. And the NZX50 ended down -0.3%.
The price of gold has risen to US$4069/oz, up +US$65 from yesterday. Silver is now just over US$58.50/oz, up +US$2 from yesterday.
Oil prices are +US$1.50 higher from yesterday at just on US$84.50/bbl in the US, while the international Brent price is now just over US$92/bbl and up +US$3. Hormuz transits are still just a trickle There have been just 1 crude tanker and 3 cargo ships exiting over the past 24 hours (4 dark with transponders off) and 11 entering for new loads (3 dark) and all this traffic is Iran-linked. The Red Sea is also now effectively blocked at Yemen.
The Kiwi dollar is -20 bps lower from yesterday at just over 58.3 USc. Against the Aussie we are also down -20 bps at 83.3 AUc. Against the euro we are down -10 bps at just on 51.1 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today at 62.2 which is down -10 bps from this time yesterday.
The bitcoin price starts today at US$66,421 and up +1.3% from this time yesterday. Volatility over the past 24 hours has again been modest at just over +/-1.4%.
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
The easiest place to stay up with event risk is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
55 Comments
Pensioners and potholes.
Change in government spending, by country, by category (%-pts of GDP)
https://flo.uri.sh/visualisation/27335262/embed?auto=1
I just don't get how people think we can live longer and still retire at 65, it makes very little sense to me. I'm worried what AI could do to life expectancy too.
We need to get NZ super up to 70 ASAP. My generation will get penalised by that, but at least NZ super would still be viable. It seems to be the boomers that are already retired that insist on 65, my generation would prefer an older age but with reassurance that it's viable and will still exist.
Kiwisaver should be the ticket to an earlier retirement, with the government helping out via NZS in the later years that are more difficult to plan and save for. They should gradually move NZS age to 80 but Kiwisaver stays at 65. But this needs to be signalled now.
There's a broad spectrum of needs to be addressed Jimbo. Finding work if you lose your job, even in your 50's, can be challenging. Employers don't want to engage older people except for minimum wage menial positions. Many ignore skills and qualifications while looking for younger staff. GRI is not sufficient to live on today. It hasn't kept up with the basic costs of living, so savings must be available. Kiwisaver will be crucial.
And then there is the physical impacts of aging. At almost 69, I'm as fit and capable as someone in their 50s, but what I do notice is diminished energy reserves. I still work a 40 hour week, and go to a gym 6 days a week, but while I believe I am ahead of the pack, I really notice that my energy reserves are not what I had when I was in my 50s or younger. It's really not a simple equation. Any change to retirement legislation will likely not affect me now, but will affect younger generations and I feel that their rights to be able to make the choice that best suits them should be protected and preserved.
Finding work is also difficult for young people too. That doesn't mean there should be a universal payment to young people.
Many of the boomers i know that had physical jobs still ended up working well past 65. For those that can't there is the sickness benefit or maybe a new variant for over 65s.
Ideally we still retire at 65, but via our own savings instead of bludging off the next generations. Make Kiwisaver compulsory and keep the Kiwisaver age at 65. NZS still has a role at the later stages of life that are hard to plan for.
Sounding like a political broadcast.
The global degrowth happening now, means all forward bets are moot. Also, 'bludging' is actually physical; we need to stop consuming the planet (the one which won't be there for them if we keep on).
There will be so much less work being done in the future, that the proxy structure we all take for now-granted, won't exist. Better to plan your way to be insulated from that, both individually and collectively.
We just need to means test super like every other benefit. It's crazy to give a benefit to someone who is a millionaire when we have young families living hand to mouth paying tax to support those millionaires.
Agree. There's something wrong when some retirees are using their pensions to fund an annual trip to Europe. That was never what it was intended for.
Over half of NZ households pay no net income tax after rebates & credits, including a large % of those on NZ Super (~5x as many now still working than was the case 25 years ago).
The diminishing number of net taxpayers are those funding everyone else, including other people's kids via eg WFF.
What's your point?
He would like a system where more money is taken from those struggling to survive so that those who are comfortable with high salaries can keep more of their money for luxury holidays.
Apparently you would like a system where more money is taken from those working to paying their own way & taxes in their lives so that those who are comfortable with depending on taxpayer charity from those who earn high salaries can keep more of other people's money for their lifestyle choices including kids they can't afford.
Definition of Marxist.
There's middle ground here, away from the extremities. Some with a lot of wealth don't need to be receiving a state funded pension. Lets be honest, the state pension allows for only a very basic lifestyle, if you're relying on it and not much else. As usual it would be those that worked hard, sacrificed, paid a lot of tax and have a modest nest egg that would be kicked in the teeth.
Jimbos idea of retirees on a sickness benefit doesn't really save money over a pension, merely different branding?
You'd almost think pensions paid disappeared into the void, instead of being recycled in the economy through rates, energy, maintenance, food, health providers, rest homes etc
Throwing around "maxist" isn't a thoughtful comeback either, because the notion of the collective state providing an income for retirees is kinda "marxist".
No, that's not true. I'd rather see tax move away from income and towards taxing land, inheritance, capital gains etc. Discouraging people from working for money as harshly as we do is very odd.
When NZ had a 66% top tax rate, you will have enjoyed free tertiary education, expansion of the electrical grid, and plenty of specialist workers around like GP's, engineers, surgeons etc who paid these tax rates and still earned more than most, so that you could enjoy the productive investments of govt.
You now wish to keep top tax rates low despite the growing need for more investment into healthcare, policing, national infrastructure, but offer no other solution to pay for it? If you wish to bag on kids people can't afford, consider those kids will be the ones funding your current pension.
Have you ever lived on a benefit?
I find a good way of judging a person I try to avoid is whether they have any empathy.
"We just need to means test super like every other benefit"
Firstly, not every benefit is means tested.
The more important point though, is that we are penalising people who have worked throughout their lives, paid for Super, saved their money, started a business and provided jobs, and we're rewarding reckless people who have contributed little to society, and who have possibly received benefits their whole life and who possibly have contributed little towards super. A real incentive to do as little as possible for your country.
If we keep taxing the productive people to pay for the unproductive people, then NZ will just fall further behind.
All benefits should be means tested. Sure there are some other minor ones that are not means tested (e.g. veteran's pension) but super is the most expensive by a long shot ($23B v $132m). Let's not dodge the issue.
The more well off should be expected to support those who are less well off at a reasonable standard of living. That is the hallmark of a decent civilised society.
Are you advocating scraping all benefits?
Are you advocating scraping all benefits?
TOP are I believe
My understanding is TOP want everyone to be on a benefit called "Citizen's Income" of $19,400 per year (capped at income over $350k).
Was there a point you were making?
There stands to be a great saving from the admin of benefits vis this policy, and what ever would the wealthy would do if they couldn't bag on beneficiaries. The point being it wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing to scrap all benefits, and means test super.
Scrapping all benefits would indeed be wonderful. Why do say that the hard working have to pay for the lazy ?
Because hard working and high-income aren't the same thing.
Indeed they tend to be inverse
Sounds like you're veering towards scrapping Super entirely here - why am I paying for some 70 year old who is too lazy to fund their own lifestyle?
I don't. I say the rich should help those in need. It's all about perspective and empathy. Many countries have no social welfare net, they are usually the poorest with the lowest standard of living. You may want to make the move to one of them and save on your tax bill, try:
- South Sudan
- Somalia
- Afghanistan
- Chad
- Central African Republic
- Democratic Republic of the Congo
Can we please avoid this myth that people have "paid for their super all their life"? Excluding the super fund in the future, all pensions are paid out of current taxation.
and who have possibly received benefits their whole life and who possibly have contributed little towards super.
Why only give your perceived outgroup this "possibly" caveat?
for example:
people who have *possibly* worked throughout their lives, *possibly* paid for Super, *possibly* saved their money, *possibly* started a business and *possibly* provided jobs,
Our universal super benefit relies on none of these assertions, in fact nothing prevents your demonised working age folk on a tested benefit from jumping straight onto an untested super when they have an arbitrary 65th birthday and suddenly become worthy of such entitlements.
Means testing is not penalising, more cutting hugely wasteful spending, on those who don't need it and might *possibly* barely notice
"give a benefit to someone who is a millionaire"
Are you meaning assets or income or both? Family home? Family bach? What if I gift it to my kids early?
If people get to 65 and have the option of working and not getting NZS, or quit work and get it, won't more people do the latter? Can we afford that?
If we are going to treat it as a benefit, may as well get rid of the whole thing and have pensioners on the invalids benefit. But not at a fixed age, you have to work until you are medically incapable.
We have existing rules to catch people who divest prior to 65 to secure Government funding of their aged care. A similar review for super beneficiaries could apply. Nothing wrong with having an entitlement age for a person to receive a benefit based on age. However, if you want to push for an invalid's style benefit until a person breaks that's your deal.
The claim people may stop working to get super could be applied to the unemployment benefit. If you are on a good income no one is giving that up to get a benefit.
My gripe is that I pay a ton of tax and while I have no issue if it pays for less well of people e.g. unemployed, poor families or elderly with few assets or income, it pisses me off that my tax dollars are going to people who are some of the wealthiest in NZ.
I suggest you're asking the wrong question G. You should be asking how does money work in our economy today, and what is the purpose of tax and where it is targeted?
The bottom line is your tax isn't being paid to someone else. It is being taken to remove money from the economy. There are a bunch of political myths and lies around that whole question, many of which are based in crappy attitudes coming out of Wellington towards ordinary people.
No. It is being taken to commandeer a percentage of the energy and material available. From private to public, thence re-distributed.
Some who are digit-rich, resent that. Those who aren't, don't.
By and large, it's a fight over who gets access to the surplus energy; the rich or everyone. Public hospitals or private. Pensions or rough sleeping. Selfishness vs social conscience.
But nobody anticipated an ever-less world Global Shipping Has Been Changed Forever with Sal Mercogliano | TGS 227 - YouTube as the Titanic we'd be having this discussion on.
Both statements can be true
I think there is a problem with giving a person a benefit based on age. Benefits should only be for those who can't work, not just because you've hit a magic number.
Unemployment benefit is not similar. If you are capable of working you need to be actively seeking a job, you'd feel like a bludger, and it's not anywhere near as much as NZS. If I got to 65 and had the option of part time work or retiring and the pay was the same, I'd probably retire.
We are kind of arguing the similar point anyway, that people should be using their own money to fund retirement. I just think we should get there by increasing the eligibility age, not means testing. My approach encourages people to save, your approach encourages them to retire with nothing. There will still be benefits available for those who have no savings and can't work.
"I don't believe in magic numbers..." then goes on to suggest a bigger magic number...
Fair enough, although not many still work at 80
You first need to define work
Thought-provoking takes on the real world:
"Start Preparing Yourself..." - Jiang Xueqin - YouTube
US Economy in ‘VERY DANGEROUS’ Place as Emergency Oil Reserves Hit 43-YEAR LOW | Prof. Richard Wolff
"Devastating Global Economic CRASH..." - Jeffrey Sachs
Perspective of the tableau upon which discussions of 'retirement' need to embroidered.
Spending a fair amount of time on YT podcasts, lol (I do too).
Good news for local workers - accredited vape shops have dropped from 78 to 77.
Find employers who are approved to hire workers from overseas on an Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) or other skilled work visa.
https://www.immigration.govt.nz/work/requirements-for-work-visas/approv…
Australia is heading for its weakest decade of living standards growth in more than a century, fuelling support for One Nation and prompting former Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe to warn that fundamental policy change is needed to encourage business investment.
GDP per person has risen by just 4 per cent so far this decade, putting the 2020s on track to be the weakest period for living standards since the 1910s, after years of stagnant productivity were compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic, the energy crisis triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and high inflation.
Long predicted.
No surprise.
Except to economists, and those myopically regurgitating the emanations thereof.
'Rising standards' really boils down to two things: energy efficiencies, and throughput volume. Both have upper limits as Malthus absolutely correctly pointed out. Both limits are being reached, indeed have been for some time.
Then there is per-head. That peaked even further back - most pollies and economists count totals (hence the drive for more people). But less people per joule and less people per ton, means more per head. Meaning the child-avoiding move is on the right track.
Business investment won't change that. I read Bollards book - no idea. Same obviously with Lowe. Not their fault - they were taught the world was flat.
Economics attracts the sort of people that get unnaturally exited at columns of figures. Even better if they add up at the bottom and you can make a graph.
Whether those figures add up to real world consequences? Neither here, nor there.
Of course they are, they took our playbook off have mass immigration to replace the great resignation of baby boomers, which pumped housing prices to the heavens, but as they have watered down their GDP per capita and made numerous changes to try and keep the housing market pumping, they will suffer the same as us but to a lesser degree. Keep an eye out for house price falls, stories of houses in distress, unemployment rising, mortgagee sales and likely a crackdown on immigration as they blame the migrants for all their woes.
hunger in the world fell again in 2025 and for a third consecutive year
Great to hear some positive news!
incoming el nino
Fossil fertiliser.
Just based on what is happening in the Straits of Hormuz alone, that trend will reverse horrendously.
The die is already cast. The delayed onset fertilizer-shock will cascade into a severe humanitarian crisis, causing reduced crop yields, soaring food inflation, and acute global hunger.
The FAO has warned that persistent constraints around the region will cause crop yields for fertilizer intensive staples like wheat, rice, and maize to tumble.
More than 1 billion people are exposed to Gulf-linked fertilizer flows. India imports 40-60% of its urea and phosphate fertilizers from the ME.
Countries in East and west Africa lack the finance to outbid wealthier nations for scarce nutrients. All of these factors threatens to push tens of millions of people into acute food insecurity.
Those shocks you talk about Colin - historically the country that caused the problem got invaded, not just attacked, invaded, taken over completely. Iran needs to ponder that. It probably wouldn't be the US, but other Arab nations who they try to force to bend the knee won't like it.
Uni of Chicago-based, Prof. Jeffrey Sachs : How the Military-Industrial Complex Produces Perpetual War
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tzP9hkY8ME
Quoted at 32:00...
"We (the US) have no sense of how the rest of the world is moving on, building things, deepening their infrastructure, improving their technologies, where as we are fighting these wars and bragging about how great we are, and how this stock market boom proves everything.
What we are setting up is a phenomenal financial crisis - I don't know when - nobody can predict such things, but we are way out on a limb in all of these wars that we can't win, and that Trump doesn't know how to stop anyway.
It would take an extraordinary president of a great capacity to actually end these wars, and Trump is obviously not a person of any capacity. He is, as I say, the perfect channelling of the greed and corruption of the MIC, and so in a way, he is the perfect emblem of all of this.
We are just building up a massive bubble, a massive amount of debt, unwinnable wars, and no sense and truth about what is happening..."
Pity Sachs has a blind spot with the Russian Military Federation? Perhaps it's delayed guilt about being an instigator of the shock therapy that turned Russia into a mafia state? Or maybe he indulged too liberally in sweet honey?
On the contrary, Palmtree, Sachs fought for a smooth transition for post-Soviet Russia and was not heeded.
This parroted narrative is a neocon ploy used by the West to try to discredit his huge efforts to expose the MIC's forever-war policy, that has grown so out of control, that it has become a very real threat to the very existence of humanity.
He advocated for a rapid transition paired with massive Western financial assistance from the US and G7 comparable to the aid given to Poland, in order to stabilise their currency and to protect their social services during the transition into a hybrid-capitalist model
He argued against rapid corrupt mass privatisation, preferring to first establish the rule of law and regulate markets. G7 leaders flatly refused to aid Russia, and instead demanded full debt repayment.
It must be heart-breaking for Sachs to witness what is developing into potentially a nuclear confrontation between Russia, NATO, and the US, especially when Putin himself made every effort to get the RF joined up with NATO so that a major war could be avoided indefinitely, and that mutually respectful trading practices could also help to eliminate that risk.
If you cannot grasp what entrenched distructive Russiaphobia, and the Western habit of a blind refusal to listen to Russia's plea, then I suggest you listen to Fmr. Royal Navy Commander Steve Jermy, with Tucker Carlson where he plainly states...
...at 40:00...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEzocqkU3vM
" NATO exists to confront a threat created by its own existence, yet doesn't have the power to confront the threat that it's existence has created."
I'd take issue with that statement you quote Colin. I have huge respect for Sachs and what he advocates, but the Soviet ambition and threat wasn't created by NATO, it was why NATO was created. And while we discuss that, we shouldn't forget the type of government established in the Soviet states. Stalin was responsible for the deaths of 10s of millions of his own people. He was far worse than Hitler.
Sorry Colin, but anyone unable to identify a fascist dictator on a genocidal imperialistic crusade isn't really a person I regard as having any credibility. Certainly incredibly poor judgement, or probably agenda.
Also in this interview by Pascal Lottaz of Neutrality Studies of Prof Alastair Renfrew, regarding... paraphrased...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEzocqkU3vM
..."The West's giant mistake where they insist on portraying Russia as a power-hungry mad-dog, when the truth is that whoever the leadership in Moscow (or St. Petersburg) was, the one thing all leaders wanted above all, was security.
Security from centuries of invasion. Just how to communicate that to a West that is hell-bend on claiming the Kremlin is an expansionist power?"
The Prof is a facinating mix - a Scottish Literary scholar, and Prof. of English and Comparative Literature, with his main area of specialisation in literary and critical theory. He has also taught and published on Russian, and Scottish Literature.
Time stamps...
Timestamps: 00:00:00 Introduction 00:00:54 Why Russia Is Misunderstood 00:04:53 Soviet Fears and Foreign Intervention 00:09:50 Allied Intervention in 1918–22 00:13:16 The Lasting Impact of World War II 00:17:15 Why Russia’s Message Is Ignored 00:26:55 Georgia and the Provocation Trap 00:31:17 Minsk, Donbas and the 2022 Talks 00:35:11 Who Gains From the War? 00:42:59 Why Europe Is Rearming 00:49:58 Can Russia Avoid a Wider War? 00:53:42
I believe that the message within the 17:00 time-mark is one of the most vital principles for Westerners to understand.
Indeed, coming to understand our Western mental block could well be a lifesaver, especially if we can come to accept that Russia has an enormous potential to advance a peaceful new global paradigm if we can come to acknowledge the fundamentally defensive nature of Russian foreign policy.
Thing is, your "experts" ignore what Russia actually does. Russia is perfectly open about wanting to redraw international boundaries for their own resource exploitation, yet these Russian apologists/propagandists flood the zone with all sorts of shit claims. A turd is still a turd, no matter how much you polish it!
When it comes to discussions with the likes of you and Murray, I bow out and reflect on Mark Twain's timeless and sage advice.
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.