Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand, with news 'growth' is to be sacrificed to get the inflation genie back in the bottle, and the resulting pain accepted as the cost of doing so.
First, softer consumer spending and higher inventories put the US Q1 GDP further into 'negative territory' in their final revision on economic activity in the March quarter. Although these latest revisions were minor, they did feed into recession jitters in financial markets.
But American mortgage applications rose slightly last week while their benchmark 30 year fixed mortgage rate fell. That juiced up refinancing activity.
Meanwhile, speaking at an ECB meeting, the US Fed boss reiterated the US central bank's commitment to do-whatever-it-takes to control high inflation includes risking a recession. He said the bigger risk is to fail to restore price stability. Powell said there is a risk the US economy will slow more than they want to see but painful shocks may be a price that has to be paid. He also confirmed the Fed will raising rates fast and aims to move into restrictive territory fairly quickly. Either another +75 bps or +50 bps increase is expected at their July 28 meeting.
More positively, Japanese retail activity is rising, and by more than was expected. It rose by +3.6% in May from the same month a year ago, and the April data was revised up to +3.1%. This is now the third straight month of increase in retail trade and the steepest pace since May 2021, boosted by some somewhat surprising strength in consumption.
In China, their central bank said it is preparing a new round of "vigorous" monetary stimulus to support their flagging economy. At least they don't have material inflation.
Singapore reported its May PPI rise and it was worryingly high, up more than +31% from a year ago as energy cost rises punished them. But, the month-on-month rise was running at a slower rate.
Germany reported its June inflation rate and unexpectedly it came in less than the 8% forecast, in fact at 7.6%. On an EU harmonised basis it is running at 8.2% which is lower than the 8.8% expected and the 8.7% in May. The month-on-month change was very little (+0.1%) so may be they have topped out.
In Australia, retail sales rose by +0.9% month-on-month in May to AU$34.2 bln, topping market forecasts and matching the April gain. This was also their fifth straight month of growth, as the Aussie economy recovered further from pandemic disruptions. The rise from a year ago exceeded +10%, handily beating inflation. Department stores had the largest month-on-month rise, up +5.1%, followed by cafes and restaurants. Given Australian consumer sentiment is low, this free-spending is a puzzle - not too dissimilar to the same track in the US. Makes you suspect "sentiment" is now hijacked as political, whereas the spending track tells the real economic story.
Meanwhile, Australian energy is getting a 'green' push from their regulator. They say Australia must accelerate a move away from coal to renewables and storage and urgently approve more than AU$12 bln of transmission projects to escape the energy crisis.
The UST 10yr yield starts today -10 bps lower from this time yesterday at 3.10%. The UST 2-10 rate curve is flatter at just +5 bps and their 1-5 curve is much flatter at +24 bps. Their 30 day-10yr curve is also flatter at +202 bps. The Australian ten year bond is -9 bps lower at 3.69%. The China Govt ten year bond is down -1 bp at 2.85%. And the New Zealand Govt ten year will start today up +1 bp at 3.94%.
On Wall Street the S&P500 is a little higher in their Wednesday session, up +0.2%. Overnight, European markets were lower but in a wide range. London was down just -0.2% while at the other end of the scale Frankfurt was down -1.7%. Yesterday Tokyo ended down -0.9%, Hong Kong was down -1.9%, and Shanghai fell -1.4%. The ASX200 ended its Wednesday session down -0.9% while the NZX50 ended its day down -0.5%.
The price of gold is at US$1818/oz in New York and down -US$3 from this time yesterday.
And oil prices are -50 USc/bbl softer at just under US$110/bbl in the US, while the international Brent price is unchanged at just over US$113.50/bbl. High petrol prices in the US "driving season" (summer holiday season) is causing more families to stay at home this year, revealed by low volume demand for petrol.
The Kiwi dollar will open today lower at 62.2 USc. Against the Australian dollar we are little-changed at 90.4 AUc. Against the euro we are marginally firmer at 59.6 euro cents. That means our TWI-5 starts today at just on 70.4 and down fractionally.
The bitcoin price has moved a little lower since this time yesterday and is now at US$20,011 and down -2.8%. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been modest at +/- 1.9%.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
143 Comments
The Fed’s Austerity Program to Reduce Wages
The pretense behind the Fed’s recent increase in its discount rate by 0.75 percent on June 15 (to a paltry range of 1.50% to 1.75%) is that raising interest rates will cure inflation by deterring borrowing to spend on the basic needs that make up the Consumer Price Index and its related GDP deflator. But banks do not finance much consumption, except for credit card debt, which is now less than student loans and automobile loans. Banks lend almost entirely to buy real estate, stocks and bonds, not goods and services. Some 80 percent of bank loans are real estate mortgages, and most of the remainder loans are collateralized by stocks and bonds. So raising interest rates will not lead wage-earners to borrow less to buy consumer goods. The main price effect of less bank credit and higher interest rates is on asset prices – deterring borrowing to buy homes, as well as for arbitragers to buy stocks and bonds.
There is an interesting article (by Dr Oliver Hartwich) in the local rag this morning about lessons on inflation and a chap called John Law who is prominent in economics history. Worth reading. A clear lesson from the 1700s on the effects of unfettered money printing, with no constraints on the amount of money in circulation. Indeed it does emphasize a point I have made that governments cannot print money without consequence, nor can they abrogate their responsibilities by giving the ability to private banks without restraint. The consequences are inevitable and unavoidable. The current situation is created specifically through Government and reserve bank negligence. Ask Mr Orr at the RBNZ if he has heard of John Law, and if he denies it, mark him as incompetent.
John Law is an eminent economist - but he lived in an era of money being backed by a commodity. Those days are gone. However, I completely agree that central banks need to take their credit regulation role more seriously. Cheap credit for speculative investment activity is complete madness.
I wonder about all these sentiment surveys: "Given Australian consumer sentiment is low, this free-spending is a puzzle - not too dissimilar to the same track in the US. Makes you suspect "sentiment" is now hijacked as political, whereas the spending track tells the real economic story."
The same thing happens with business sentiment here - goes up or down depending on the colour of the incumbent govt. - but often also diverges from business' own intentions of investment and expectations of profitability.
Maybe we're being bombarded with "Putin's gone mad, China's gonna invade Taiwan, the RBs are out to kill the economy and make you lose your job, inflation is stealing your money, you're going to be poor in your retirement 'cause you're not saving enough, the housing market is collapsing, the greenies are coming for your comfortable lifestyle".
And there absolutely are people who are living hand to mouth, and others who will lose their recently purchased over priced house if they lose their job.
But actually enough people are looking at their house, their bank account and their job, and saying 'I'll keep my head down a bit, but actually I'm OK, and maybe the kids will be able to afford a house, and maybe I'll drive a bit less and that'll be a small contribution to making the world a better place too."
Maybe sentiment surveys are driven by news, rather than the reality of daily life, and news has to be overwhelmingly bad to become news, while daily life is OK for a quiet majority of people?
“a quiet majority, ” unseen, unheard. A household whose only property is their home and modest come manageable debt, steady job(s.) Head down plugging away, no flamboyant expectations or lifestyle. Someone here posted only about 30% of residential homes in NZ are mortgaged but it would be interesting indeed to quantify the quiet majority more exactly.
Depends. If you spent years living like a monk because the expectation was you save a house deposit bigger than most boomers paid for their whole house, then the idea of 'oh well, just not go out anymore or have any fun forever I guess' is a pretty severe mental thrashing to take. I'd suggest there's a big difference between living like a Kardashian and being able to afford a modest family weekend at a $150/night motel/resort once every couple of years.
These boomer digs get a bit tiresome.
For the record this (just) boomer often worked 12 hour days, did live like a monk, only spent on necessities not wants, never sat at a cafe or wandered around shopping centres to fulfill a need, no takeaways, never took overseas holidays, holidays if any were in a tent. And that was just to get the deposit. Once the home was bought it was furnished with a throw away tv and couch. Then every extra cent went on the mortgage.
Sure houses were cheaper......but most of us didn't get life on a plate.
Awesome. I'm up at 5am each day as a matter of course to beat the traffic because someone figured out you could crank house prices by adding millions of people to Auckland over the course of 30 years and never upgrading the infrastructure, because then someone might have to pay more tax at some point. So I think I have that one covered.
I agree infrastructure spend has been woeful. 25% of our population has been added since Nats in 2009 and it was not slowed down until 2020 and COVID. JK might just be a boomer (he is 60 born in 61), but Jacinda has added an easy 300,000 of her own without building anything.
Yes, and worth remembering due to dithering at a Council level, the spread of the extras added has not been uniform and some formerly quiet exurbs are now getting infilled and essentially part of Auckland, with no plans to add any rapid transit - indeed, it looks like some parts of Wellington will get rapid transit before the bits of Auckland where tens of thousands of new houses are being added over the next ten years.
To buy a house was very competitive back in 1990 when I bought. The only thing that was better back then was that over time the mortgage interest rate kept going down. But this was not expected. By me at least. So that made paying it off unexpectedly quick. Coupled with its "value" going up in sympathy. Again unexpected.
Thats the story. Fullstop. No boomer ripping someone off narrative.
Dead right
our first home was modest, no en-suite etc
two mortgages, money wasn’t easy to get banks would only lend 70% so many of us had to get a second mortgage
all the furniture was second hand and there were no luxuries
it wasn’t all beer and roses for us boomers
My favourite example to bring up here is how much the old bone-in roast lamb leg cost, a feature of ye olde family Sunday roasts.
They run about $40 - $50 now. That's about 30% of my weekly food shop.
Plus I can't afford to get together with my family on weekends because a) we all live across the city and we'd end up driving about 30km to see each other and that costs too much and b) some of my family ended up leaving because Auckland was too expensive, even for DINKY YoPros.
But sure, iPhones or whatever.
2nd mortgages lol. Is this because you expected to buy a house in your early 20's? Could have just saved a little harder with the tail wind of 15% term deposit rates. Look we all make mistakes, but you just need to accept it was easier back then if you made sensible choices.
My first home was modest, no ensuite, second hand furniture etc and this was in 2017.
....and? I mean thanks for the yarn, but you've also proved my point. Your experiences, from when houses were much cheaper and modest lifestyles were more affordable for families are probably no longer relevant. Why is it so hard for some people to accept that it might actually be harder for young people than it was for them?
I think it is understood that buying a house has never been harder. That is just a fact.
I think the problem is one of perspective, the reality that most boomers could afford a house is not their fault, it was the time they were born in. It was not easy for them as you can see from their stories of hard times.
People who are legitimately frustrated by the all time high cost of housing declaring the boomers to be at fault for that is the rub, they were simply doing the best they could with what they had.
Admitting it would go a very long way. Instead whenever the topic of today's housing struggles is brought up, they chime in with their anecdotes of half truths and twisted numbers because the world revolves around them.
Had one person the other day claim they had to pay for food, power etc while paid $45 per week in the late 80's, for a family of 4 while paying 21% mortgage rates. The same 80's where minimum wage was increased to $4.25 ($170 per week) in 1985? Maybe they should have worked more hours.
People who are legitimately frustrated by the all time high cost of housing declaring the boomers to be at fault for that is the rub, they were simply doing the best they could with what they had.
I think you'll find it's the spending decades stacking the deck politically and financially in their favour and then offering ill-informed snark and judgement on struggling young Kiwis that is actually the reason people are pissed off, all the while pretending they haven't benefited from a huge intergenerational wealth transfer in their favour and that it was all down to hard work or not going to cafes or whatever dross they dream up.
I guess it's in your framing.
For instance, one other issue you're having is trying to raise a family on 1 income (presumably), when the market and society moved on from that decades ago (i.e. it's now common for households to have two full-time workers). That's really no one's "fault", but times have moved on from the 60s.
Really sounds like some or several things in your life need to change, because the state isn't going to fix it, and it sounds like you're fairly dissatisfied.
(presumably)
You should presume less. And I'll note this isn't the first time you've made inaccurate assumptions about my personal situation in a bid to lecture me about something, which I have already told you is neither welcome, nor warranted, nor correct.
If I want your opinion on my personal situation, I will give you the information with which to make an informed one. Until then, keep it to yourself/
I think that what people are a bit pissed off about is that after benefitting from being born in the time they were born in they subsequently voted to bring in measures that pulled out all the things that made that time so affordable so they could hog all the good stuff.
Facts don't care about your feelings. Fact is the Boomers are the biggest population cohort the world has ever seen and they lived and worked during a period of growth the likes of which we may never see again.
The fact is the generations following the boomers will not have access to the same cheap imported energy and debt, and will be worse off from a financial and quality of life aspect (apart from mobile internet devices & subscription entertainment meaninglessness).
Fact is the disparity has been enhanced as being the largest voting block, legislation has swayed towards maintaining wealth for the Boomer demographic (and their kids), regardless their kids will not have it as good. Can the finger be pointed at individual Boomers? With difficulty. Can the finger be pointed at the generation? For sure.
- More favourable DTI
- Smaller deposit size
- Less interest paid over the life of the loan due to shorter mortgages
- Capitalising of family benefit
- 3% housing corp loans for many
- Boosted supply in post-war decades making housing more affordable
- Higher ownership rate at younger ages.
All well covered here on Interest and elsewhere. Take your pick. No use ignoring these things that have been well covered.
Amen Ras. The anti-Boomer brigade cannot think very deeply at all. They have gone down a conspiracy theory black hole. Blaming Boomers is just an example of their stupidity because it was the politicians who created the situation, not the boomers. With almost no Boomer politicians this brigade still claim that Boomers hold sway over Government. It is a wonder they can ever make their own breakfast with this demonstration of their ability to think.
It is a wonder they can ever make their own breakfast with this demonstration of their ability to think.
Ah yes, it's politicians, not the people who voted for them.
Maybe learn what an 'elected representative' is before firing out greatest hits about how stupid other people are.
Again, why is it so hard for you accept that young Kiwis have it harder then they did? Why resort to pathetic childish name-calling?
Tell me this GV while you're blaming Boomers (and in this you're give a derogatory bent to the name, so don't talk about name calling!), we are several generations of politicians and voters past the Boomer blocks and nothing has changed. The policies do not talk about changing what has and is being done. Basically it is just more of the same. Why and what are you going to do about it?
But it's worse. The World is now facing the effects of unrestrained population growth for 2000 years. That growth has led to an exponential growth in the consumption of resources which has resulted in the current environmental problems we face. Culturally we have bet on a religious based political system which is fundamentally based in a BS myth that essentially says God will fix everything and denies what is in front of our own eyes. That culture and politics has built in a class structure based on wealth, and those at the top do not stop accumulating, and put more effort into denying to others what they themselves desire. In doing this they have bought generations of politicians who make up the very policies that will kill us all in the end. Correspondents like PDK talk at length about EROEI, but this conversation while accurate, still misses the point. The problem is population size nothing else. No one anywhere, talks about a planetary sustainable population that will not destroy the planet. Frankly until this happens, we are stuffed!
The policies do not talk about changing what has and is being done. Basically it is just more of the same. Why and what are you going to do about it?
I guess that's kind of the problem. The Gen-Xers are in a comfy spot, and are unlikely to vote against their own interests. But expecting me personally to overturn decades of structurally baked-in political and financial systems that are incredibly effective at channeling wealth upwards and away from young people is perhaps setting the bar a bit high for me at an individual level. My personal preference is that we just blockade Wellington and starve concessions out of them with a good old fashioned siege. It sounds absurd, but then again so did houses that cost 10x incomes. Still happened though.
Now we are getting to the core of a good debate! But blockading Wellington won't work. A few did try it on the parliament lawns though. The problem is the nature of politicians and our political system. Many politicians first come to parliament as a part of a party (we rarely elect independents in sufficient numbers), and although they often confess to high ideals and a desire to change the status quo, they pretty much get steam rollered by the political system. Politicians who are mavericks get tossed onto the trash heap pretty quickly. Winston Peters is a good example. He held many a government to account when he had the weight of numbers, but he also had his foibles.
Good politicians work for all generations. I had a conversation with someone who as part of a union, voted to accept a offer that rolled back some retirement privileges. He said they didn't affect him as he wasn't retiring anytime soon. I pointed out that they do effect him, as when he does decide to retire, he won't be able to call for the retirement privileges that were in place when he started, as he voted for them to go. People tend to think like that when they vote for politicians, and no one asks what the long term effects of the policies will be. Not sure how to change that. Would you vote for a party whose plank manifesto included reducing NZs population to 2.5 to 3 million? If not why not?
Would I? Perhaps I would. I would vote for a party that put the social contract of the relationship between the state, their ability to raise revenue by compulsive means and what a citizen should expect on the table for discussion. The deal at the moment seems to be sit back and get poorer while we import more people to outcompete you for resources we won't do our bit to help improve access to, or provide the infrastructure to try and stop living standards unwinding.
But I'm expecting too much. Our system is so broken and partisan that we've managed to politicise basic tax admin like adjusting income brackets in line with inflation to the extent that they are called 'tax cuts', but the status quo of a decade of neglect isn't considered a tax increase. It's like our government is annoyed it has to hide their contempt for the people who make the whole thing possible.
I disagree that you're expecting too much. High ideals are a starting point. The issue is the time expectation. It takes time to implement anything. To roll back the population would take generations, not years. But our politicians are again talking about immigration policies. Do we ask them why? why can't we support industry training up Kiwis to build the skills we need? If they need to go overseas to get some of that experience, why can't we sponsor them, on contract to do so and come back, ensuring they get good pay to do so?
I agree our system is too partisan, but we ask the wrong questions too. Have we asked why GR gave a bunch of money to the banks to lend to business's, rather than the Government using just say Kiwi Bank, or as they did in the end, the RBNZ? Do we ask why the Government is afraid to regulate private banks to protect the people? (Depositors funds being the property of the bank and not the depositor) Or why the banks aren't required to pay fair return on the depositors funds for interest they get, or limit the amount of money they can bring in from overseas to lend out here?
We have to start somewhere, and the journey must begin. There will be pain, but no matter what we do someone will suffer. the question is who does our Government serve? Us or the big money?
Point is society at any time reacts and lives to the rules, opportunities and abilities that are present. Folk in the so called boomer years set about their lifestyle according to those circumstances prevailing. Unfortunately those that lived an average lifestyle as such then, are now being accused by some of quasi criminal activity. A question then is what exactly would each of those accusers have done that was markedly different if they had been born in those post war years.
Give this video a watch. It’s based on UK data but highlights similar trends we have seen in NZ. This from a person in the boomer age group and member of the Conservative party - so not someone just looking out for their own interests
No one said life is ever easy. Yes you worked hard (we all do)
And yes the whole boomer slagging thing can be a bit universal.
But hands down, as a generation of People, compared to people who are just starting out, you have enjoyed a very very favourable time to be an investor.
Thats just to money printing side, don't get me started on fossil fuel exploitation, Benfits of which you have enjoyed & now passing that hospital pass onto younger generations...
There's a reason why that boomer sentiment exists. Don't take it personally. You should be thankful.
My immediate family (meaning us and our kids) were pretty poor for quite a few years, the options were to wallow in it (the mental thrashing), or make the most of it. The house was full of hand me downs and op shop stuff. You can have fun with your kids for about $0, or 10 grand if you want, doesn't really change the enjoyment of it. End of the day, it was the sort of lifestyle my grandparents and their parents enjoyed, simple, enough food on the table (although with benefits of modern technology). All the extra fluff is really just window dressing, it's absense does indeed make some people miserable.
At the time was kinda pooh, but the habits and motivation we picked up from those times have served us pretty well as life situations improved.
Powell also said: "In economic discussion generally, there's much too much focus on demand management, and not enough on things that will make us grow at the maximum sustainable level - sustainable growth - in the longer run."
This statement should resonate even more strongly in NZ where (a) demand is already falling, and (b) interest rate rises have a much more significant and rapid impact on disposable incomes when compared to the US (where rate rises allegedly 'work' by constraining business investment rather than increasing mortgage payments).
We need to stop obsessing over how far up or down to move the monetary policy lever, and start working out how we get to a more sustainable economic position (secure in energy & food, balanced in trade etc).
We have other more pressing matters to deal with:
Asia-Pacific countries should not stand under ‘dangerous wall' of NATO: Global Times editorial
The NATO summit kicked off on June 28 in Madrid, Spain. In the eyes of onlookers, the bloc - the product of the old Cold War - is lifting the curtain on a "new cold war." An article in Foreign Policy, published on Monday, articulated that "another, very different sort of cold war is beginning… as we will see at the NATO summit in Madrid - where the leaders of Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand will join the gathering for the first time - new battle lines are being drawn that could last for generations." This somewhat pessimistic judgment reflects the international community's general concern about the current situation.
That's your hand???
Well I'll raise you 30,000 civilian deaths (almost 300 children), 20,000 Ukrainian soldier casualties, similar Russian, thousands of tanks and artillery destroyed, cities razed to the ground, grain and farming equipment looted, famine imminent in many parts of the world due to Ukrainian grain shortages. All actual facts that were caused by Putin's invasion of Ukraine but yeah, a bigger conversation is the same thing. Delusional apologist.
That comment would suggest that NATO is defending Ukraine now Audaxes. It ain't. In fact it has all but thrown Ukraine under the bus, along with the EU and US.
Tsar Vlad the destroyer (Putin, I've decided to name him more appropriately) in his dreams of resurrecting Imperial Russia is chewing through Generals at an appalling rate. Career options in the Russian military are great, longevity isn't! Russia by all accounts has to be chewing through resources at an appalling rate. There are reports they are buying Syrian fighters for stolen wheat, and for their more capable weapons unless the factories have ramped up, they must be starting to run short. Soon the only options left will be their nukes. What then?
Stop hiding, Murray. You are good for much better than that. This is the new world order unfolding. Putin timed it to perfection, having understood what Kissinger did - and why - in '75. I'm guessing he waited until US fracking peaked (which wasn't going to be long, obvious even when it go going) for Kissinger-learnt reasons. The pandemic reinforced that.
So now we have a group of nations - sort-of-Brics-plus - coalescing and Russia breaking down the door. The Ruble is stronger than before; they are winning the game of poker hands-down (intended). Energy will be traded in something other than the USD, the prior first-world will be out in the cold. Via higher prices (and almost certainly exorbitant debt/interest charging) the new grouping will turn the first world into third.
We had 200 years of it; pity it's over but there it is. Interestingly, though, there isn't enough energy left for a repeat of US consumption levels, so they will rule a much more modest world anyway. And getting modester by the day. And at some inflection-point, even their control will run out of energy, vis-a-vis bottom-end angst. The end game is local, small, resilient... Don't lay blame on an individual for all that..... he's a player, not the game.
I agree PDK he is a player, and he could have been stopped early if there had been the political will. But he is also camouflage for the real problems, the root of which is population, which is essentially supported by corrupt political systems designed to hold the status quo entrenching the wealth and power of a few. Identify just one Government in the world which genuinely is for its people? In every system the politicians in power become self serving before they serve the people, and the people are a long way down the list. Tsar Vlad the destroyer was an inevitability. Sadam tried to become him, various Ayatollahs aspire to do what he is doing, Hitler wanted to do it, I don't doubt Xi has it on his wish list. But don't kid yourself. It is neither necessary, justifiable or for the greater good. This is I suggest the opening chords of Armageddon. I dearly hope not, but i think it is. And i suggest our species has done it to itself several times over in the history of this planet. We have the potential to be better, but lust for power and wealth undo us every time.
Looks to me like Russia now controls 20% of what was Ukraine. Doesn't seem all that unsuccessful, probably pretty high probability they keep it.
Mind you, how would you know what is true or not?
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/06/25/not-justification-provoca…
"By now, censorship in the United States has reached such a level beyond anything in my lifetime."
Chomsky is getting a bit old for relevancy now. He obviously missed the point where Russia dropped communism and became a totalitarian fascist state? Seeing as Russia occupied 7% of Ukraine before the invasion started, another 13% with the loss of a good proportion of armour, aviation and manpower, doesn't seem a particularly good deal.
How art mimics life...made in 1997, and anticipates how "when things get tough, just declare War" ("On whom?" one character asks, "It doesn't matter!")
" A top spin doctor, is brought in by presidential aide, Winifred Ames to take the public's attention away from the scandal. He decides to construct a fictional war in Albania, hoping the media will concentrate on this instead."
Jfoe,
I am looking at a policy brief from Landcare Research Nov. '20 headed Rethinking New Zealand's food security in times of disruption(Policy Brief No 27). They identify the at-risk commodities as being sugar, wheat, maize, rice and coffee.
To what extent can we become more self-sufficient in energy? I am thinking primarily of oil and gas, which will be needed globally for decades to come, irrespective of climate change. Before exploration was stopped, i am not aware of any significant finds. Even if the ban was lifted, how long would it take for exploration to restart and even if it did and a significant discovery made, how long might it take to develop it? I can imagine the regulatory process being lengthy.
What else can one expect when the domestic energy sector is overwhelmingly in foreign ownership?
Too bad the value our politicians see in owning a majority stake in our flag carrier airline does not extend to energy production and storage. The government could turn airplanes into emergency houses when there is a global supply crunch of jet fuel.
Domestic Energy, Our Food Chain, Banking, Telecommunications, Energy and of course Transport.
What we do well is ineffective and inefficient central and local government with the od and very occasional tech startup that quickly transitions off shore. And cows, we do good cows.
As noted in other comments, the refinery closure was pretty dumb given how disruptive imported energy prices are going to be to our transition to our future, which will have to be based on hydro, solar, wind, batteries, and, if we have any sense at all, a major energy efficiency drive.
It's not like we can't make quick progress on the latter - hundreds of thousands of people in NZ drive 80kg of flesh and bones to work in 2 tonnes of metal and plastic. Average meat consumption is 100kg per person per year. Etc.
Bringing new supplies to market is now much more difficult given the Government’s 2018 decision to end new exploration permits beyond onshore Taranaki.
Maybe more attention on the job at hand and less on building her CV for the future UN leadership position could help us through the ongoing socioeconomic crises.
Andrew Little is rejecting the calls from almost every DHB and medical worker association in the country that the system is on the verge of collapse; as are the police, commerce, education and social dev ministers on abject policy failures in their respective portfolios.
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-flu-health-worker-shortages-mini…
Little by name and nature, but as you say one of many. A catastrophe is not too strong a word. I know a Doctor who is completely at their wits end, looking to leave for anywhere. Anywhere...I am not joking, when I asked where they said "English language would be a bonus but not that important".
Crime is out of control, my neighbourhood is considering chipping in for security patrols as over 50% of us have been burgled this year (not me yet).
Education seems to be off the radar but is in a similar (if not as life threatening) state as Health.
This Labour government has been a special one, granted they did an excellent job listening to experts through COVID but the rest has been bench-mark bad.
My skilled healthcare profession has been negotiating and taking strike action for nearly a year so far and received one formal offer, of a pay freeze followed by approx 2% rises for two years.
One large centre has lost about 40% of their staff in this time, due to low morale and Management's response to the strike action. Our pay scale is so far behind Australia and the chasm is growing.
Tomorrow we move from negotiating with the DHBs to negotiating with health NZ and presumably have to start all over again.
Well, yes. We're in the public sector, so we follow pay scales - no individual negotiation, no bonuses, you get paid based on years of experience and very occasionally on merit.
The retention problem we have is that the top end of our pay scale is somewhat below the bottom end of the Australian pay scale for qualified staff.
The treasury will have advised this would be inflationary. If you are a career politician with a masters in communications and some experience in a fish n chip shop on your CV, you are likely to follow that guidance.
Of course the disconnect here between economic advice and the impact of that advice is the actual death of actual people. We have seen at least a couple of reported examples of this and rumours of many more.
If you have not been to an after hours recently (I went with my little boy a couple of weeks ago) I urge you to have a look. Wait time in Hamilton was 11 hours. 11 hours to be seen while your boy whimpers and shivers. I went to a less well-known facility and was seen in 5 hours.
Housing, yep that is a real problem, cost of food, ok now I am starting to get worried but not being able to see a Dr when your children are very unwell, lets just say that could be a real trigger for what would normally be calm people.
Treasury seems to have really fluffed a few things. Helping cause stupid house prices - a false economy to enable us to live beyond our means and pass the cost to the kids - as well as the leaky buildings crisis earlier on (and until now), and the penalising of productive work and rewarding of sitting around on our ass-ets.
Minister Little has become somewhat contorted hasn’t he. Talking around and around in little circles, inevitable he has met himself coming the other way. While it seems generally accepted that the DHB model required reforming, attempting that in the midst of a pandemic was simply foolhardly. At a time of supreme need and application it introduced confusion, conflict and uncertainty to existing staff, all of those that us, all New Zealanders, were about to depend on. Ask the lab techs for instance. Worse though priority and $ millions desperately needed at the coalface was diverted to consultants and the back room fat cats of the bureaucracy.
They'll just go through everything "line by line" and cut costs, and by that, they'll cut staff hours / numbers, force the remaining staff to work even harder in hope that they will manage / survive long enough for some savings to become apparent irrespective of how sustainable it is, just for a political win. Many departments will lose experienced staff with institutional knowledge, and we'll have to re-hire everyone again later at a higher rate with less experience (but that won't be their problem, that's for the next government after them to deal with).
Yes I hope they do. I spent 10 years working in various government departments, and without exception there was significant numbers of unproductive staff still being paid because they were in the PSA and no manager was going to be bothered. They simply hired a new person and got them to do the role.
Hardly any departments will lose experienced staff, the experience lies with the consultants who are themselves all ex-government managers or policy wonks.
Unfortunately, didn't seem like they fixed anything about health last time around and only made it worse. Applying magical metrics to tell doctors to work faster - pushing them to deliver worse medical care - seems silly, if there is that fat elsewhere in the system that could have been removed instead. And now they yell "Why haven't you fixed what we broke?!?"
Super city efficiencies, etc etc.
An aging population and historic underinvestment. Pretty potent combination. Unfortunately while Labour may be trying to enact significant change, it's hard to see either major party being willing to invest sufficiently - or voters voting for real improvement instead of "tAx CuTs!1!"
It comes across as a bit naive to me.
If she actually had some form of a plan to achieve global nuclear disarmament it would sound a bit more logical. But in the middle of a war where having nukes is russias only leverage to stop nato joining in... its a time where more countries are seeing the benefit of having them. Jacinda needs to explain how her path would start.
Otherwise -and if we are now visibly siding with NATO - its probably best to keep our head down a but whilst we urgently reorient our export trade away from china .... she seems to want to simulataneously keep all our trade with china and scold them at the same time. For a tiny nation in the pacific with no strategy and an already tanking economy.. it all seems a bit kamakaze
She is travelling around the world shouting "NZ is open for business", basically pleading them to buy NZ farm produce and spend their holidays in the South Island. That should help us decarbonise, grow a highly productive economy and diversify away from China. [sarc]
Sounds like a great leader.. but in reality as long as the big exporters have one big market in china the status quo is easier.
Labour tend to do the high level stuff well (like telling the world we are open for business or announcing health reform) but dont manage to get the troops to actually enact change ... thry need to give exporters an incentive or huge push to diversify (like telling fonterra they are required to have a max of 30% of revenues from any given country or taxes increase from 2023 or similar..).
Germany just had this with sourcing energy from russia.. everyone told them it was a risk, they made some noises but didnt actually do anything.
Correct. Our export dependence on China also explains our lacklustre economic productivity. Exporters are happy to cream the low-hanging fruit of selling raw commodities (logs, milk powder, etc.) to Chinese businesses that then process these into higher value items (infant formula, confectionaries, furniture, building materials, etc.) for reexport.
Kiwi exports have lost interest in mature export destinations such as the EU, Australia and North America due to the upfront investment required in processing capacity, R&D, etc.
I liked what she said. NZ should stick to it's independent foreign policy stance and look to work through international institutions in the name of peace and reconciliation. The world needs countries that can act as an honest broker in negotiations between warring parties.
Apparently Trump tried to grab the steering wheel of the beast, lol those are some long arms from the back seat of that limo, the armoured glass partition would have been tough to get through as well.
She was just not credible and believe me I think Trump was a problem but the blue team aren't fielding anyone useful yet.
" Fighting inflation will have a painful cost"
What were they thinking when were printing and throwing money left, right and centre. Ignoring data and information and manipulating it suit vested interest, comes at a cost. You can kick the can but to a limit.
Current sitaion that we are in is being created by reserve banks and not pandemic - Cannot blame the gun for commiting the mureder but the person who fired the gun.
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.