US data lackluster; Canada jobs jump; Swedes dump negative rates; China and US pump in liquidity; Aussie jobs up; China gets publicly assertive in Australia; UST 10yr yield at 1.91%; oil and gold up; NZ$1 = 66 USc; TWI-5 = 71.1

US data lackluster; Canada jobs jump; Swedes dump negative rates; China and US pump in liquidity; Aussie jobs up; China gets publicly assertive in Australia; UST 10yr yield at 1.91%; oil and gold up; NZ$1 = 66 USc; TWI-5 = 71.1

Here's our summary of key events overnight that affect New Zealand, with news the first central bank to adopt negative interest rates has thrown in the towel.

But first in the US, existing home sales fell nearly -2% in November from October in an unexpectedly large retreat. But year-on-year they are up +2.7%. Median prices were up +5.4% as the listings available for sale continues to shrink.

The American current account was little-changed in the Q3 of 2019, a deficit of -$125 bln. Exports, imports, investment income and net transfers all decreased, reflecting the American retreat from the global stage.

And there was another regional Fed survey out overnight, this one from the Pennsylvanian region. It reported businesses were pulling back in this industrial heartland.

And perhaps that is matched nationally in the jobless-claims report update. Recall last week we reported a surge in claims. This week the report remains very elevated.

In Canada, their ADP jobs report was unexpectedly positive, with job gains in November more than cancelling out the losses reported in October.

There were central bank reviews overnight in a number of countries. Both the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England essentially did nothing and soon we will get the Bank of Mexico's decision and they are expected to cut its rate by -25 bps to 7.25%. But the Swedish central bank did change, and that change was significant. It raised rates away from the negative levels they were at, saying that the side-effects of negative rates are worse that the issue they were trying to resolve with negative rates.

In China, their central bank pumped US$40 bln of new liquidity into their banking system to juice up their economy. This was the largest weekly injection so far in 2019. But that is less than the American added in this same week; they added more than US$57 bln to ensure their banking system continues to function 'normally'. Both actions were more than markets were expecting.

And on the trade front, question marks about the size of China's ag purchases from the US continue to swirl. The America current account deficit may not get much help from the 'phase one' deal as they assume.

In Australia, a surge in jobs during November triggered a plunge in rate cut expectations, with the chance of a February cut falling below 50%. But that jobs surge might be temporary according to some analysts.

And staying in Australia, the Chinese ambassador is taking a more aggressive tone by reminding them that China "is solely responsible for their budget surplus" and the Aussies should be more respectful of the position. He also said that hostage-taking without charge of Aussie citizens in China was 'standard legal practice' as part of their diplomatic pressure in the circumstances. And he told the Australians to see their wholesale ethnic detention of minorities as a good and necessary "anti-terrorism" thing.

The UST 10yr yield is at 1.91% and down -2 bps since this time yesterday. Their 2-10 curve is still at +29 bps. Their 1-5 curve is unchanged at +20 bps. Their 3m-10yr curve is up slightly at +37 bps. The Aussie Govt 10yr is back up another +3 bps since yesterday at 1.28%. The China Govt 10yr is unchanged at 3.26%. The NZ Govt 10 yr is now at 1.60% and up +3 bps from this time yesterday.

Gold is at US$1,479/oz and that is a +US$4 rise overnight.

US oil prices have firmed again and are now at just under US$61.50/bbl and the Brent benchmark is still just over US$66.50/bbl.

The Kiwi dollar will start today marginally firmer again at just over 66 USc. On the cross rates we are unchanged at 95.9 AUc. Against the euro we are still at 59.3 euro cents. That puts our TWI-5 at just over 71.1.

Bitcoin is now at US$7,133, up +3.4% and a further recovery after the recent sharp falls. The bitcoin rate is charted in the exchange rate set below.

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

Daily exchange rates

Select chart tabs »

The 'US$' chart will be drawn here.
Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
The 'AU$' chart will be drawn here.
Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
The 'TWI' chart will be drawn here.
Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
The '¥en' chart will be drawn here.
Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
The '¥uan' chart will be drawn here.
Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
The '€uro' chart will be drawn here.
Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
The 'GBP' chart will be drawn here.
Daily benchmark rate
Source: RBNZ
The 'Bitcoin' chart will be drawn here.
End of day UTC
Source: CoinDesk

We welcome your help to improve our coverage of this issue. Any examples or experiences to relate? Any links to other news, data or research to shed more light on this? Any insight or views on what might happen next or what should happen next? Any errors to correct?

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.


Comment Filter

Highlight new comments in the last hr(s).

"Donald Trump could still be the first president in history to be impeached and win a subsequent election."
How does that get factored in?!


Are we looking at the demise of America as a viable nation?

The American public, so sick of a corrupt political and elite establishment vote in a president who just happens to be even more corrupt! He turns the US into a laughing stock internationally. Are we looking at the fall of Rome with Trump playing Nero?

So how long until we see noises to move the headquarters of a number of world organisations away from the US mainland? How long will it be before we start to see the break up of the US, as the states start to actively resist what is happening in Washington, as the ultra wealthy there start to build their own private armies to protect themselves?

Is history repeating?

What are you seeing as the evidence of his corruption, what are the laws he has broken.


... we don't like him ... he's horrible ... not nice ... Hilary should've won .... IMPEACH !!!!

He plays too much golf and is a racist..thats enough for me.


... yeah ... he wouldnt get many votes around here ... can't stand golfers ..

He cheats at golf, cheats on his wife, cheats on his contracts and cheats on his taxes. Dirty liar and cheat.... make america gag again.

. .. true ... that's why he's so popular in America ... most men can relate to him ...

Are you saying most men in America and cheats and liars ......

That's the mass media narrative they are swallowing.
If the same concerted effort was applied to Hillary she would get the chair.

. . electric chair ? .... lock her up , fire up " old sparky " ....

Gummy, you looked outside, could be moleskins for Xmas day....

Henry you don't believe he asked a foreign country to investigate his political opponent? There is much much more.

Trump is even more self-serving than the other politicians. He is a blatant liar and misogynist.

Biden wasn't even an Opponent when Trump asked Zelensky to 'do something about the corruption' in Ukraine. Biden declared after that.
But I'll agree that Trump is a symptom not a cause of the rot that has set in. If someone 'better' than him comes along, all well and good. But just who would that be?!
All politicians lie; we know that. But the skilful ones don't get caught at it! Biden has been; Warren has been; Clinton ( and she might give it another go!) has Infinitum.

Biden was leading in the polls at Dem nominee. Hunter left army after issues related to recreation drug use,
Biden said he knew no one, but got the prosecutor sacked within 6 hours & had the golf picture. Hunter no experience pay massive, and pulled 1.something billion from Chinense basis travel on vice president's plane.

Would you not look to ask a question?

So why wasn't the FBI or Justice Department looking at it? Why did Trump have to go to the Ukraine?

Because it a priority item to work on.
Top of the list.

You can see the resistance diplomatic/FBI types have to do anything their boss requests.

How do you react to your boss at work?

There are a hundred candidates who hold the same dumb views as Trump, but have some legislative experience, and can read and interpret a report or two. What is a better candidate? More famous? More overtly racist?

What makes you state/imply Trump is racist?
What have you seen to prompt you to do so?

You believe he is the 'least racist person there is anywhere in the world'? I've got a bridge to sell you...

Some examples are:

"In 1973 the U.S. Department of Justice sued Trump Management, Donald Trump and his father Fred, for discrimination against African Americans in their renting practices."

Taking out a full page ad calling for the death penalty of 4 falsely accused black teenagers who allegedly committed a violent rape. The evidence that they were innocent was and still is overwhelming. When they were exonerated, Trump didn't back down. In October 2016, when Trump campaigned to be president, he said that Central Park Five were guilty and that their convictions should never have been vacated, attracting criticism from the Central Park Five themselves and others."

"In a 1989 interview with Bryant Gumbel, Trump stated: "A well-educated black has a tremendous advantage over a well-educated white in terms of the job market."

In his 1991 book Trumped! John O'Donnell quoted Trump as allegedly saying:

I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. [...] And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks."

"During the early 1990s, competition from an expanding Native American casino industry threatened his Atlantic City investments. During this period Trump stated that "nobody likes Indians as much as Donald Trump" but then claimed without evidence that the mob had infiltrated Native American casinos, that there was no way "Indians" or an "Indian chief" could stand up to the mob, implied that the casinos were not in fact owned by Native Americans based on the owners' appearance, and depicted Native Americans as greedy."

"In April 2005, Trump appeared on Howard Stern's radio show, where Trump proposed that the fourth season of the television show The Apprentice would feature an exclusively white team of blondes competing against a team of only African-Americans."

"In 2011, Trump revived the already discredited Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories that had been circulating since Obama's 2008 presidential campaign, and, for the following five years, he played a leading role in the so-called "birther movement""

Here are a FEW examples of his racism during and after his campaign and presidency.

"At a rally in Birmingham, Alabama on November 21, 2015, Trump falsely claimed that he had seen television reports about "thousands and thousands" of Arabs in New Jersey celebrating as the World Trade Center collapsed during the 9/11 attacks."

"In August 2016 Trump campaigned in Maine, which has a large immigrant Somali population. At a rally he said, "We've just seen many, many crimes getting worse all the time, and as Maine knows — a major destination for Somali refugees — right, am I right?" Trump also alluded to risks of terrorism, referring to an incident in June 2016 when three young Somali men were found guilty of planning to join the Islamic State in Syria."

"Prior to and during the 2016 campaign, Trump used his political platform to spread disparaging messages against various racial groups. Trump claimed, "the overwhelming amount of violent crime in our cities is committed by blacks and Hispanics," that "there's killings on an hourly basis virtually in places like Baltimore and Chicago and many other places," that "There are places in America that are among the most dangerous in the world. You go to places like Oakland. Or Ferguson. The crime numbers are worse. Seriously," and retweeted a false claim that 81% of white murder victims were killed by black people."

"During the campaign Trump was found to have retweeted the main influencers of the #WhiteGenocide movement over 75 times, including twice that he retweeted a user with the handle @WhiteGenocideTM."

"Trump also falsely claimed that, "African American communities are absolutely in the worst shape they've ever been in before. Ever.""

"Trump also suggested that evangelicals should not trust Ted Cruz because Cruz is Cuban and that Jeb Bush "has to like the Mexican illegals because of his wife," who is Mexican American."

"Speaking in Virginia in August 2016, Trump said, "You're living in your poverty, your schools are no good, you have no jobs, 58 percent of your youth is unemployed – what the hell do you have to lose by trying something new, like Trump?""

"On January 27, 2017, via executive order, which he titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, President Trump ordered the U.S border indefinitely closed to Syrian refugees fleeing the civil war. He also abruptly temporarily halted (for 90 days) immigration from six other Muslim-majority nations: Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen."

"In June 2017, Trump called together a staff meeting to complain about the number of immigrants who had entered the country since his inauguration. The New York Times reported that two officials at the meeting state that when Trump read off a sheet stating that 15,000 persons had visited from Haiti, he commented, "They all have AIDS," and when reading that 40,000 persons had visited from Nigeria, he said that after seeing America the Nigerians would never “go back to their huts.""

"The U.S. Department of Justice concluded that Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio oversaw the worst pattern of racial profiling in U.S. history. The illegal tactics that he was using included "extreme racial profiling and sadistic punishments that involved the torture, humiliation, and degradation of Latino inmates". The DoJ filed suit against him for unlawful discriminatory police conduct. He ignored their orders and was subsequently convicted of contempt of court for continuing to racially profile Hispanics. Calling him "a great American patriot", President Trump pardoned him soon afterwards, even before sentencing took place."

"In his initial statement on the rally, Trump did not denounce white nationalists but instead condemned "hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides". His statement and his subsequent defenses of it, in which he also referred to "very fine people on both sides", suggested a moral equivalence between the white supremacist marchers and those who protested against them, leading some observers to state that he was sympathetic to white supremacy."

"On January 11, 2018, during an Oval Office meeting about immigration reform, commenting on immigration figures from El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras, and African countries, Trump reportedly said: "Those shitholes send us the people that they don't want", and suggested that the US should instead increase immigration from "places like Norway" and Asian countries."

"In August 2018, Trump sent a tweet stating that he had ordered Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to look into land seizures and the mass killing of white farmers in South Africa, acting on a racist conspiracy theory."

"In May 2019, the Trump administration announced that there was no plan to replace the portrait of Andrew Jackson on the twenty-dollar bill with that of Harriet Tubman, as had been planned by the Obama administration."

"On July 14, 2019, Trump tweeted about four Democratic congresswomen of color, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ayanna Pressley, Ilhan Omar, and Rashida Tlaib. This group, known collectively as the Squad, had verbally sparred with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi a week earlier"

Yep, your list looks like it's been debunked. I mean it still includes the "fine people" hoax.

I give you this:
USA prison reform.
Record black employment and income.
Recognition of capital of Israel.
Grand kids are Jewish.

All big, all recent.

Do you really think that one item being pretty debatably 'debunked' ( debunks a whole list?

If I say that black employment in the USA has continued the trend started under the previous government, does that also debunk your list?

Central Park 5 has been debunked.
The fine people comments have been debunked. No question.

Work through those and then we can do the rest if the list.

Your answer re trend is no. The list survives.

It was his job to investigate Bidens & the oil company, Dem lawyer said in evidence.

You say liar & misogynist. Where is the law been broken.

not part of impeachment. Not included. And has backstory.

You don't say you are restricting the discussion to just the impeachment (and it sounds like a poor excuse). As has been pointed out before the definition of what is covered by impeachment does not actually have to be a crime.You seem a bit stuck on the crime bit.....

Only because there is no crime.

If Trump makes you feel bad, that's a shame, not a crime.

You are really fixated on the crime bit. Trump doesn't make me feel "bad". What concerns me is that people in the US don't seem to be able to pick themselves up by their boots anymore.

You need a crime to make impeachment work.

Otherwise you are running on emotions, feelings.

As I've pointed out before an impeachable offense doesn't have to be a crime - the definition is much broader

The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[4] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself.

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[5] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[5] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.[6][1]

The purposes underlying the impeachment process also indicate that non-criminal activity may constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment.[1][7] The purpose of impeachment is not to inflict personal punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment is a "remedial" tool; it serves to effectively "maintain constitutional government" by removing individuals unfit for office.[8][1] Grounds for impeachment include abuse of the particular powers of government office or a violation of the "public trust"—conduct that is unlikely to be barred via statute.[8][6][1]

It has to be high level. You are taking it low level. If you suggest everything is an impeachable offence, that's a mistake and error.

In addition, would you agree impeachment must be bipartisan. Has to be bipartisan.

How am I taking it low level - I am just quoting the current state of the impeachment / constitutional law. The writers of Constitution seem to have left it vague - if you want to blame anyone blame them. Yes it is probably badly written - but it is over two hundred years old and didn't envisage the modern society. But it is what the USA has and would require an amendment to the constitution to change the process. While it would be nice the think it would be bipartisan , I don't think that will ever happen. America is just divided, and has been for a long time.

Just because they squirm around the laws, and as President, the JD have declined to charge him with anything especially obstruction of justice, does not mean he is not corrupt. The best of the corrupt ones know how to skate around the law.

You know proving a negative, any negative is impossible.

But in Trump's world logic doesn't apply. Only self centered, inward looking, devolved, backward and corrupt behavior is the new norm for Americans under Trump. It's not surprising the the rest of the developed world tries to avoid them. They can't even put together a decent universal healthcare system without calling it a crazy and socialist.

CJ no.
Seems more in your world...
If at all, look at what we are musing about free will in the thread.

Well you've just proven that you're one of the; Inward looking, devolved, backward and corrupt behavior that is the new norm for Americans under Trump. Thankfully at least 50% of American's (educated) can see Trump for what he is (corrupt) and what him impeached and removed from office. And yes virtually all of the rest of the world wants to see him gone too, apart from Putin of course. :)
CNN Half of voters support impeaching Trump and removing him from office, new poll finds.

It was his job? No his job is to run the country. If there was any evidence then the FBI or the Justice Department should be doing it. Trump should not ever be calling in personal political favours on a quid pro quo basis from a foreign nation in return for aid. If that is not corrupt than what is?

Even Comey is claiming that he Comey was incompetent as his defences.

From the transcript where do you see favour or qpq.
What makes you think aid was held up?

It was his job to.

Every politician in the US got there by doing favors for 'donations' Their system is rotten to the core. In Trumps defense, he is a non politician and he go there on his own self made profile, not via industry cash.
What he is being impeached for is nothing out of the ordinary for US politicians.
Impeaching him was the stupidest thing they could have done - he was well on the way to hanging himself.
Bidens son on $50k per month in an industry he had no skills. Sounds fishy.... but they all do it.

Murray I think Henry is right on this one. Even without watching or listening to MSM I still get sick of hearing about Trump getting impeached. I think you know that I don't have a lot of regard for right wing thinking, they all politicians despicable. Perhaps the right wing more so than the left. But at least with the right you know what you are getting, the corruption is perfectly transparent and predictable. With the left they are devious about it. But Trump is definitely a symptom, not a cause. No one is addressing the cause, so get used to this space. Better still tune it out :-)

Tend to agree Scarfie which is why I asked my question - are we seeing the end of America as a viable nation? Henry's questions are a typical tactic of people trying to obfuscate what is really happening. I shouldn't have given them credibility.

Soliciting foreign interference in US elections (both Russia & Ukraine), obstruction (Congress & Muller).

Are you saying there was or there wasn't?

Here's a reasonable and basic explanation. In the end it comes down to interpretation of law. Trump has admitted the act itself and everyone's clear there was personal quid pro quo. Now it's up to the lawmakers...and of course, because the Senate is republican, there's only one way they'll go (so Trump having in the eyes of legal experts broken the law won't have any relevance... Job Security > the Constitution).

The alleged offense is that Trump enlisted the help of another country in his campaign for a second term. There is plenty of evidence for this. Investigators have records of the phone call, Trump’s own admission, and the admission of his private attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

Kenneth McCallion, a former federal prosecutor and expert on counterintelligence operations who authored Treason and Betrayal, the Rise and Fall of Individual 1, told Quartz the problem is clear: “You have abuse of presidential power for personal and campaign use,” he said. But is the problem problematic enough to impeach?

The answer to that question is divided along pretty clear political lines.

Trump’s defenders, nearly all Republicans, don’t think so. They don’t deny Trump’s actions. They can’t because the evidence is overwhelming. Instead, they argue that the offense is simply not that offensive, and not worthy of impeachment or removal from office.

Democrats are equally united on the other side. They believe that Trump using his office to persuade a foreign government to help him attack a political rival is an impeachable abuse of office.


There are specific campaign laws which prohibit any US citizen, whether it be the president or otherwise, from receiving a benefit or a value from a foreign party,” McCallion said.

So whether or not Trump broke those laws will depend on how lawmakers interpret “value.” Those who support impeachment say Trump was clearly seeking something of value from Ukraine, namely, opposition research on Biden.

That’s made worse by the fact that Trump used military aid in his negotiation, leveraging not his personal fortune, but taxpayer money as a bargaining chip to pressure Ukraine’s president. Since the American government had voted to give the money to Ukraine, Trump withholding it to solicit information that would benefit himself strengthens the argument of the abuse of power, adding another layer of misconduct.


“In this case you have the president having authorized a private individual, Rudy Giuliani, outside any government accountability, to run basically a private or personal investigation,” McCallion said, adding that this is outside any due process.

“The phone call was through these private parties to further the goals of the Trump 2020 campaign,” McCallion said.

Even if the objective wasn’t to advance his career, the president can’t just personally pursue justice through private citizens outside his administration.

Rick. This guy is the best.

Attorney Alan Dershowitz warned that Americans should be "frightened" of the House's impeachment investigation, accusing Democrats of trying to "create crimes out of nothing."

"Whether you're from New York or the middle of the country, you should be frightened by efforts to try to create crimes out of nothing," Dershowitz said Sunday on John Catsimatidis' radio show.

"Well, I spent the afternoon yesterday searching the federal criminal statutes from beginning to end. I couldn't find the crime."

"The best"? As in says the desirable thing? Dershowitz is also in consideration for Trump's legal team.

Quite the contrast to the analysis I posted and the opinions of other legal experts who think the law is actually pretty clear that a president should not be misusing political power (including through private channels) for personal gain.

I think we have to face the fact that people with firm alignments one way or another will do their best to say there is / is not a crime. But the legal experts are so far for me the most interesting, and while Dershowitz is one of them and in line for a potential Trump job, there are quite the number of them around. Not a simple matter to elect "the best".

Best as in is most competent.

Your wishful definition is most limiting.

Ok, definitely sounds like "best" as in confirms what one already thinks.

No. Impeachment is not about sides. Gotta be bipartisan. Bipartisan as well as.

I heard that Trumpie is the only American president to go down in net worth while being president. Unlike Obama. Sure as hell unlike Clinton. Is it actually true?

Often in situation wondering if folk are operating with free will.
Business and Christmas.
I see the kids almost being groomed by some tech apps.
Look at the apple universes.

It's all about us v's them.


It was clearly a politically motivated impeachment, far more so that Nixon or Clinton. Trump rightly or wrongly has been actively hunted since before the election. So in my view the Dems have set a very dangerous precedent. i.e. congress impeaching any president that is not from the majority party.

I actually think this will have a huge bearing on the next election, with a likely swing away from the Dems - much like Labour just got trounced in the UK.

The general populace are actually against the Us v Them mentality. They just want someone to run the country and to try and do their best for the voter. Something Trumps increase in popularity with non-republicans would suggest he is achieving.

But what has he actually achieved?

No idea, but then I don't need to I am not a US voter. It's pretty simple though, if his popularity is increasing, you would have to imagine he is doing something right.

Personally I think any President has it tough when Congress is held by the opposition.

Jacinda has achieved nothing here with a supportive govt, imagine if she was PM and National held the majority of seats?
(Yes I understand this is not possible here - but this is the reality for the USA)

Trump has switched this " impeachment " around in voters minds ... by claiming it is an attack by the Dems on democracy .... further strengthening his power base ...

... a pyrrhic victory for the Dems in the lower house only ... silly sods ... playing right into Trumpy's hands ...

Yes - His real victory is that he didn't actually have to do much to turn it around.

Dems seemingly did it themselves by coming across as rabid dogs.

The Dem's are cluthing at straws with this impeachment action. All very see through and shines a unfavourable light on them.

Certainly interesting times seeing the continuing rise and success of propaganda and the decline of facts. Feverish yelling and unquestioning acceptance of claims, loyalty over all, the decline of trust in media (in many cases for good reason, in others not)...

Ironic when folk asking for compliance with the Constitution are lambasted as attackers of democracy.

Bit of history. Winston took a deal to Bill English after the last election. Bill said that he could not work with that. Winston took the deal to Jacinda. The rest is history.

I've read expert opinions that the best presidents are ones that did nothing.

Obama for one. Two terms and he got nothing done. The guy was a joke!

Worse, took the Dems down the path of identity politics, the identity politics that only worked for him, now they are mired.
Axle deep.

Helluva legacy.

This looks like the American Right projecting.

No. Look at the calibre of Dems looking to win nomination.

Of the lot, where is the winning one, Your choice is?

Why deflect to another matter entirely? The projection was vis-a-vis identity politics, something Trump has absolutely exploited very well and something in which American politics is now deeply mired, but clearly not something limited to the Left.

On getting things done, where are those coal jobs at? And "repeal and replace - day one"'s that going?

Projection: "the unconscious transfer of one's desires or emotions to another person."

We were talking of Obama taking dems down the identity pathway, to the degree that no other can now operate the party.

Look at the failures of the others that try. The Obamas legacy is proving to be crippling. He handed things to Hillary and massive failure and further, as noted the current nominee wishers are also failing.

You are introducing right/Republicans.

When elected they get taken into that little sound proof room and get briefed by the deep state. You are a puppet, do what we tell you. And they do, though Trump has brought his own style while he does it. And if you don't think he's isn't, then look up what he used to say about the economy, debt levels, interest rates etc...and has now doing exactly the same.

I think Tulsi Gabbard's comment at the vote says it all; ""I am standing in the centre and have decided to vote Present. I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing."

"I also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fuelled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country," Gabbard said."

It's not really politically motivated. There is just a certain sector of the USA who want desperately to believe that their country is not stupid enough to vote in (not to mention embrace) a reality TV idiot as President. They are constantly looking for intelligent malicious actors to explain it, but really just finding stupidity. Removing Trump does not remove that.

We have the star status presidents, Kennedy, Reagan, Bush, this kind of thing has a long history now. Look at G W Bush the guy was a cocaine head.

All with legislative backgrounds.

Trump is the only one that is actually doing what he says, so maybe the time for traditional political muppets to pack the bags.

The guy lies essentially constantly, that's when he's not just mistaken because he's incompetent (wall, healthcare...)

Sure...would've been good to choose a star with some legislative background, the ability to speak coherently, some integrity in speech (i.e. a reduced rate of speaking lies), a bit more intelligence, someone without a history of fraudulent conduct and failed businesses etc. Trump was a heck of an unfortunate choice to pick (and in fairness, it seemed like he didn't intend to win and was actually just pursuing reality TV ratings).

It has taken a certain sacrifice of dignity for folk to hitch their wagons and identities to Donald Trump.

If Schwarzenegger had been born in the USA (or at least, Kenya) then that would have been a better choice.

I actually think you are spot on. Trump entered for a laugh, then somehow he won.

I am actually quite surprised he is going for a second term. I guess it shows the lack of any real leadership depth in the GOP as well.

Currently 95% GOP approval.

Beat the highest calibre Rep nominee field, Reps had had in decades.

4 year delay in publishing his tax returns??

The impeachment process has only ever been politically motivated. As has been said before, the process is going to affect Trumpies's 2nd term polls.

Why we should invest in resilience, wealth creation and R&D - not blow $5 trillion trying to take the climate back to the little ice age.

“Empirical evidence of declining global vulnerability to climate-related hazards.
Results show a clear decreasing trend in both human and economic vulnerability, with global average mortality and economic loss rates that have dropped by 6.5 and nearly 5 times, respectively, from 1980–1989 to 2007–2016. We further show a clear negative relation between vulnerability and wealth, which is strongest at the lowest income levels.”

... oh you ... naughty rapscallion ... as Mr Waymad said , if you're gonna bring science / statistics / databases into the climate change debate SHUT UP ! ...
And look ... this govt have had a horror year of delay / defeat / deferral ... they'll never do this ... they'll never get anything done ...

As people get more wealthy they are less vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters.



I still ask what is climate change?

Looking into the theories. They are based on 100 years of acceptable data points. Of this the last 40 years is reliable valid data, the 60 years before is reasonable, and maybe another 200 years of anecdotal data and piecemeal recordings. Anything before is pure guesswork.

So based on:
Earth being 4 Billion years old - we have a sample size of 0.0000025%
Homo sapiens are 150k years old - we have a sample size of 0.0666667%
Based on the calendar we are in year 2019 - so we have a sample size of 4.9529470%

What real results can be determined from such statistically insignificant data sizes?

The science says that since I have been born it is warmer, yes that is a fact and I am happy to accept.
So we can correctly assume the climate is therefore changing. Again it is a fact I am happy to accept.

But is it worse/better? We have no idea on an average/median/normal range. We have no idea of the length of climate cycles, or if climate is even cyclical?

I am not a denier, but I am skeptical. I am skeptical about how a scientist can say with such conviction that the end is nigh based on a historical sample size of 0.0000025%.

A single anecdote on an interest comment (1/5,000,000) is 8x larger in terms of its sample size than the climate data (1/40,000,000). So should we now take everything said here as gospel? I sure as hell wouldn't.

If you'd like a fairly concise breakdown of what is proven at this point, here's one:

Although science and rational argument are apolitical, and although there are a lot of misinformed people screaming nonsense about how “climate change is the apocalypse,” I think it’s fair to say that many right-wing sources try to present the arguments of climate science like this: “The Earth is warming. CO2 is increasing. Therefore, CO2 is causing warming.” That’s not a strong argument, as you know.

What climate science has effectively proved at this point is a bit more nuanced, along the lines of:

(1) We observe that radiation from sun to earth has been overall steady or very slightly decreasing over the past five decades, yet the amount of energy reflected from Earth back to space has been decreasing over that same period. In other words, we’re seeing clear evidence that our atmosphere is becoming more insulating, decade after decade. This change (less and less energy getting from Earth into space) is very clearly increasing every decade, at least since the beginning of the space age.

(2) Regarding the cause of this increasingly insulating atmosphere, a careful look at the space- and ground-based radiation spectra directly shows the increasing influence of carbon dioxide. For example, outgoing radiation (Earth to space) is decreasing especially at CO2 absorption wavelengths. It is an undeniable fact that we are witnessing an increasing “greenhouse effect” due to increasing CO2.

(3) Regarding the source of the increasing CO2, nearly all of the recently added and continually rising CO2 in our atmosphere has the isotopic signature of burned fossil fuels (as opposed to e.g., volcanoes). This is totally consistent with our collective emissions of about 40 billion tonnes of CO2 gas per year (and rising), which is way more than what all volcanoes emit (around 0.3-2% of that amount).

So, even though climate has changed naturally in the past and will continue to change in the future (with or without humans), the present day surge in CO2 in our atmosphere (about 40 billion tonnes added from burning fossil fuels per year) is, right now, causing a measurable and accelerating reduction in the amount of heat leaving our planet. The fact that this change is measurable over a single human lifetime is mindblowing. It’s a blink of an eye in geological terms.

I’m sure there are many flaws in future climate modelling (no time to get into that ...), but the basic idea, that more CO2 in our atmosphere = more insulating atmosphere, is a fact. Short of the outside influence of some insanely rare event like a civilization-ending asteroid impact, we have every reason to think that adding more CO2 will increase the already-significant effect.

The government is going to force the economy....
What majority voted for this?

The Government wants to make greenhouse gas emissions peak at 2020 levels and start falling soon after, with huge changes to the Emissions Trading Scheme planned to force the economy to rapidly decarbonise.

This plan includes a ban on new coal-fired boilers for drying milk powder and other forms of heat - and a doubling of the emissions price cap in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS).

Are there any coal fired boilers still in use? I would have thought they were mostly natural gas? Are electrical boilers capable of doing the job? Would that work with a privatised power network?

Coal is great for baseload.
We need energy.
Are you ok for us to swap out coal for nuclear?

Otherwise what's your method for keeping costs low?

Murray, How do you make sense of the Chinese

A massive expansion of coal-fired power in China is pushing the world's climate change targets out of reach, as former prime minister Kevin Rudd said heightened environmental concerns in China were still secondary to economic expansion.

Henry your quoted article was for NZ not in China. Yes I know the Chinese are powering coal fired power stations, but NZ government policy is unlikely to sway them much I suggest?

What are the Chinense seeing that we are not, in relation to energy.
Why do they see coal as viable. Is nz and Shaw and co correct in their assumptions and calculations.

I see activist politics with activist politicians enacting legislation that they feel good about, gives them good emotions.
I have been all week with engineers, there is no way those guys, if formulating legislation would bolt away like the activist greens have.
Let alone run so far ahead of the majority of voters wishes.

Are the Chinese developing CF power stations that capture all the carbon they produce? And are those power stations a better and cheaper option in every sense than a modern nuclear reactor?

It has been identified that the current Chinese plans will eclipse a significant portion of the rest of the worlds carbon output. so while we are having to pay and increasing cost to stop producing carbon, the Chinese just don't care and are increasing their already large output? What point are you trying to make Henry?

Isn't coal actually pretty good on an energy in/ energy out basis? Yes, there is a particulate pollution problem to resolve.

.. if climate change alarmists had their science hats on , they'd be demanding more nuclear power plants ... no quicker nor safer way to decarbonize our energy supply ... it just needs rebranding ...

" New Clear " power .... SOLD !!!

Many are. Are you not aware of that?

Bill Gates is pushing new nuclear designs hard, as part of this.

What is Shaw and co's position on nuclear.

All I am seeing is a failing genless campaign. Terrible to see young people caught up in it.

Genless# ####
Clueless# morelike it.

You should ask him. I'm describing what's going on out there in the world.

Most of the young Green voters I come across disagree with the anti-nuclear and anti-GE policies.

Nuclear is an idiots dream. It is not clean. We replace Carbon with Radioactive waste. I know which problem I would rather have.

Currently most radioactive waste is dropped in a hole. I would hazard a guess, a lot is also dumped in the ocean.

This is the whole problem with only looking at Carbon emissions. We jump out of the pan and into the radioactive wasteland.

Read up on gen3 and gen4 reactor class

Yes, but Gen4 are still for the most part theoretical.

Yes they "could" also potentially use old waste. But I will hold judgement on that until proven.

Even if they work better than expected, there will still be radioactive waste, and that waste will be dangerous for hundreds (Granted not the thousands currently) of years.

Why would we want to swap carbon pollution, which can be negated in many ways (Trees being the most obvious) for nuclear waste that is completely untouchable?

To go carbon neutral by 2050 would require the building of 1 nucleur power plant per day, very day until then.
So that won't happen. The reality is we need to drastically reduce energy use. Eventually this will be forced upon us.

"We further show a clear negative relation between vulnerability and wealth, which is strongest at the lowest income levels." Cutting economic growth hurts people. Your "Eventually" prediction vs "with global average mortality and economic loss rates that have dropped by 6.5 and nearly 5 times, respectively, from 1980–1989 to 2007–2016." Drastically cutting energy use will leave a lot of blood on your hands.

profile...the blood is not on my hands ...I'm not driving this thing, cutting energy or whatever..

But there is no other option, energy use has to reduce and the world will go through some sort of mass 'correction'. It's how it will happen that is the only question.

But good for don't need to concern yourself with such things as it won't happen in your universe.

Do not reduce energy
That is not the only option.

Please share your wisdom. How else?

It's not one or the other rastus, although increasing renewable energy generation is a lot more likely than reducing energy use IMO.

Doris have you looked at the numbers? One nuclear plant per day required to go carbon neutral by 2050. The world does not have the ability to do that. Green energy hasn't not got a hope in hell as a replacement for carbon (and you need fossil to build green energy plants anyway..which only last xx years). We cannot keep burning carbon. So the outcome is that we have to consume much less energy.

No reason for New Zealand to use Nuclear given the natural resources we have (geothermal and hydro), not to mention the unusually high risk of natural hazards. Other places (e.g. California) Nuclear is def needed and it is wrong to think solar and wind can replace the baseload generation.

Our livelihoods will be weakened, reduced if energy costs rise to above world ranges.

Murray coal still produces 38% of the world electricity. This has come down from 40% since I first looked at this site in 2015

The real shame is that the average efficiency with which it is produced is only 33% due to the sheer number of older plants in use. Page down on that link and you will see the more efficient, but more expensive per Kw options. I've designed a direct fired solid fuel turbine that will work at the same efficiency as Natural Gas in CCGT. I did the numbers for Aussie one time and switching all their coal to my technology would save them $5B on coal per annum. I need $10m to build a prototype, so am looking for investors :-)

My prediction is that the world will soon switch enmasse in converting coal to liquid fuels, or Gas to Liquid Technology, since you can't replace liquid fuels in aviation or heavy transport (my coal turbine would work for heavy transport). We'll eat through our 200 years of coal in 20 years when this switch happens.

Still releasing carbon into the atmosphere Scarfie, albeit at a lower rate? We need an alternative.

I agree, but then I predict it will get used no matter. There is a difference between what you want to happen, and what will happen.

The technology I propose is a solid fuel turbine, and was actually conceived for wood. So sustainable, although we still have to use less energy at some point. No getting around that one.

In summary, wealthy people are more resistant to climate change. The problem is that many are getting poorer. Any increase if wealth has to be shared across the whole population.
I don't know how anyone can not advocate climate change mitigation with the horror playing out in Australia. The Saturday weather forecast is really scary.

Will the Aussies quail before the Chinese chastisement? Chinese true colours being more obvious to even the obtuse. Interesting that 'hostage taking' being described as a legal process. Proof of a corrupt state.

“China isn’t buying in Brazil. China is buying Brazil,” Jair Bolsonaro, the front-runner in Brazil’s presidential election,

As Mayor Dalziel explained there are 30 000 people in Christchurch who're of Chinese descent ... it's only natural if some of them donate to get her re-elected ... nothing to see here ... move along please .... ( yeah , right ! )

Such a bad look, would be interesting to see the interaction between her suite of Chinese backers an council operations, especially considering her husband represents many of their interests - corruption mutch? I hope the new foreign political donation rules will be extended to local body elections.

Yeah, she's looking pretty corrupt here, IMO.

How do Labour explain this away.
I am not sure I or the kids believe in the Tooth Fairy, or ever did.

Lianne Audrey Dalziel (/dælˈzɛl/; born 7 June 1960) is New Zealand politician and the current Mayor of Christchurch.

Prior to this position, she was a member of the New Zealand Parliament for 23 years, serving as Minister of Immigration, Commerce, Minister of Food Safety and Associate Minister of Justice in the Fifth Labour Government.[1] She resigned from Cabinet on 20 February 2004 after apparently lying about a leak of documents to the media, but was reinstated as a Minister following Labour's return to office after the 2005 election.

She resigned from Parliament effective 11 October 2013 to contest the Christchurch mayoral election. The incumbent, Bob Parker, decided not to stand again, and she was widely regarded as the top favourite and won with a wide margin to become the 46th Mayor of Christchurch.

Don't think anyone should explain it away. She should be gone. So should Judith Collins, over Oravida. We just shouldn't tolerate this sort of stuff.

We are in the same boat as the Aussies!

... imagine that , a group of Kiwis and a group of Aussies ... marooned together , at sea in a boat ....

We'd set up a working group to investigate methods of mobility in a carbon neutral world ...

... they'd pick up the oars and start rowing ...

..having heaved us overboard.

China has had to explain to Australia that they are a tributary state. It shows you how stupid the Australian Government is to need the explanation.

... as if the average Doris & Morris in Struggle Street , Australia hasn't been screaming at their government for many years ... if we snuggle up too closely to China there'll be a price to pay sometime down the track .... that day of reckoning is looming closer ...

Steve Keen talks with Kunstler. If you want an excellent podcast listen on your xmas drive, look no further. Energy, economics, carbon and more.

Thanks, Rastus.

There's a lot of fear - and mongering of same - upthread, eh?

What the election of a fundy christian rapture-waiter (Australia), a spin-spouting juvenile (US) and a moral-less elite-agent (UK) tell us is that our social narrative is being found increasingly false. Rather than investigate the falsehood(s), the media (largely elite-owned, and all requiring economic activity to be a happening thing, RNZ the lame baton-dropping exception) have regurgitated the reassuring message. They are still studiously avoiding the truth, all the way to their complaint-adjudication process...

Problem is, a quantum mass have now been disenfranchised, everywhere, and they're a tad frustrated. Trickle-down was nicely ridiculed by Leonard Cohen - who will serve and who will eat - and it's run it's course. Those folk are voting for anyone who promises a return to the more egalitarian cheap-energy bulk resources lower population times, and voting their resentment of current winners (the Clinton-types). But the promises cannot be delivered; Brexit will result in spreading misery, Trump's second term will see financial calamity, and Australia will keep on burning.

Yet - as we see from this thread - there are still more-of-the-same urgers, out in force. One wonders if they have grandchildren.....

The inability of those who have difficulty in accepting something - because being open to it will upset their cosy view of the world is the biggest hindrance we seem to have.

Something as basic as roads. How one cannot see that the days of driving around in a fossil fueled house are numbered and that the world does not have the capacity for an alternative 4 wheeled house is extraordinary. Yet here we go, all ready to ramp up 4 line highways.

They think the jestsons is a documentary.

Great link Rastus - some commentators on this site should have a listen - especially GBH and Henry

.. tell me do , oh wise one ... what , in your opinion , is lacking in the outlook and knowledge of good Henry and of my humble Gummy self ? GBH, you are a smart dude and I suspect sometime you are just taking the p##! Go have a listen to Steven Keen, good aussie guy and it's an easy listen - better than listening to the blackened caps for sure (now which cricket team should have that name?). Profile might like to join you.

Report back after xmas.

... absolute respect for Steve Keen ... good keen man ... haven't got spare 56 minutes nor battery power ...

Was hoping Mr frazz would give me a few pointers as to where my thinking is wrong ... just the first 500 or so ...

... best wishes to you , Mr rastus : Gummy

The Bolt Report with wit.

"haven't got spare 56 minutes" yet you have so much time to fill these comment streams with your "wisdom"? No thunking is wrong GBH - broaden your prospective..merry Xmas

You hear him more often on the Kaiser Report (don't blow a gasket because of RT) and Macro Voices.
MV also will have Jeffrey Snidder (and his slide decks).

Use the holiday break to catchup on both, at least.
Comment and debate will improve.

Let me tell you what it's all about, AJ.

A society was overrunning it's resource-base (Collingwood and the reason for his pockets full of acorns being a simple example). It went looking for more resources. Packing more energy than those it encountered, it commandeered those resources, and the people if they were useful. It failed to see that those it overran, were living more sustainably (long-term maintainably). The irony is that the less-sustainable regime can pack a bigger punch, thus temporarily 'winning'.

But they went on doing to the planet, what they'd done at home. Worse, they went down as well as across, doing it exponentially-increasingly in both cases.

That's the real message. It's better encapsulated in this:

That book is a good read although a few minor areas have been tidied up with further research. 14th century settlement of NZ by polynesians - so many docile Moa around they only bothered eating the legs - last moa and few if any high protein vegetables and it is back to cannibalism and inter-tribal strife. Leaving them vunerable to a more advanced technology. However compared to all other pre-literate cultures they did remarkably well - ask the indigenous people of North and South America, Australia or the Easter Islands - Maori culture damaged but still exists and Maori population growing (but not as fast as continuing immigration).

But that is less than the American added in this same week; they added more than US$57 bln to ensure their banking system continues to function 'normally'. Both actions were more than markets were expecting.

You forgot to count the reverse repo drain. Thus $48.58 billion was added to the system on 19/12/19. But it must be noted that on the same day a previous $44.66 billion net add expired. Futhermore, a permanent $9.302 billion outright coupon/TBill purchase settled as well.

"And he told the Australians to see their wholesale ethnic detention of minorities as a good and necessary "anti-terrorism" thing."

Hi Australia. Don't worry that we are running concentration camps and committing genocide. It's for the good of the world, we are saving everyone from terrorism =) Yay us!

Lots of things happening in China, their economy and relations with the rest of the world that are very similar to Germany in the late 1930's.
The west will put up with it until something happens that we are unable to grab our ankles in the current way....

Careful I made the mistake of using the H***** word in a comment. Big difference is Jews were encouraged to leave Germany whereas China is using heavy diplomatic pressure to get each and every Uighur back home where they receive a state welcome.'s a provocative thought. That ethnic minority subscribe to a pretty terrible religious doctrine. One filled with hate, violence, bloodshed and death for any non believer. Even escaping from it results in death. Breaking the cycle to prevent such crazy stuff from being passed down to the next generation could be seen as a good thing? (I'll go hide in the back room now)..

Lets punish ethnicities that produce terrorists. Where did that Christchurch bomber come from and what ethnicity was he? Let's arrest them and assign compulsary education behind barb wire, locked gates, behind walls with watch towers. Make them thank our leader Jacinda Ardern a hundred times before they can start eating. Send our young labour supporters to live in their homes to show them correct thinking - test them by asking which country invented pavlova and see that they wear black not gold before international rugby.

India now tearing itself apart. Slowly the spark spreads, ignited by seemingly uncommon events. The world is a tinder box....and the US has a great big fire master inc charge. When?