Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand with news the international week has started with a financial market rout as the bears come out to play.
There has been a dramatic risk-off mood sweeping over markets today with commodity prices slumping, equity markets falling sharply, benchmark bond yields diving, and the US dollar streaking higher. The rise and rise of the pandemic delta variant now has investor attention, more so because of the clear response mistakes by both policy makers (in the UK and Eastern Europe especially) and an increasing brainless response by a sizable population in some heartland US states. Investors can see these mistakes are not going to end well.
Yesterday, the UK, which is pushing toward a full economic and social re-opening, recorded +40,000 new pandemic cases, its highest since the January spike that hit +68,000 before falling away in May to +2,000. Indonesia reported +44,000. India +38,000. Brazil and Russia also reported fast rising trends. The fear of spread from these uncontrolled hotspots is that it will reverse the re-opening plans everywhere.
In France there was an interesting pandemic development where they switched from 'encouragement' to 'threats' to improve their vaccination rate. France, a hotbed of vaccination conspiracy theories, said it would end free tests for those who want to travel or attend events. The effect was dramatic, with 926,000 people making a vaccine appointment.
Adding to unease, the United States accused China's Ministry of State Security (MSS) of a global cyber espionage campaign, mustering an unusually broad coalition of countries to publicly call out Beijing for hacking that included the EU, Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
ANZ's commodity tracker is suggesting that the strong recovery growth in commodity demand and prices may be petering out. High frequency data are pointing to a soft patch ahead for commodity markets. Nevertheless, the absolute levels of demand growth is still high they say. Ongoing supply side issue across many markets may support prices for a while yet however. The Baltic Dry Index rose yesterday.
Of particular interest for us is how dairy prices are tracking as there is another auction tomorrow morning. At this point, the local futures market is pointing to a -3.5% fall for WMP and a small -0.4% dip for SMP. However, note that in the past futures prices isn't always a reliable guide to the actual auction outcomes.
Back on the local pandemic front, there were 100 new cases in NSW yesterday (98 in the community) and another 11 in Victoria (10 in the community). Neither levels give confidence the Trans-Tasman travel bubble will re-open anytime soon. (There were 3 new cases in New Zealand, all caught at the border, none in the community.)
Wall Street has opened its week down -2.1% in mid afternoon trade, and falling. Overnight, European markets followed the Tokyo lead with falls averaging -2.5%. Yesterday the very large Tokyo market got the wobbles first with a -1.3% drop, followed by Hong Kong which was down -1.8%. Oddly, Shanghai closed unchanged. The ASX200 had its own pandemic issues, falling -0.9% which the NZX50 Capital Index was down a relatively modest -0.2% in its Monday session.
The UST 10yr yield starts today at just on 1.18% and down a dramatic -13 bps as Wall Street opens for the new week. Almost all of this shift is at the long end. The US 2-10 rate curve has flattened by 10 bps to now be at +97 bps. Their 1-5 curve is flatter by -9 bps to be at +62 bps, while their 3m-10 year curve is now at +114 bps and -11 bps flatter. The Australian Govt ten year benchmark rate starts today at 1.17% and down -9 bps. The China Govt ten year bond is at 2.97% and unchanged. The New Zealand Govt ten year is now at 1.63% and down a mere -2 bps so far.
The price of gold is now just on US$1808/oz which is down another -US$4/oz from this time yesterday.
Oil prices have slumped today by more than -US$5 and now in the US they are now just over US$66/bbl, while the international Brent price is now just over US$68/bbl.
The Kiwi dollar opens today just under 69.3 USc and a -70 bps fall as the greenback surges. Against the Australian dollar we are unchanged at 94.6 AUc. Against the euro we are also down -50 bps at 58.8 euro cents. That means our TWI-5 starts today at 72.4.
The bitcoin price is now at US$30,617 and down another -3.1% from this time on yesterday. Volatility in the past 24 hours has been moderate at +/- 2.5%.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
89 Comments
We have certainly not stood up to countries not following our prescribed recipe for how they should live. China is but one of those. (US, UK etc, basically everyone except Canada and even with them we swap shame-stories on our treatment of native peoples)
Of course it's mostly cheap tat, but have a look at all your clothes, your furniture, your appliances, any building with steel in it etc. All made in China.
You're right. Let's start by relooking at the definition of 'developed' and whether NZ still fits into that mould.
Education quality dropping, health system in ruins, real wages falling, deep cracks appearing in our energy markets, R&D spending low, GDP and exports both stagnant in per capita terms.
The only thing that has trended upwards and kept our economy afloat is private debt.
Ouch, that was quite brutal to read but on every count I have to agree. The only one you missed was law and order which is failing both in not delivering natural justice (legislative failing) and security (gun crime and violence setting new records and unfortunately norms).
Our health is not 3rd world, having lived and worked in India and worked briefly in China I can assure everyone that access to health care there is many times more effective than here. Of course they have a large body of people who have no access to any health care so it is not all good, but for their most productive sectors of their economies they have very effective health care.
A lot of criticism of this government, me included, incompetent, non delivery etc but does anyone think the previous National government would have handled the pandemic better. For a start they had a health minister derided in this sector and nicknamed in a ghoulish and unsavoury manner. The problems with health are longstanding and foreshadow the arrival of this government. Some of the cock ups at MIQ are purely the fault from within the ministry and have at times ignored actual directives from the government. The ministry has not often not been in conflict with a DHB sometime, somewhere. I suggest this illustrates the actual incompetence being deeply seated in the MoH itself and it then becomes extremely worrying that the intent is to consolidate even more power into this setting at the expense of regional knowledge.
"In a free society, government reflects the soul of the people."
Being the 4th freest democracy with high levels of press and economic freedom (#2) and the lowest level of corruption in the world doesn't allow us the luxury of isolating ourselves, as the people of NZ, from the failings of our government and its departments.
Almost all to do with 3 things: A lack of infrastructure investment, below par politicians unable to sell tax and benefit reform to the voters and an economy based on debt thanks to my prior point plus a hyperactive Reserve Bank armed with a sledgehammer seeing thumb tacks everywhere.
I remember when I lived in Birmingham late 1950's that we spoke about Japanese 'tat'. Now it is 1970's cars from Birmingham that are the byword for tat and Japanese engineering and manufacturing that is world famous. OK there is Chinese tat at the local $2 stores but there is also plenty that is just good value for money. I'm expecting China to produce world leading design, engineering, software, etc. I hate their undemocratic authoritarian government but I'd never under-estimate the people of China. It took the massive incompetence of Qing Emperors followed by Emperor Mao to drag them to the bottom; given a chance they will bob back up to be world leaders.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/125796416/tax-on-all-housing-needed-to-f…
Stupid suggestion and in extreme. Problem is that whenever one discusses a solution to problem it is either no action (For vested interest) or suggestion of extreme action as that too suits those who wants no action - resulting in meaningless discussion as this suits the narrative of those who wants to take no action like Mr Orr as extreme suggestions hijack the issue.
Wrong! Carinaz is correct this is utterly stupid! Putting a $billion into the hands of the politicians? what good do you think it will do? These so called experts haven't drilled deeper and asked "why?", and therefore their proposed solution is shallow, and would most of all favour the wealthy and the Government.
The deeper cause of this issue is that Government's have fundamentally failed to do their job, failed to adequately represent their constituents and ended up creating a mess that has become a threat to everyone. At the heart of this is a persistent drive in NZ to drive down incomes for the working classes, and increasing dependency. This has been going on for at least 30 years. In the mean time the lack of regulation of parts of the economy, including the banks has seen them pump money into the housing market, while undermining other areas of investment. COVID has highlighted some areas of Government failure, the exporting of jobs, resulting in an undermining of national resilience and independence. And today we see a dramatic lack of vision from any of the current political parties, and for that matter the voting public.
This tax proposal is not a solution, but another sticking plaster on a deeper festering cancer.
Doesn't matter where the policy came from - it's still stupid! Exclude the family home, and therefore exempt single home owners and it makes better sense, but many people who only own their own home have done nothing to build the market, do not benefit from some theoretical "value" of their property, and so a tax on that would only drive them into poverty, penalising them for being prudent and saving their money and paying off a mortgage. Think this through and this is like a nightmare socialist policy that essentially says "you're not dependent on the government enough. So we are going to tax away your wealth to fix that!"
murray slow down and think. Firstly, its a spread of the tax burden, not an increase. Secondly a non homeowner puts cash in the bank and it is not only inflated away, but is also taxed on the pitiful return. From this taxed return they have ownership costs of rent to pay. i.e., their accommodation is taxed.
The home owner can same amount of cash into a home and the return is untaxed.
The unfairness is as clear as mud..so whose being stupid?
An alternative would be to allow non home owners to invest tax free up to the value of a home.
Would you prefer that?
So because the government couldn't administer a tax system to collect capital gains it could already collect in existing legislation pre-brightline, and because it's incapable of delivering a state building programme, and because they presided over a 30% increase in house prices, I would be expected to pay rent to live in the house I already had to pay through the nose to get together and save a deposit for when everyone just insisted it was a case of needing to work harder?
Tell me, rastus, where is the 'fairness' in that? Will that deemed rent be a market rent - i.e. will it include the distortionary effects of the accommodation supplement? Where is the fairness in central government that cannot deliver infrastructure to support new housing and population growth just getting to dream up new revenue streams instead of actually doing what they have told the population they will do? Or how I have to earn so much money to afford to raise a family in Auckland that I qualify for precisely zero state assistance, other than six months of a $60 a week?
There's a lot of ground that would need to be covered in terms of the social contract before I would even dream of accepting the idea I had to lease my own house from the state to make up for their decades of shortcomings.
Where is the fairness..slow down and read (your comment is all over the place.stay on point)-
Our struggling home saver has $500k invested (insert any number). The interest (which doesn't match inflation) is taxed.
He then uses the interest income to pay his rent i.e his accommodation is taxed.
Home owner has his $500k invested in a home.
Instead of interest, he get accommodation.
Both are income. One is taxed, one is not.
The issue is spreading tax base..not increasing it.
Get it now?
I understand it perfectly, Rastus. You're them one appealing to some vague notion of 'fairness'. Your example also only works if house prices continually increase, otherwise the home owner is worse off, and has still all the risks and obligations of a mortgage, which is far longer than the life of a residential lease. So I ask you: please quantify 'fairness', and explain to this millennial and recent FHB how it is 'fair' that I should suddenly have to lease my own home from the same governments who got us into this mess, and who already are failing to provide for the population and cost drivers they are directly responsible for.
I think Rastus is right, we need to be fair. For too long savers have been shirking their GST responsibilities, and not paying enough to maintain their capital. It just sits their being unproductive in bank account.
I feel it is only fair to rectify this, so propose that we:
a) Apply a quarterly account fee of a % of savings. About $750 a quarter sounds comparable to rates (And should include GST)
b) Apply an annual insurance fee of about $1,500 (also inclusive of GST)
c) Apply an ad-hoc charge of anywhere between $10k and $25k to replicate the common maintenance/repairs undertaken by a homeowner (that also attract GST)
In fact, we can simplify. We should tax the savers on the unrealised income they had if they used their completely non-productive savings to buy a house. Its simple maths. Multiply savings by 5 to get the value of the house. Apply Rastus' tax to that and deduct from their account.
Equality and Fairness for all!
You do understand perfectly. To work it does not matter if house goes up or down.
House equity say $1 mill, current term rates .82% imputed income $8,200. tax at say 30% = $2,460 tax.
Just change the figures as values/equity and interest rate changes.
Land banker pays tax or sells up. Land goes down in value as it is now taxed on imputed income.
Structured correctly joe public pay same if not less tax.
And the young people who are savers are now on the same playing field re taxing their savings.
Young people are still trying to make ends meet while renting. What do you think will happen to rents if you introduce what effectively becomes ground rent on equity? The 'just adjust rates to suit' approach doesn't work in a country where the governments are lazy enough to get away with taxing inflation on PAYE. Are we really meant to believe that we can design a tax system to be responsive and predictive enough when our current rates haven't changed in what, a decade now? Are your living costs the same as when the brackets last changed at the lower end?
Why should we trust the people who got us into this mess to suddenly get more competent at running this far more complex and convoluted system? What part of our current tax and housing administration makes you think "Oh, I know what will fix this! FBT on houses!" is going to do anything except make things worse?
There are far more simpler, direct and straight-forward solutions like "actually build houses" or "resource the IRD to enforce tax laws as they stand". But imputed rents on equity is far sexier if you're an accountant or economist trying to drum up work, or a politician trying to avoid talking about why your big-ticket policies have failed, so we don't hear much about those.
I consider myself to be fairly competent in the legislature. So please enlighten me... what legislation refers to unearned income? A reference to a particular section/sub section would be nice.
If it helps, all the below are quite clear that a physical transaction had to have occurred to be counted as income. i.e. real money was received
https://www.govt.nz/browse/tax-benefits-and-finance/tax/income-you-pay-…
https://www.govt.nz/browse/tax-benefits-and-finance/benefits/what-count…
https://www.ird.govt.nz/income-tax/income-tax-for-individuals/types-of-…
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2007/0097/latest/whole.html (There are whole sections dedicated to "Income" you can peruse)
Rastus... I think your argument is a nonsense. ( your argument... not you )
We all need to have a roof over our heads..
The choice is between renting vs Owner occupied.....
Interest earnt from savings in the bank is irrelevant......
You and TOP twist it in simply to support and justify your desire to try to "redistribute wealth ".
You twist it around to make it look like anyone living in their own home is a Tax avoider who should be punished.
You even (TOP) argue for this tax in the name of affordable housing... dream on.
(also, since when has a roof over ones head been considered income ? )
Your time might be better spent looking at the underlying causes of House price inflation. Then you might come up with some better ideas than this "scorched earth" imaginary imputed rent tax.
And when I say "scorched earth", I mean that there are plenty of people who now only earn average incomes but now live in what are now expensive homes... You seem to be totally ok with these people taking out reverse mortgages to pay your tax. The idea of a forced reverse mortgage, or being forced to sell the family home because of this tax, is abhorrent to me.
It would just be another nail in the coffin of the working/ middle class.
If you were true to your reasoning for an imputed rent tax then you might also have to advocate for a poll tax... but I'm pretty sure that would not fit into your idea of things.. ie... take from the haves ( owners of assets ) and give to the have nots.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poll_tax_(Great_Britain)
So lets exempt non home owners from being taxed up to the value of xx so they are on a level playing field then?
The unfairness toward those that cannot afford to park cash in a home, but have no choice but be taxed on their savings is a major bias against the have nots.
To make matters worse, these savers cannot get accommodation supplements either, whereas home owners can.
The system sucks for non asset owners.
As an asset owner it disturbs me how ignorant many on this site are to the plight of our strugglers out there - and how we are perpetuating it.
I can assure you Rastus, there are people who have far greater influence over that than the commentators in this comment stream. That's where you should direct your energy. We should start by asking how to address a civil service that cannot provide infrastructure for the population it imports, an aloof and increasingly unaccountable political establishment and a regulatory system that is either not fit for purpose, or just so blase that it doesn't care what happens anymore.
You can dream up whatever complicated tax structures you like, but until you address those core issues, you're just moving numbers around on a spreadsheet with no chance of help ever actually reaching the people who need it. Trying to hand a bill for renting your own home to home owners under the same broken social contract we have now isn't going to solve a thing.
Oh dear..all to difficult isn't it. yes its moving umbers around a spreadsheet - to tax those that are not being taxed and spreading the burden across all sectors. The added benefit of hammering land bankers.
If a few more people understand this all well and good. I have no vested interest. Just educating a few is enough.
Rastus..
Its got nothing to do with "parking cash in a Home".... and nothing to do with taxing savings.
Just because I vehemently disagree with TOP and you in regards to imputed rental income , does not mean I'm ignorant to the plight of the younger generation.
there is a field of study under the acronym "FIRE economy" , which looks into the financialization of an economy.
eg.https://www.bwb.co.nz/books/the-fire-economy/
I dislike TOPS imputed rental income policy because it simply taxes the effects of this rather than addressing the causes... Even worse it wants to do this by taxing an imaginary income
Back in the day.... a house was considered a consumable... a cost.... because it was.
Land is different , because it has locational value, and if you have strong population growth, it impacts the locational value of land.
BUT... all things being equal the aggregate value of ALL land cant go up much...UNLESS there is Monetary inflation..
What we have today is the abomination that has been called the "FIRE" economy.... which is basically the financialization of every thing.
The financial economy has become the Master... eg Central Banks, Banking system...Wall street etc..
(For NZ, until Covid came, the growth paradigm also included excessive immigration ie... credit growth + immigration = GDP growth)
TOPs imputed rental income tax just buys into this bullshit..... (taxing imputed rental income is just as an appendage on this FIRE economy)
I disagree with you that most commentators are ignorant to the plight of the next generation.
I think most of the disagreement is around the causes of and solutions to affordable housing.
I pretty much agree with Dale Smiths views on how to get affordable housing. (and it has nothing to do with taxing to try to lower prices.)
Interestingly, Govt and local bodies are not at all interested in going down that road.... eg. acknowledging the relationship between affordable housing and the cost of rural land at the urban boundaries vs inner city land prices ..... etc
The whole building process is a gravy train for local bodies, and the last thing they want to give up is control of that income stream...etc..
They only pay lip service to the idea of affordable housing. It does not bother them that a small section sells for $500, 000 or more.
I had the idea of build a small "off the Grid' shack on a mates farm. Did not involve subdivision, just building a shack on his land. Just to get permission do do so was going to cost me over $100,000 .... just to get the relevant consents... I was kinda shocked..
Made me realize that affordable housing is not going to happen unless there is radical change , in regards to Local bodies.... which, I suppose, could only happen with a radical change in Govt level ethos.
just my view.
Rastus you're perpetrating a myth based on flawed assumptions. A home owner is taxed - they're called rates, and today market value is used to calculate them. Plus the home owner faces maintenance and insurance costs. I haven't even considered the mortgage payments including interest. The assumption you are making is about the value of that home. you are assuming that when the theoretical value of the home changes, then somehow the home owner, without doing anything, benefits from that change in value. That is just rubbish! And consider what happens if the value of that home falls? What happens then? If there is a mortgage then the home owner's equity reduces, but the bank's doesn't, theirs increases!
Lets talk about what you say about taxes. All income is taxed. people have a choice about what they do with their after tax pay, they can save it and hopefully earn interest, and the interest will be taxed. Or they can spend it. Some items they spend their money on will counter inflation. I know people who have sold cars for more than they paid for them, but others will cost them. A home will cost them. Your statement that a renter's accommodation is taxed is wrong. It is not, no more than any other purchase from savings is. Home owner ship is taxed as I said earlier, by rates. What you claim is unfair, is fundamentally peoples right to choose what they do with their own money. What you are complaining about is the Government's failure to regulate a market to the extent that it has created an unbalanced economy so that a few have been able to take advantage at huge benefit while many more miss out. It is not the single home owners (there is simply no imputed income from a theoretical change in the value of a home), but investors and speculators who are the problem.
Correct, make the family home exempt. 2nd, 3rd 4th properties fill your boots.
This government takes enough tax to pay for all sorts of fabulous things. Its how it spends it that needs to be assessed.
EDIT: Upon reading the article it seems like a good idea, however forecasting your net equity upon which a 'term deposit' rate is based for the the tax take, is highly speculative. It would be better if this tax figure your house contributed was then deducted from your PAYE tax. I'd be all in.
Lets let the government generate tax from unrealized speculative valuations whilst giving me a discount on my PAYE tax, go them.
What about the government's current approach to PAYE suggests they'd ever be adjusted downwards or in line with inflation in the rest of the economy? We can't even trust them to do that, and here we are suggesting that their own inflating operating costs would have to be either funded through unpalatable tax increases, or the cowardice of inflationary taxation.
Yes they would have to exempt the family home. That is because many homeowners have had their property escalate enormously in value, unwittingly simply by living in them as they always might have. To then bang a tax on that would be heavily unscrupulous, bearing in mind too, that any one such household, just sits on the market, going up and down, like a boat on the tide, without producing any actual extra income to meet a tax on those fluctuations. For a government to force citizens to mortgage their property to pay tax would be draconian to say the least. It would strike across the Magna Carta itself, the foundation of the law of individual freedom as we know it, and reach back to a Doomsday Book scenario.
Yep stupid idea, even if the family home is excluded you have started down that path and you know darn well it will be included down the track. Its just another Tax grab and seriously NZ is getting to the point its not even worth working, we are being taxed to death already.
Can we get an allowance to balance for the risk I've taken on when drawing down a 30 year mortgage on inflated property values? Renters don't face that. In fact, in the event it becomes an issue for me, they would benefit. It really is such a dumb idea, you can cut it both ways - and that's before you get to the compliance cost, or the agency issue of making government revenues increasingly contingent on house values only ever going up.
City councils are already inflicting their own version of a wealth tax by the simple mechanism of rates being calculated pro rata on the value of your property. Then the government takes 15% GST on top. That system has now compounded to be totally inequitable in that one homeowner can pay twice as much as another for exactly the same services, even though they are neighbours with the same sized structures and sections.
And set a defacto expectation that people dip into their equity to make ends meet - while there is no imperative for Governments to reduce spending or even ensure they are delivering what they say they are spending money to do. It's about as massive a breach of the underlying social contract that makes society function when it comes to tax as you can imagine - although the Only-for-Auckland-Regional-Fuel-Tax (PS: We're not giving you the money) is up there.
...except the whole reason this is a pool of wealth is due to the failure of the state to effectively regulate the market. They're not suddenly going to become more competent at that if we give them a huge incentive to make sure values never drop. Anyone who thinks this would improve affordability is flogging themselves for pleasure's sake.
It would be far more effective and administratively efficient than rent controls. Councils already do it for rates. Imputed return add as govt tax on rated demand.
At same time reduce personal taxes so as not to increase overall tax take. Watch land developers either develop or sell up.
"Councils already do it for rates" is not a huge selling point given they've managed to inflate land and development costs and drive up house values through being poor economic stewards. So now we give this power to central government, who are already abysmal at providing for the population pressure they've imported, and we expect... what, exactly?
Lol, you have hit the nail on the head. It is already in the councils best interests to increase house prices, as they get more rates.
Can you even imagine what would happen if it was in the Govt's best interests as well?
To those thinking any tax on house value is going to the lower prices. I offer you this... Chortle-Chortle-hahaha.
"The total rates collected by the city council doesn’t change as a result of the revaluation but the portion of what each ratepayer pays could change depending on if their property increases in value more or less than the average."
"The most common misconception that people have is their property values might have gone up significantly [and] they think oh that means my rates are going to go up ... and it doesn’t necessarily mean that. How the distribution of rates changes for individual properties will depend on how each individual property has changed. Certain areas might have gone up more than other areas.”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/waikato-top-stories/125240289/ham…
Good to see some raising question on RBNZ fear mongering to pass their monetary and fiscal generousity
https://www.afr.com/markets/debt-markets/rbnz-needs-to-atone-for-policy…
Now the question to be asked oneselves : Can one trust RBNZ or do they too lie and manipulate to push their agenda / policy as evident how they exploited pandemic.
Should ask Mr Orr if he still stands by his statement that Inflation is Temperory AND IF YES what is his definition / timeframe / meaning of TEMPERORY
I doubt RBNZ has the luxury of playing the temporary inflation card to get out of rolling back monetary stimulus.
Our government is either horribly slow in or indifferent towards rolling out much-needed reforms in our markets.
Also, our high dependence on imports for everything currently in short supply from materials to skills and knowhow seems to be putting further pressure on prices.
Agreed, it can only be a matter of time and in fact becomes even more likely as the world is volunteering themselves for a 3rd wave by opening up.
If we can stay as a team of 5Mil and the PM can continue to convince us to comply then we will still make a better go of it than anyone else. Even the Aussies are embarrassingly bad at this lock-down stuff.
I don't understand the term "risk off", I would have thought investors perception of increased risk, in other words "risk on" would hold them back from buying commodities. The flight of currency to safe havens would I would have thought a risk on behaviour. All of this is reset stuff, and I'm still waiting. How much longer do I need to wait, with most of my dosh earning zilch.
"Risk off" describes investors reducing risk by flight to perceived safe haven assets.
I dont believe you will be waiting much longer. Crypto, SPACS, record PEs, Robinhood, Gamestop etc., are all late bull market signals. Search Jeremy Grantham and take a listen - he has form predicting crashes.
LOL: the Dow Jones was 30900 in March and it is 33900 now, which is almost 10% up. And this from a very high level anyway. The Dow is up almost 80% since its lows in March 2020
Whoever is panicking after a couple of percentage points fall of the Dow should not be in the share market at all in the first place.
Anybody who start talking about the need for an even more reckless monetary policy than what already is now must have their real estate blinkers on.
Exactly. A few more days of downward movement on financial assets, and it'll be decided that the economy is not ready to raise rates.
And if rates are raised, we'll get that downward movement.
Ergo, rates will never be raised. (When I say 'never', I mean that only a war between major powers, or a genuine civil war within one of them, could change this.)
Japan started 30 years ago. Europe in 2008. Now it's the Anglosphere's turn. We are doing exactly the same things, for exactly the same reasons, and yet expect a different result. It boggles the mind.
Chinese cyber attacks, surely it's time for the west to push back harder on China?
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/government-accuses-china-of-state-sponsor…
Snowden Lauds Reporting on Israeli Spyware Scandal as 'Story of Year'
Revealed: leak uncovers global abuse of cyber-surveillance weapon
Chinese cyber attacks, surely it's time for the west to push back harder on China?
Britain to the rescue - UK Special Forces To Take On New Covert Mission Against Russia, China – Military Official
Yes I am quite sure that the Russians and Chinese are quaking from our impressive military capability... Militarily, what has China done apart from occupying the Spratley islands? Given the US's pervasive foreign bases it is highly hypocritical to criticise this.
Cyber attacks are worth defending against but to stop them with physical retaliation seems pretty basic in response. Why not simply acknowledge this as a new cold war front and resource it appropriately. As far as I am aware no one has died from these cyber attacks thus far.
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.