Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand with news of a broad range of August data that shows the Chinese economy is slowing, and quite quickly.
But first in the US, industrial production rose as expected in August, up +5.9% from a year ago
And the latest Fed survey of factories in the New York region shows that growth as picked up, selling prices are still setting new record high levels, and these businesses have a very positive outlook.
In Canada, their CPI increased +4.1% in August and higher than the higher estimates. It is high enough now to become an election issue there.
In China, house prices rose +4.2% in August which was a little less than the July rise and probably on a track they want to see. But most of the other August data they released was weaker than they would like.
Chinese industrial production rose +5.3% year-on-year, well shy of July's +6.4% gain and the expected +5.8% in August. In fact the August gain was their slowest in more than a year.
Their electricity production came in virtually unchanged from August a year ago.
China retail sales underwhelmed even more, up just +2.0% when a +7.0% gain was expected because July rose +8.5%. So this is hard evidence their domestic economy is slowing fast.
China seems to be blaming the weather for these shortfalls.
They aren't the only Asian economy slowing. Data for Japanese machinery orders underwhelmed, although this is for July and seasonally-adjusted. The actual data was really quite positive and there is subsequent other data that suggests an August pickup.
The EU released industrial production data for July too, and that came in better than expected (+7.7%) although not quite the rebound recorded in June.
A new data point we should keep an eye on is the lithium price. It has been rising very strongly in 2021, but there is recent evidence that a mining supply-access frenzy is getting underway, especially in Australia and Canada.
In Australia, there was an OECD review of its economy and it had some pointed criticisms embedded in their glossy assessments, not the least of which were aimed at the RBA and its policymaking.
And locally, Air New Zealand has said it is in a two year partnership with Airbus to convert some of its domestic airplanes to fly on hydrogen, and thereby eliminating CO2 from its aircraft emissions.
Back in Australia, there were another 1259 new community cases in NSW yesterday with another 1118 not assigned to known clusters, so not much material improvement there. They now have 14,333 active locally acquired cases. Victoria is reporting another 423 new cases yesterday, so it is still tough there too. Queensland is reporting zero new cases. The ACT has 13 new cases again. Overall in Australia, more than 43% of eligible Aussies are fully vaccinated, plus 25% have now had one shot so far.
The Wednesday session on Wall Street has traded higher since its opening, with the S&P500 now up +0.8% in early afternoon trade. Overnight, European markets were mostly lower with Paris down -1.0% and London down -0.3%. Yesterday the very large Tokyo market fell -0.5%. And Hong Kong dived another -1.8%. Shanghai slipped another -0.2%, with building sell-offs. The ASX200 closed down -0.3% and the NZX50 Capital Index closed down -0.1%.
The UST 10yr yield opens today at just over 1.30%, so recovering +2 bps from this time yesterday. The US 2-10 rate curve is at +110 bps and marginally steeper. Their 1-5 curve is steeper too at +74 bps, while their 3m-10 year curve is steeper at +126 bps. The Australian Govt ten year benchmark rate starts today at 1.25% and back up +2 bps. The China Govt ten year bond is at 2.92% and up another +1 bp. The New Zealand Govt ten year is now at 1.79% and down -8 bps but most of that was yesterday.
The price of gold has fallen -US$15 today and now at US$1792/oz.
But oil prices have risen sharply overnight by about +US$2.50/bbl so in the US they are now still just under US$72.50/bbl, while the international Brent price is now over US$75/bbl.
The Kiwi dollar opens today at just on 71.1 USc and marginally firmer since this time yesterday. Against the Australian dollar we are unchanged at 96.9 AUc. Against the euro we are firmish at 60.2 euro cents. That means our TWI-5 starts today still at just on 74.1 and we are still right at the top of the 72-74 range of the past ten months.
The bitcoin price has risen again today, now at US$48,067 and +3.2% higher than this time yesterday. Volatility in the past 24 hours has been moderate at just over +/- 2.3%.
The easiest place to stay up with event risk today is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
78 Comments
Our govt keeps us entertained.
Waiting for the plan: https://www.newsroom.co.nz/climate-plan-delay-shows-govt-as-usual-not-u…?
Waiting for the apology: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/over-100-pasifika-overstaye…
And if my maths is correct the media is celebrating fluency in Te Reo dropping from 5% to 2% of school children. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/tamariki-m-ori-in-k-hanga-k…?
Well this is what prominent Maori wanted in the 1800's when they petitioned the government to amend the Native Schools Act.
<blockquote>Second, all children of two years old, when they are just able to speak, should be taught the English language, and all the knowledge which you the Europeans possess. If this plain and easy course be followed, our children will soon attain to the acquirements of the Europeans.</blockquote>
http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-BIM873TeHa-t1-g1-t2.html
After reading that petition (written by Maori no less!) it reminds me of that Marama Davidson comment about their customs being "beaten" out of them. It was their very own people who encouraged this at a time when most Maori lived rurally. Those "native schools" were optional and separate from state schools if I remember correctly.
"and thereby eliminating CO2 from its aircraft emissions."
Ah, no. There's the build energy, the maintenance energy, the runway material..... Then there's the FACT that 60% of global electricity (which would be used to split the hydrogen from water) is fossil-fuel generated.
Here, we are ALREADY choosing to coal-back OUR grid, before Air NZ tap into it. And we are 60% fossil-energised ourselves; 60% which will also be expecting to morph to somehow-generated electricity. Tiwai going will help, but the EROEI is so bad that hydrogen won't happen. They have no business option but to try, and they're aiming in the right direction, but by the time we're down to hydrogen, there isn't enough surplus energy to have an economy as we think of it. Which begs the question; how many people will be apportioning their surplus energy to a discretionary activity?
The irony of a virtue signally zero carbon carbon government owning an airline. It's almost like zero carbon jockeys who use the internet.
'Global computer usage produces twice the greenhouse gases as the aviation industry'
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/technology/global-computer-usage-produc…
They don't have a lot of choice PDK, so at least they're trying, which is more than most other airlines. And following on from your response yesterday Government refusal to regulate and just choosing to "encourage" will cost us all big time. They are still clearly in the mindset that they cannot piss off the big money, and any changes they implement will impact the people before business.
But to be fair they are in a crack. NZ produces less than 1% of the world's GHGs, and any change we make will have negligible effect on our climate, and most of the worlds major contributors are not changing at all. If we moved too far a lot of business would up sticks and move to another country which would let them make money even though it will kill them. So the question is what should they do
My view is plan and build business's and resources to support the economy that are targeted to reduce the carbon foot print or are carbon capture infrastructure. They do need to regulate, but recent examples point to their stupidity (word deliberately chosen) where they have regulated against vehicles when there is no viable alternatives. Long term, I prefer hydrogen fuel as there are likely less long term environmental impacts, but yes there is an impact in production, but i do believe that technology will work for that to find ways to do it efficiently. COVID should have taught them of the need for resilience, be resilience is not just about pandemics dragging logistic lines to a stop, but it is also about the planet rebelling against our footprint, and the need to find a way to live in our house while not making it a toxic environment to be in.
Our world is starting to remind me of growing up on the farm and the pressure cooker on the stove that if unlidded too soon put dinner on the ceiling. That pressure is coming from an explosion in technology and people. Tempo of life in the last 75 years has simply beeen strapped to a rocket. People, billions of them, just want to do much, much more than just live. The demand for all the travel, what we travel on, all the trinkets and gear, their short lived fashion, up until the 1960s little had changed. Look what’s happened since. The pill, fast food, drugs, TV, computers, jets, cruise ships, cell phones, fast cars etc etc.
It's the economic systems and power politics Foxy. Capitalism feeds and grows from greed and lust for power and influence, and Governments have forgotten that they are supposed to serve the people. Every political and ideological system created, creates it's own elites and most are based on wealth. And those elites then move to protect their influence and privilege, at the expense of the people. But this system is self defeating because components of it are unsustainable. Everyone has to aspire to be one of the 'elite' because it means survival. Survival also means breeding, but in some cultures and economies breeding also means people to look after you when you're old and/or infirm so population also becomes a problem. What is the fix?
To be bluntly frank, I don't think at this stage there is one. I think there is time if the whole world changes rapidly. But while we (NZ) might be able to try to fix our little corner of the world, competing forces from outside, combined with some internal will sabotage what ever is tried because of existing economic systems and politics. I believe this age of man is doomed by it's own hubris, just as the others before us. The wealthy will die clutching their purses believing it is so unfair as they were the special ones destined to survive and rule.
I'd put it more simply.
What is considered a comfortable life style by 'us' simply cannot be delivered to the number of people on the planet. I have no idea (PDK can prob help here?) what an average lifestyle would look like if the worlds popn all lived at that level, I suspect it would be totally unacceptable by our standards.
Edit - that post nails it, Murray. Therein lies the predicament.
The problem with hydrogen is the fact that it takes more energy to produce, than it delivers. Much like a charge/discharge of a battery, in fact hydrogen is very much a battery; a vector rather than a source.
At the level where we're down to hydrogen, we will have so little surplus energy that we won't be keeping pace with infrastructure maintenance - let alone building new, let alone discretionally flying. I suspect that says technology will be simpler; more robust. I live on solar PV, micro-hydro and grow more than enough trees to sink my carbon, but I see a time when semiconductors are no longer made/traded. when were living on cannibilised old stock. Nowadays, I think more of old-school windmills and old-school solar water-heating; getting as close to the emitting source (sun, wind) as possible and as close to the work as possible. That Hayes workshop in Oturehua is though-provoking; well worth a visit if you're down this way....
I do take you're point re hydrogen, but i also believe that demand will lead to newer, better and more efficient ways to 'extract' it. Besides i also think there will be too much environmental impact from batteries, so while battery EVs will shine for a while, hydrogen will eventually take over. And then there is suitcase size nuclear reactors.....? Someone with try to make one to power trucks and trains. Long way from it now though.
I think we're out of time for a greenfields tech. We can power existing locomotives with biodiesel, locally-grown. They exist, as does the tech. The problem is that all of the FF alternatives have us doing a lot, lot more, to get a lot, lot less. And this with a financial system already going inexorably into debt, unable to charge interest, and about to see scarcity-driven inflation. Which it can't absorb.
Maybe they can develop those suitcase/ backpack battlefield nuke bombs that the yanks amongst others have in deep storage somewhere? What a world it would be if the Taliban and chums got their hands on a few of those. Enter stage left Iran, stage right N Korea. Just speculating.
It's not the bombs that are a threat Foxy. They're too hard to aquire or make. But get some long shelf life dirty material and you can contaminate an area so it is unusable for 10,000 years! Indeed i think Tom Clancy used such a scenario in one of his books, but my own studies suggest that these can be just as deadly, a lot harder to detect and stop, and kill easily over a long period of time. Just the kind of weapon psychopathic religo nuts love.
Then there's the FACT that 60% of global electricity (which would be used to split the hydrogen from water) is fossil-fuel generated.
A completely unfounded argument against hydrogen. Production of hydrogen, given it's relative ease of transmission vis-a-vis electricity would never be centralised in areas of high energy cost - i.e. fossil fuel generated electricity sources. It will be centalised in areas of zero marginal cost production - we see this already. People aren't advocating for electrolysis operations in areas where electricity is provided by coal.
Plus we have significant infrastructure from existing fossil fuel storage and transportation to leverage.
Saying that hydrogen will not replace fossil fuels on a significant scale because of the 'woeful' EROI (any citations for that, btw? I got curious and couldn't get any really good estimates from the scientific literature) is genuine head in the sand sort of stuff.
"Plus we have significant infrastructure from existing fossil fuel storage and transportation to leverage."
Let me know when every service station has a pressure tank system that isn't going to cost millions of dollars to retrofit, and lock in a huge ROI in the cost of hydrogen as a fuel.
On the other hand, most houses tend to have power sockets. If hydrogen can trump that for accessibility then I'm all ears.
True. Once upon a time general stores never had petrol pumps, either.
Until recently, supermarkets never had EV superchargers either.
If your argument is that "but, but, but petrol stations don't have hydrogen storage now", you need a better argument.
In any case, I was talking more about our core infra - Maui pipeline and storage facilities.
https://www.transitionengineering.org/pop_the_hydrogen_bubble
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/08/20210823-monash.html
https://www.carbonbrief.org/energy-return-on-investment-which-fuels-win
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/why-hydrogen-is-not-a-cure-for-emissions
https://www.mbie.govt.nz/dmsdocument/10624-susan-krumdieck-a-vision-for…
https://theconversation.com/why-new-zealand-should-invest-in-smart-rail…
http://euanmearns.com/the-hydrogen-economy-more-green-mythology/
https://energyskeptic.com/2015/charles-a-s-hall-eroi-of-different-fuels…
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/09/got-storage-how-hard-can-it-be/#more…
You will do your usual sad trick; try and denigrate by source, a bit of ridicule... Me, I have compared the Nicolai Georgescu-Roegen diagram, with the Samuelson derivatives. You were told the latter were real. They are missing four arrows. Those four arrows render neoliberal economics, as taught, false. This is a physics world - as you could prove to yourself; don't eat, don't fill your petrol tank. Eat crap food and fill your tank with crap fuel - you don't do as well as you could have. Use crappy food, then try and push your car home - and that is about where the EROEI of wind/hydro electricity to hydrogen to whatever..... is down to.
https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/professional-area/
Come back and tell me how you got on. Happy learning. It's never too late.
Figured.
Try learning - from first principles. I understand they don't do that in Economics.....
From first principles, you are an energy equation. Don't eat, you succumb to entropy. Eat barely enough, you look malnourished and can't run a marathon. These are just facts. No need for papers on them. We started out with coal - which was good compared to wind/water/grown food-to-animal/human labour. We used the best EROEI coal - it's gone. We went to oil - which was better. We've used the best; it's gone. We're down to having to fracture rocks, as the best 'next' option'. And even there, the global economy is in trouble.
Hydrogen (which I made at school, it needs no citation) takes electricity to crack from water. That electricity has to be 'produced' (meaning it is derived from the solar energy in the Georgescu-Roegen diagram (which you will studiously ignore - too much at stake, is my pick). Then it cracks the water. Then it is stored (easy - with so big a particle you can use fishnet...). Then you can use it - maybe you could adapt an old carburettored engine; EFI is going to have trouble.
All that, driven by renewables which even at first-energy-devolution (every alteration is a step towards entropy) cannot yet replicate themselves (haven't the EROEI to build themselves using themselves; solar panels from solar panels, wind turbines from wind turbines; they all rely on the superior EROEI (surplus energy) of fossil fuels) yet we're going to fly using second or third-level devolution? And run a society/economy that will have 'all things being equal?
Try learning, try not avoiding. Good luck to you with that.
Ahh. okay. So no citations.
I'm not arguing that electrolysis is 100% efficient. Your pseudo EROEI measure just becomes less and less relevant as the energy input supply becomes near infinite.
"Then you can use it - maybe you could adapt an old carburettored engine; EFI is going to have trouble."
wtf? Who is arguing the retrofitting of existing vehicle stock to combust hydrogen?
I guess all your credibility on the subject just evaporated..
BL - valid question. The answer has to be: we have to go with know technologies. There isn't the lead-time to wait in hope.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nuclear-power-will-replace-o…
Then there's this: "Nuclear energy now provides about 10% of the world's electricity from about 445 power reactors."
That's just the world's electricity. And nuclear is south of 4% of global energy in total, from memory.
So 4,000 extra plants to do electricity, 11,000 to do everything.
Then: "As of 2017, identified uranium reserves recoverable at US$130/kg were 6.14 million tons (compared to 5.72 million tons in 2015). At the rate of consumption in 2017, these reserves are sufficient for slightly over 130 years of supply."
And that's at the current rate of consumption. Get the problem? You'd never get the build finished before you'd run out. And, of course, you'd need fossil energy for the build..... And Greta T is correct (as it Extinction Rebellion) in that by 2030, we have to have stopped emitting.
You think I'm overstating the problem? Get a hold of Stephen Emmott's '10 Billion'. Get a copy of Clugston's Blip. I'm tame......
It's not what you forgot - it's what you actively choose (indeed pre-chose in this case; you didn't read a thing, did you?) not to know.
Technology cannot create energy. It can merely facilitate the use of energy (as it heads inexorably from high to low quality) to do work. That is nothing more than energy efficiency-gains, and they run into Carnot and the Laws of Physics.
Magic was a well chosen word. It describes the economics appraisal of energy very well.
I don't read echo chamber junk, PDK.
I told you - link something from the scientific literature. The closest thing was the Monash study (which you didn't really link) - which seems to be highly contentious.
No one is contesting the laws of physics. They are questioning your ignorance of the role of techology in energy use and substitution.
Nymad, like you I was surprised at how little literature there was on this, one of the few was this one
https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2016/ee/c5ee02573g which talks about solar produced H2 and it gives an ErOei of 1.6 to 3ish which is at least positive, but the authors do caution that
In particular, the energy-return on energy-invested (EROEI or EROI) for a large photoelectrochemical hydrogen production facility has been shown to be positive, with a maximum EROI value, based on any single parameter sensitivity, of <3:1, and a base-case EROI of 1.66. The minimum EROI (petroleum based) necessary to sustain the minimum standards of life is reported to be 3:1, but to sustain present standards of life in first-world countries the minimum EROI is generally higher, upwards of 14:1, for many of the luxuries we currently enjoy (health care, athletics, art, etc.).66 Current EROI values for petroleum are 20:1–30:1, and preferred new energy generation technologies would have similar EROI values, thereby allowing impoverished people to raise their standard of living to that of first-world countries
TBF it depends on the energy source I think (so for others it would be negative), but even with solar H2 that would still lead to a massive downgrade in lifestyle due to less energy being available.
Then there's the question of where all the solar panels go (while working AND when they're finished with)
Hi Nymad,
This is nice report of the cost parity of green energy to existing sources. It's main hypothesis is price parity based on the under-pricing of existing supply. So a theoretical view based on the LCOE method proposed by NDRC (Green lobby - https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/methodology-levelized-cost-of-…) rather than economic cost..
https://www.rethinkx.com/energy#energy-download worth a read and the report has a useful bibliography.
Have always found people's claims of negative EROI to be a little short sighted. Negative EROI is better than no energy in certain applications.
A hypothetical example may be using solar energy to power some form of carbon sequestration facility where the end product is Aviation Fuel. EROI may be, say, 1 part electricity = 0.01 parts aviation fuel. But if the facility is passively churning away and can fulfil our aviation fuel needs, then it solves the issue of trying to generate sufficient thrust from battery packs.
Nice thought - I had it myself, more than once.
The problem is the one Nymad falls over on; all things are assumed equal. Unfortunately, if you're down to that desperate use of infrastructure, you're below being able to build aeroplanes; that takes good-quality energy too. As does everything else. The problem will be one of triage; which balls we keep juggling and which we drop.
We will be using low-EROEI tech, but not to propel high-tech. It's kind of an oxymoron.
That time your hospital system was the worlds fifth largest employer, and you had one of the highest vaccination rates in the world - and are still contemplating unsustainable lockdowns.
'LONDON, Sept 15 (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Boris Johnson is hoping to get through winter without any more coronavirus lockdowns, but doctors and scientists warn that relying largely on vaccines without other measures could put unsustainable pressure on hospitals.'
https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/hospital-strain-test-uks-vaccine-based…
Er, so what's your point? They should've locked down earlier and harder and vaccinated more? Normally you're against that sort of thing aren't you?
Or is it that it was all pointless and they should have done nothing and let even more die so people could buy useless crap from shops and drink in a pub?
Confused!
What's strange about that comment is that hospitalisations and deaths actually appear to have fallen in the UK over the last week. I doubt they'll lock down again unless they run out of hospital capacity, in the absence of better options living with the virus as it becomes endemic is the way forward.
The article is saying that the vaccines (alone) are not working for controlling the spread and doctors and scientists are concerned that the same thing as last winter might occur and require more lock downs (and this might be avoided with a less restrictive lock-down now).
I would say this is the UK realising that the vaccines wear off quickly and then you are not much better off than you were before the rollout. They are not suitable for elimination with open borders.
Lithium supplies are gonna increase once China starts digging up all the Afghanistan reserves recently agreed with the New Old Gubmint for a modest 2% ticket clip (unconfirmed). But expecting the price to be driven down is not certain: Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics may just possibly act exactly the other way.....
Good to see someone calling out the fear tactics being used by the government
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/covid-19-delta-outbreak-cruel-reaction-to…
i see the comments yesterday around the potential risks of giving the vaccine to kids
Wow
What an awesome society of old geezers we have
willing to risk a few kids for their own dodgy health
If only the war generation were alive to see what became of their kids.....
The most significant news of the day is that a new defence pact AUKUS has been announced between Australia, The United Kingdom and The United States to counter the growing Chinese threat.
Very notably absent. New Zealand.
I wonder if our allies have grown tired of spineless Ardern cosying up to the evil CCP.
That mentally deranged taniwha and dragon speech that Mahuta gave went down like a cold cup of sick.
Thanks to David Lange and Helen Clark we are on our own. No longer contributing members of any effective defence agreement, and no foreseeable Government who have the vision or balls to build a capable defence force. The cost to recover what we have lost far exceeds the cost we would have incurred from keeping what we had.
General John E. Hyten, vice chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Monday, "Our goal should be to never go to war with China, to never go to war with Russia. Because that day is a horrible day for the planet, and a horrible day for our countries." Retired US admiral and former head of US Pacific Command Harry Harris also said that "it's very important that we do everything that we can to prevent an escalation and open warfare" with China. Link
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2021/09/new-australia-united-kingd…
So NZ is now officially out and this is confirmation of the same. Chinese bosses will be pleased with their lobbyist / influencer placed in high places in NZ.
Can anyone deny and it has taken Chinese years to achieve through National party and now Labour.
We are simply at the end of the road. https://www.cfr.org/article/belt-and-road-tracker
It is a stretch to say this is the fault of the Chinese though, reducing our defense spending, turning away from the Five Eye party line, I would say we have largely shot ourselves here.
The Wednesday session on Wall Street has traded higher since its opening, with the S&P500 now up +0.8% in early afternoon trade.
Microsoft Announces Record $60 Billion Buyback Just As Market Was About To Break Key Support
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.