US housing markets turns up; China floods more liquidity; EU sentiment high; air cargo volumes rise; Aussies to restrain their housing market; UST 10yr 1.54%, oil unchanged and gold softer ; NZ$1 = 68.6 USc; TWI-5 = 72.6

It will be just fine. These hapless 165,000 have been in New Zealand anyway, keeping our economy going, making us the Dubai of the South Pacific dependent on an army of toilers without rights. Let them bring their families here, make them all citizens, then stop this immigration nonsense and build a steady-state economy not reliant on low-wage overseas labour.

good time to reset the whole system, sort out those here let them stay and going forward make sure only skills we really need (not cheaper labour) is brought in. a classic is farmers, they bring in experienced farm managers from the phillipines, really, are MP's that dumb

Around 99% of milk products in the Philippines are imported, presenting a significant opportunity for industry growth. The Philippine Government has prioritised the development of the dairy sector.  

Mr Faafoi says employers must still look for ways to build resilient workforces and to attract, train and retain local workers and reduce their reliance on low-skilled migrant labour.   How does a high rate of low wage immigrants and their families do that?   

All professions and  work areas should have a quota - too many immigrants indicates something seriously wrong with the Kiwi job market.

Two year anniversary (gift token cotton, largest producer China)  of the dawn of Covid 19. It has come to stay and by now most of the globe has acknowledged that with life recommencing adjusted to that reality (many examples such as Argentina) and the accompanying  reality that it is those that are unvaccinated that are producing the large statistics in both new infections and mortalities. The journey has come a long way in two years, it is far from ending, but those are two firm realities that have developed and ones that New Zealand will sooner or later have to accept and manage.

Strange logic. These restrictions mean we haven't seen the large deaths tolls of other countries, therefore we should ditch these restrictions? I haven't studied philosophy for a decade or so but I think you'd be laughed out of the room for this non-sequitur.

Other countries are 'making an attempt to reduce greenhouse gases'? The whole exercise is pointless virtue signalling - rather than a tool.

'Not a single G20 country is in line with the Paris Agreement on climate, analysis shows ...Of particular concern are Australia, Brazil, Indonesia Mexico, New Zealand, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland and Vietnam'.

https://edition.cnn.com/2021/09/15/world/climate-pledges-insufficient-c…

These days I don't put much stock in James Shaw, but every now and then he does come out with a clear statement and i think it was him who said tht in the last 30 years, despite general agreement, not one country has made any substantial progress in reducing GHGs. 

Indeed in that time Germany mothballed all it's nuclear reactors. To be fair though they were old technology and a liability with a likely high risk profile. But the new molten salt types offer a completely different risk profile and ecological foot print. I read PDK's referenced article on EROEI yesterday and I would suggest that the jury is still out on the EROEI of wind turbines as most are still in service. But as many like to point out, when the wind isn't blowin' the fan isn't turnin'! Nuclear would provide the surety that most societies will need for an equitable future.

So we are just back to the same situation we have now - people will export their pollution to countries whose carbon price is lowest, which looks like China (likely by design). 

This is why some sort of country/regional based carbon pricing market system will NEVER work. It's a race to the bottom between countries, akin to subsidies for movie companies. But with significantly more severe consequences.  Again, referring to a recent article, politicians have been seduced by a carbon market approach, which is fundamentally against the idea of reducing carbon. It simply gives countries a license to manipulate their own market and traders another revenue stream, while doing nothing to solve the actual problem.

Only thing that will ever work is a global tax on carbon. Same price, everywhere, ramping up over time. Once everyone is on the same playing field, then it's an efficiency game, which we should all be aiming for.  Quite simply, nothing else will work.

^{I think you mean profitably, rather than efficiently.}

^{If fact I would say that efficiency is greatly reduced.}

^{For al that coal being burnt you will be getting less utility to society, just pointless compting.}

What measurement of efficiency includes mining bitcoin in it's algorithm?

It's a great way to increase emissions.

Would be better to overbuild wind farms and use the excess generation to power this, thus solving the intermittency problem.

Fascinated to see how that unfolds over the next few years, if it is true.

They will tie the housing and wellbeing of people tightly to the strategies and success of soulless corporates - by becoming the driving force in house values or the sole landlord option for renters.

If they are as big as they say they can extract money from the economy in all sorts of ways and set it aside.

Then when something goes wrong houses will get ripped out from underneath people and either the government is required to bail them out to protect the functioning of society, or the corporate landlords can silently collapse with very little liability.

I doubt many could afford at current prices. However if the expedition of those who are are currently stuck in queue (and are highly-skilled with plenty of cash yet unable to buy due to residency) happens quickly then that could lead to a relatively huge surge in demand.

Well they are already here, and most will be on low to medium incomes so the majority will struggle to buy with our insane prices.

I would suggest it will have minimal impact.