Here's my Top 10 links from around the Internet at 11 am today in association with NZ Mint.
As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email tobernard.hickey@interest.co.nz.
See all previous Top 10s here.
My must read is #7, which captures the mood in Britain.
1. The Greek fiscal trainwreck - FT.com reports on how the debt debacle is getting even worse in Greece, forcing the Germans to think about stumping up yet more money.
The austerity medicine is clearly not working.
It's like watching a slow moving trainwreck.
The inevitable fudge solution is already in the works, with some debt retirement, lower interest rates and a deal for the European Central Bank to keep the bonds.
The key day for another Greek bailout is November 12, although the Greek parliament is set to vote on new austerity measures on November 11, which could be another make-or-break moment for Greece.
Instead of Greece’s debt peaking at 167 per cent of economic output next year, as predicted in the March bailout agreement, it will hit 189 per cent and climb to 192 per cent in 2014, according to projections presented to the Greek parliament.
The new projections all but dash hopes Greek debt would come down to 120 per cent of GDP by 2020 – once held out as the standard for a manageable debt load – and senior EU officials acknowledged they may have to give Athens more leeway to hit that target under a revised rescue currently being negotiated.
The scale of the faltering has yet again put Germany and other eurozone creditors in a political quandary, forced to come up with as much as €30bn in new funding to meet Greece’s needs for an overhauled bailout though 2016, despite strong resistance at home to any new aid. Germany has ruled out additional aid or taking losses on existing bailout loans to lighten Greece’s debt load.
Instead, EU officials said they were looking at three possible solutions to close the gap: further lowering interest rates on bailout loans; buying back Greek bonds at current depressed prices and retiring them; or striking a deal with the European Central Bank not to take profits on the €55bn in Greek bonds it holds. Officials said the eventual solution was likely to be a combination.
2. Why we can't solve big problems - Jason Pontin writes at MIT Technology Review about why technology innovation seems to have slowed. He's not sympathetic to the Silicon Valley billionaires who wring their hands over a lack of ambition. He says it's complicated.
Since Apollo 17's flight in 1972, no humans have been back to the moon, or gone anywhere beyond low Earth orbit. No one has traveled faster than the crew of Apollo 10. (Since the last flight of the supersonic Concorde in 2003, civilian travel has become slower.) Blithe optimism about technology's powers has evaporated, too, as big problems that people had imagined technology would solve, such as hunger, poverty, malaria, climate change, cancer, and the diseases of old age, have come to seem intractably hard.
That something happened to humanity's capacity to solve big problems is a commonplace. Recently, however, the complaint has developed a new stridency among Silicon Valley's investors and entrepreneurs, although it is usually expressed a little differently: people say there is a paucity of real innovations. Instead, they worry, technologists have diverted us and enriched themselves with trivial toys.
3.' Show us the money' - FT.com reports the British parliament will investigate why Google and Starbucks pay so little tax in Britain. Reuters says Amazon will also be targeted.
The Guardian says Twitter will also be quizzed.
Google’s British corporate tax bill has attracted attention because it is low given the company’s sales, which are largely charged to its European headquarters in Ireland. It pays a royalty for the use of the company’s search and advertising technologies, which has the result of shifting earnings to Bermuda, via the Netherlands, according to a Bloomberg investigation in 2010.
Google UK reported turnover of £396m for 2011, on which it made a £24m loss after incurring a cost of £51.45m relating to shares given to employees. It reported a tax charge of £3.5m.
4. Chart of the day - The Economist has this useful chart on which countries do the most cremations.
Over time, cremations have increased as burial space has run out and costs have come down. By 2010 around three-quarters of the 566,000 Britons who died were cremated. This trend is seen in other rich countries too. The number of cremations in America rose from 47 in 1885 to over 1m in 2010, or 42% of all deaths.
5. Totally another satire of the TED Talks talks from The Onion - There's some ducks, a chicken and some eggs.
6. My own personal deleveraging move - We've decided to sell our house in Epsom in Auckland to move to Wellington and repay all our mortgage.
It's one way to take advantage of these crazy, hot prices in Auckland and spread the joy around the country. ;)
The scary/sad thing is this will be our best investment decision ever. Cue a chorus of 'I told you so' from our regular readers. Fair enough.
I see little prospect of prices falling in Auckland any time soon given the lack of new house building (see #9), no migration policy (to anywhere except Auckland) and interest rates heading ever lower.
But I would say that now wouldn't I... ;)
Shameless plug time: Here's the house at 26 Halifax Ave in Epsom. It's a 4 bedroom/two bathroom house in the double Grammar Zone and is being sold by Frances Li and Ian Thornhill at Barfoots and Thompson. A large sum will be gratefully accepted. The auction is November 21 and the open home is Saturday and Sunday starting at 1.45 pm. Chris J knows where it is. ;)
7. 'Only the little people pay taxes' - Here's The Guardian's Seumas Milne with a good old rant about a lot of things.
I wonder how long before the poor and middle classes start revolting in one of these depressed developed economies. Come election time...
'Only the little people pay taxes," the late American corporate tax evader Leona Helmsley famously declared. That's certainly the spirit of David Cameron and George Osborne's Britain. Five years into the crisis, the British economy hasjust edged out of its third downturn, but construction is still reeling from government cuts and most people's living standards are falling.
Those at the sharp end are being hit hardest: from cuts to disability and housing benefits, tax credits and the educational maintenance allowance and now increases in council tax while NHS waiting lists are lengthening, food banks are mushrooming across the country and charities report sharp increases in the number of children going hungry. All this to pay for the collapse in corporate investment and tax revenues triggered by the greatest crash since the 30s.
At the other end of the spectrum though, things are going swimmingly. Therichest 1,000 people in Britain have seen their wealth increase by £155bn since the crisis began – more than enough to pay off the whole government deficit of £119bn at a stroke. Anyone earning over £1m a year can look forward to a £42,000 tax cut in the spring, while firms have been rewarded with a 2% cut in corporation tax to 24%.
And this is the best line.
Not that many of them pay anything like that, even now. The scale of tax avoidance by high-street brand multinationals has now become clear, in no small part thanks to campaigning groups such as UK Uncut. Asda, Google, Apple, eBay, Ikea, Starbucks, Vodafone: all pay minimal tax on massive UK revenues, mostly by diverting profits earned in Britain to their parent companies, or lower tax jurisdictions via royalty and service payments or transfer pricing.
Four US companies – Amazon, Facebook, Google and Starbucks – have paid just £30m tax on sales of £3.1bn over the last four years, according to a Guardian analysis. Apple is estimated to have avoided over £550m in tax on more than £2bn worth of underlying profits in Britain by channelling business through Ireland, according to a Sunday Times analysis, while Starbucks has paid no corporation tax in Britain for the last three years.
8. Australia's Superannuation System is a national disgrace - So says Alan Kohler at ABC.
Savers and retirees are fully exposed to both market and longevity risk, there is very little regulation around where the money should be invested and virtually no regulation of fees.
In other words, Australians are required by law to save 9 per cent of their salaries in an effectively unregulated privately managed system.
The industry will argue that it is, indeed, tightly regulated, but not where it counts. Other utilities' prices are set according to the returns on capital of the providers; in super, not only are fees essentially unregulated, but few customers even know what they are. So the superannuation industry is in the happy position of providing a service that is mandated by law where the price is both unregulated and effectively unknown.
No wonder there are more than 400 super funds in this country and many more investment managers fighting to manage the $1.4 trillion in super and $9 billion a year in inflows, and little wonder that the fastest growing sector is self-managed super.
9. It just won't work - Brian Fallow has written an excellent piece on the government's housing affordability piece.
A large underclass, an even larger diaspora and a mountain of household debt. It is fair to judge a policy package like the one on housing affordability announced this week by what they do to relieve those problems. In short, precious little.
Any approach to lifting housing affordability has to be broader than boosting the responsiveness of the supply side of the residential construction market - important as that is. It has to include those households - more than one in three - who rent.
Finance Minister Bill English is clearly not happy with the mounting fiscal cost of housing subsidies, including accommodation supplements, now approaching $2 billion a year, though he acknowledged that any changes in this area would have to be mindful of the unenviable financial circumstances of people receiving this kind of assistance. So why not embark on a major programme of state house construction? The Government just doesn't want to borrow the money.
It seems to believe it could never persuade international markets there is an important difference between borrowing to fund an operating deficit and borrowing to fund long-lived physical assets with enduring socio-economic benefits.
10. Totally another Tom Waits video - Innocent when you dream
78 Comments
GS - not sure which of the above that relates to, but it's horseshit in any meaningful way.
Oil productiom peaked in the USA at around 9 mbpd, in 1970. Currently, it's under 2/3 of that, and it's increasingly from sources requiring more and more energy, to extract the energy.
SA is currently the only swing-producer on the planet, and relies on Ghawar, a 50-year old super-giant true, but one which peaked in '81. By 2030, SA on current projections will use 100% of home production internally.
Not that proections mean much - by then, the fiscal system (built atop extraction of resources, including fossil fuels) has to have well and truly crashed, at least in present form.
Which may well present as a fairly sharp saw-tooth in physical terms......
But the ultimate nonsense of your comment, is the lack of total number. Whether either are greater than the other in output, is irrelevant in light of the fact that both are on the way down. (And extraction of anything finite, is ALWAYS on the way down....)
You rely on a few articles written by clueless journalists pushing their political agenda?
How about reading what the oil geologists etc say.
incredible.
http://aspousa.org/2012/09/the-switch-energy-project-highlights-the-sca…
Pretty much sums it up...
regards
I'd be more worried about the energy returned on energy invested (EROEI) of the shale plays instead of just the production rate. To understand our predicament it is crucial to understand this concept. In simple terms:
EROEI is the amount of energy that has to be expended in order to produce a certain amount of energy.
Conventional oil had an EROEI of upwards to 1:100 (I.e. invest 1 barrel worth of energy to return 99 barrels worth of energy). The shale plays have an EROEI of ~1:5. This means compared to conventional oil they require a huge amount of energy input, or another way of looking at it is that they provide very little net energy after extraction compared to our traditional oil sources.
Unconventional oil (shale etc..) therefore provides only ~5-10% of the net energy that the equivalent barrel of conventional oil would have provided us with. This means there is a huge loss of net energy available to society, energy that could/would have gone towards transport, manufacturing and things like 'economic growth'.
Conventional oil peaked in 05 and is now beginning to decline. As more and more of our oil is produced from unconventional sources even if production in terms of barrels per day stays the same (or even rises) we will still slowly suffer a slow loss of net energy available for society, and therefore have much less energy avaiable for work (in the physics sense!).I'd also be significantly worried about the water problems. Given the present output is not even half what they project/want yet there are huge problems with polution nad contamination and sickness now...You just have to wonder what the damage will be trying to double the output PER year....
So say a decade from now large parts of some states are going to be un-inhabitable...
regards
EROEI may be simple - but happens to be wrong ....
Imagine if I burn two barrels of heavy tar sands extracted at a cost of $ 10 / bbl to refine just one bbl of crude which I sell for $ 80 bbl. I invest twice as much energy as I extract yet it makes good sense because of the disparity in prices between the raw and refined product.
EROEI ignores economics - and that is why it is a nonsense.
Before you comment about the planet - sustainablity - global warming and similar such nonsense, just substitute the energy source with a nuke. Perfect for heating water at low cost and then the emissions issue goes away.
What is your point becauses it's obvious you've missed mine!
My comment is about the net energy avaliable to society decreasing due to low EROEI. Nothing of what you've said changes the fact that you're putting in more energy from somewhere else to produce it. It doesn't matter if your other energy input is from coal, nat gas, or even nuclear, you are still using a lot more energy to produce this oil, and that energy could have been used elsewhere for other work.
Unless you find a source of free energy, or use 100% renewables as your inputs (which is basically impossible) then EROEI matters. Energy =/= economics.
We are not energy constrained - the only constraints are political driven by an irrational antinuclear lobby and cost.
There is suficient uranium and much larger quantities of thorium to run nukes for many thousands of years if we chose to go that route. Breeders can extend that further - so there is no trade-off to be made.
Energy available in physical terms is essentially infinite.
Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor with no containment vessel. The possibility of a fire and explosion was well documented in 1948.
No western reactor has ever been built to that design.
Just as we no longer fly in de Havilland Comets but feel perfectly safe getting on an aeroplane that has improved technology and is extremely safe but that still has a well documented but very low probability of killing us - an acceptable risk.
The US has killed well over 30,000 on the roads ever year - why don't we here a cry to remove all motor cars from the roads ?
Coal fired power is estimated to kill over 50,000 per annum from pollution.
The fact remains that to date there has not been a single death from a western world nuclear power reactor.Give me a safe modern nuke any day.
Chernobyl was a graphite moderated reactor with no containment vessel. The possibility of a fire and explosion was well documented in 1948.
No western reactor has ever been built to that design.
Just as we no longer fly in de Havilland Comets but feel perfectly safe getting on an aeroplane that has improved technology and is extremely safe but that still has a well documented but very low probability of killing us - an acceptable risk.
The US has killed well over 30,000 on the roads ever year - why don't we here a cry to remove all motor cars from the roads ?
Coal fired power is estimated to kill over 50,000 power annum.
The fact remains that to date there has not been a single death from a western world nuclear power reactor.Give me a safe modern nuke any day.
Actually if you had read the red book then you would know the true state of uranium mining and the reserves.
Second point, much of our energy is for transport, nuclear isnt transportable.
Thorium, is a theoretical plant at presnet and yes it is indeed possible its going to play a significant part, but see second point.
Infinite energy, well that shows how little, actually not at all you understand the expotential function.
regards
Olympic dam on hold - worlds largest uranium mine.
Once price rises it along with others will be available.
Nuclear cannot be used for transport today in significant quantities - but tomorrow it will charge new and ever improving batteries in electric cars and will be used for transport.
It can reverse the limestone cycle and produce hydrocarbons from heat and hydrogen via water and use the CaO to re-absorb the CO2 so closing the emissions cycle.
Thousands of years is effectivly infinite ... then we will have fusion.
BTW India is full steam ahead on thorium reactors given their substantial resources.
You make the classic mistake of an economist, confusing that money can buy you anything even if there is none left. Or succinctly our economy cannot afford oil above $100US a barrel and not be in recession...so price matters.
Rather then the red book, then lets try something simpler,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
Olympic Dam
"Of the ten largest uranium mines in the world (Mc Arthur River, Ranger, Rossing, Kraznokamensk, Olympic Dam, Rabbit Lake, Akouta, Arlit, Beverly, and McClean Lake), by 2020, six will be depleted, two will be in their final stages, one will be upgrading and one will be producing."
So maybe its one of the two of the ten largest left.
Or our present consumption v what we get out of the ground,
According to the OECD redbook, the world consumed 67 kilotonnes (150×106 lb) of uranium in 2002. Of that, 36 kilotonnes (79×106 lb) was produced from primary sources, with the balance coming from secondary sources, in particular stockpiles of natural and enriched uranium, decommissioned nuclear weapons, the reprocessing of natural and enriched uranium and the re-enrichment of depleted uranium tails.[36]
So roughly we are using twice what we get out of the ground.
Limestone is never going to happen because of the cost and scale.
Even if it were true which is isnt "thousands of years" well your maths didnt teach you about the expotential function and doubling time?
regards
uh no...
Saudi produces around 10mbpd of crude OIL. The idea that the USA can get to 10 mbpd in crude oil for an extended period is farcical. I suggest having a good look at the EROEI of US shale oil....thats shale OIL and not shale GAS BTW. Not that shale gas is terribly good...
But be my guest, invest heavily in it....
regards
#6. Bernard. It's only right that you get the largest mortgage you can in Wellington. Then take that cash and sprinkle it out of a very large building so people can pick it up and indulge in consumption.
That will increase GDP accordingly.
It's only right because that is what you have advocated governments do on our behalf. And to incure debt on our behalf.
We know you know you are going to get this ribbing. But still it can't be resisted.
But really. Enjoy Wellington and enjoy being mortgage free.
#9. I contributed a post a few months ago, in response to one of Bernard's about money printing, that said in effect Housing NZ should issue 2 billion in bonds and have the Reserve Bank buy them.They could then tender the construction of about 15,000 housing units. I would be surprised if they could not be built for under $150,000 each given the scale of the deal. I still think that is a reasonable proposition as it would spur a bit of growth and by reducing rental costs possibly be deflationary. The assets acquired ( houses ) would produce income which would eventually pay off the bonds and a reduction in acommodation supplements might even reduce the deficit.
Yes Waripori. Perhaps they could look at history for a lesson to see how it was done in 1935. If I had my way the government would buy the land through printing money if necessary, but not by borrowing, and lease it for 999 years at a very low rental so that people could build their homes. Preferably not in Auckand though because that is just a disaster waiting to happen.
Good luck at auction.
But why windy Wellington? isn't a quake due?
Christchurch won't have another Earthquake for 1000 years (and by then the Insurance may have paid out to rebuild a few homes).
Christchurch has lots of space to build (Christchurch/Suburbs could become a very large city over the next 15-20 years as it has the space).
Christchurch only have to put with politicians when there is a photo op!
Christchurch will be a very busy place...
Jeez.
Re (1): it took and all our welfare states seventy and eighty years to get into the Keynesian nightmares they are, so who seriously thinks one year of austerity was going to fix 'it all'.
Seriously, grow up.
Re (3) and Bernard's campaign to cripple every company with tax, and thus every consumer, I've posted my own riposte here.
To quote my wise words:
... what you’re telling consumers to do is boycott firms until they increase their costs, and so, necessarily the prices they charge for their goods and services sold to consumers. You’re asking consumers to protest against not being charged more for what they buy from private companies, and thus you’re advocating a harsher life for low income earners on strict budgets, not a better one.
As a fanatic Im not surprise you lack any humanity or care about others.
Oh the impact, say something like 1930 to 1938....only worse. Bear in mind if nothing else in those days ppl had real actual cash and grew their own food or shopped locally on a small scale.
Here when the banks close there is no food inside 5 days.
regards
Oh, I see, the argument of the smarmy, arrogant Left that libertarians would let people die in the street, and that the Left somehow have a monopoly on caring. Yeah right. Well, many of those born of the welfare state, as with the one on the news at the moment, end up without empathy, but I think only a monster would not care about people. Which is quite a different thing to emoting our way to the compassionless police state.
Indeed, as I point out here, quote:
There will be no classical liberal (free) society, until such time as individuals understand the need to lead reasoned, responsible lives. I’ll call it a reasoned, civilising humanity, which includes thinking and caring about the welfare - used in its innocent, correct sense, as in ‘humane’ - of all sentient beings ...
And you might want to round your reading of on that most annoying branch of the Left, the sanctimonious, arrogant and the smug.
And my favourite quotation:
If communitarians are right to say Western society has been atomized, then surely one of the causes has been the state’s penchant for making itself (rather than the community) the primary focus of public life…. What explains market society’s unparalleled success in helping people to prosper? The key, I have argued, lies in background institutions, especially property institutions, that lead people to take responsibility for their own welfare….
The welfare state would have made people better off if it had led neighbors to rely on each other and on themselves, but it seems to have done the opposite.
As I said, this place has become a Play School.
Keynesians make themselves out as being completely different to monetarists but they're more similar than many people realise. On the other hand, Austrians often get confused with monetarists when in fact they hold widely divergent views.
For this reason I think the blame for our economic woes needs to be targeted not at a particular "ism" but at what actually causes the problem: the artificial suppression of interest rates through central bank-sponsored inflation of the money supply. We should place people in two camps: sound money or unsound money.
#6 Smart move. A bit far out perhaps for you - depends on how much work from home you can do .. but as accommodation goes, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity IMO. Stunning, stunning part of the country - like living in a work of art;
http://www.trademe.co.nz/Browse/Listing.aspx?id=520121481
Best wishes for the sale and move.
There is a certain amount of logic in Wolly's assertion. Turn it round the other way; what would happen to rents if the government cut the rental subsidy? A large swath of the population could not pay these high rents. Chaos would result and rents would drop. It is inevitable, people cannot shell out money that the simply do not have. The subsidies are just demand side incentives to raise house and rent prices.
Jeez, talk about falling for spin. Ireland is an economic miracle. It went from a basket case agricultural economy in 1960 to an export led modern manufacturer in 2000. They run an export surplus, still do. Yes, the Brits and Germans lent them vast sums at ridiculously low interest rates and they fell for the bait, but Google are still in Ireland because they have a 14% corporate tax rate.
The message is well done the Irish, not how naughty is Google.
#10 Bernard - check out Tom's video "Chocolate Jesus"... that man revolutionised satire through the bullhorn: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wfamPW3Eaw
Oh what a dissappointment! ... I won't be in Auckland this weekend ... so no fossicking through the cupboards of Epsom open homes checking for "storage capacity"...
Just remember, when in Wellington, solid masonry (whether double brick, poured concrete or structual concrete block - even for just the basement) is an absolute no no and likely to need strengthening at some point unless it is fully reinforced and consented in relatively recent times. Don't even think of apartments or anything on a unit title. And when it comes to timber framed houses remember that several modern 3 level ones collapsed in ChCh (under 15 years old) and many high stud 2 storey victorian ones virtually did as well - so avoid anything tall in timber, and anything narrow unless already strengthened or you plan to strengthen it. And then remember you'll need to strengthen or remove the brick chimneys too. Then you don't want to be on the liquifaction or tsuinami prone flat lands either.
So that probably leaves about 4 houses left to chose from ...
... may be easier for you to boost GDP and build a new house?? Especially if you get that magical 7 figure sale price ...
And almost forget ... I told you that you couldn't gone wrong with property in the longer term!
(You wouldn't have made $200k plus tax free renting, and by now you probably would have had to be paying a lot more than your mortgage payments in rent (DGZ Epsom is probably above $800pw for a good full house).
... so now you're almost mortgage free, when are we getting you to buy your first property investment? ... I'm sure I could find you a doozie ...
Don't forget to avoid anything monolithic (aka monoleaky), anything with internal decks, internal gutters, submerged basements, then there's onduline roofing and all those asbestos products to steer clear of too...
Maybe 2 houses left to look at, if you're lucky...
(PS apologies for poor spelling etc above, it must be the heat today!)
Not only the financial world is in turmoil and it is only getting worse in the next 2- 3 years. The domino effect makes Millions of people worldwide jobless and bankruptcies of businesses are a daily occurrence. The consequences will have devastating effects on societies.
So – well done Bernard.
So many things to avoid, I forget the borer!
Then there's TRS wiring (40s-70s) and conduit (pre 1950) that are potential fire hazards, dux plumbing from the 70s and 80s which are now leaking. Of course pre 1920 houses could possibly still have lead water pipes (very common in older areas and often not known).
Don't forget the asbestos insulation and pipe lagging amongst other uses, then there's vermin infestation (which is more common than you think).
I'm sure there's a few other nasties I've forgotten...
@ robby - yeah, but don’t forget all these dangers animals such as the therizinosaurus, tyrannosaurus rex and especially the megalania, who can enter with enormous force your cave and grab you for a small meal and your family.
http://urbantitan.com/10-prehistoric-creatures-youre-glad-they-dont-exi…
I saw so many borer infested houes it wasnt funny....rotten piles....rotten floor plates....awful DIY....dux plumbing = the plastic stuff? I had one piece of that under the floor I went near it and the rusted out crimped bracket blew.....luck as I was there really and it was exposed....if it had been in the wall!
regards
Deficits are just like heroin - I know I have to come off it - but not just yet.
Meanwhile the debts just grow and grow - compound interest and time are the most dependable of variables.
So today by running a trade deficit we borrow to pay the interest on our debt - Exactly the same as one Mr Ponzi's well proven method. Still everyone is happy - the 42" plasmas are very cheap and Xmas is just around the corner.
Borrowed money on borrowed time !
Re #6 Deleveraging - really?
Simple arithmetic. By cashing in the untaxed capital gains even if you buy a comparable house at the same price you will be deleveraging by default.
A comparable house in Wellington will probably be cheaper so you will be getting a double tax free 'auto-deleveraging-whammy'. And in the meantime the interest rates have been going down as well so in every sense a winner. Who wouldn't.
Selling is not really consciously deleveraging. It is just taking advantage of the current fiscal climate. And if you are buying a bigger/more expensive house ending up with the same mortgage you will not be deleveraging at all. So are you going to invest the difference in a business or are you continuing the property game.
Peak oil is BS
WE MAY BE IN THE OIL AGE , BUT REMEMBER ...... THE STONE AGE DID NOT END BECAUSE THE WORLD RAN OUT OF STONES .
The oil price does not reflect supply issues , its manipulated by the futures traders and the oil industry
Frankly , there is so much oil under the ground on this planet we will never run out , its just deeper and increasingly more expensive to extract
Blah blah it's all the speculators fault blah blah. Blah blah, oil is abiotic and supply is growing faster then we use it... Blah blah, production of a finite resource will keep growing for ever and ever. Blah blah, yes you read in Wall street journal or Forbes that the USA is going to export more than Saudi Arabia..
In the face of increasing scientific and anaecdotal evidence (yes the world is in recession/depression and oil is currently $110/barrel!) is this really the most intelligent response you can muster!? I would hope there are more rational and intelligent people out there capable of understanding the true dynamics at play. If this is what people truly believe then I think we deserve to have H. sapiens changed to H. stupidis.
I certainly think there are enough ppl at the likes of ASPO who are "are more rational and intelligent people" in terms of the problem as being identified. The trouble is there is no solution so taking an in-surmountable problem to Pollies who never want to hear of problems anyway, especially ones that cannot be fixed is a losing case.
So where does that leave us? well yes H. Stupidis indeed. I think there is a clear case that we are heading for a catastrophic collapse, avoidable if we had done something about it...probably 1 to 4 decades ago. Instead successive pollies and vested interests have in fact poisioned their own watering hole......
stupidity....wow what an understatment.
regards
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzP8znpQI9I&feature=youtu.be
MM , re your video link.
I posted last week and have seen no mention in the MSM of Rajoys latest proposal. He wants a new law introduced asap that aims to ban photographing, filming or reproducing images
of the country’s members of police and state security forces while they are on duty.
The reason given the new law is needed is to" uphold the dignity of police and security forces.”
I kid you not.
Ambrose
I think that it is fairly clear that should Mrs Merkel "...be forced to admit to the German nation that contingent liabilities are turning into real liabilities" that the Euro will break up in a disorderly fashion.
Whether this admission by Mrs Merkel is made before or after the German elections will have no difference on the outcome for the Euro.
Why this conclusion?
Because it will be obvious to all that the "cashing out" of contingent liabilities for Greece will show the way for Spanish, Portuguese, Italian and French contingent liabilities. The German public would have experienced the mild Greek storm and would be unwilling to experience the full force of the real incoming storm.
These political forces would tear what is left of the Euro to pieces.
From Mrs. Merkel's perspective it is not a matter of surviving until after the elections but rather it is a matter of never letting Greece leave EMU as well as never crystallizing any contingent liabilities at any time.
There is therefore another conclusion to be drawn: Mrs. Merkel is in fact as doomed as the Euro.
Jonathan
Australia's Super is not what it is cracked up to be....How about Kiwisaver ? What would be the long term prospects for those billions that is pouring into Kiwisaver and flowing into Managed funds ? Any one care to venture ?
Those who are able to get their money out in the next few years would be lucky, of course, but what about those who have to wait longer than say 15 years ?
Could they really look forward to getting it all back, with some appreciation ?
Pensions are based on the increasing value and dividends from shares and property, both assume continuing expotential growth based on expotential increasing supply of cheap fossil energy.
What we have seen is mediocre or awful "financial savvy" whits that couldnt hold a productive job handed one by a Govn monopoly....
I dont think we have 15 years.....I'd be surprised on 5.
regards
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.