Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand with news that the start of summer in the northern hemisphere brings excessive heat and ominous food security and immigration implications.
But first, initial US jobless claims slipped slightly last week after the prior week's rise. They remain low at +227,000 even if the level is its highest since February. There are now 1.734 mln people on these claims, little-changed from the prior week. No real sign of building labour market stress here yet.
Meanwhile, housing starts in the US fell -5.5% to an annualised rate of under 1.3 mln in May, the lowest since July 2020. April was downwardly revised. This unexpected decline shows that high interest rates are still weighing on their housing market. New building consents fell slightly too. This result came before the slight easing of mortgage interest rates in June.
The Philly Fed's Business Outlook June survey showed general activity edged lower but remained positive, while shipments and new orders remained mildly negative. These results were slightly less than expected.
We noted the extreme heat in northern India and the Middle East in yesterday's report. Well, it has extended into the eastern US as well with a major heat dome there too. It too is life threatening for some.
And we have noted before that severe drought and heat waves are gripping much of China's key agricultural areas. It is not getting any better there either.
China's loan prime rates remained unchanged at record lows after yesterday's China central bank review.
Across the Formosa Strait, Taiwanese export orders rose +7% year-on-year in May, more than expected but slowing from the +11% growth in April. The tech powerhouse country continues to benefit from a surge in AI applications, but demand also rose for chemical products.
The steady improvement in consumer sentiment in the EU was evident again in their June survey, although the improvement was slightly less than anticipated.
Staying in the region, the Swiss central bank cut its key policy rate by -25 bps to 1.25% at their June meeting overnight, following a similar move in the previous meeting. This was as expected. Underlying inflationary pressure is easing and the Swiss franc is strengthening, so it is an easy decision for them.
Meanwhile the English central bank also held a review and kept policy settings pat (and at a 16 year high), as expected. But they did indicate that rate cuts are coming there soon, mainly because of progress in getting inflation down.
Last week, the rise in container shipping freight costs accelerated again, up +7% from the prior week to be +233% higher than year-ago levels. China to Europe rates were especially hard hit last week. Bulk freight rates were up +6% last week to be up +80% from this time last year (but that was an unusual low point, to be fair).
The UST 10yr yield is now at 4.26% and up +3 bps from this time yesterday. The key 2-10 yield curve inversion is still at -48 bps. Their 1-5 curve is still inverted by -84 bps. And their 3 mth-10yr curve inversion is less at -103 bps. The Australian 10 year bond yield is up +5 bps at 4.28%. The China 10 year bond rate is down -1 bp at 2.25%. The NZ Government 10 year bond rate is now at 4.65% and up +5 bps from yesterday.
Wall Street is back from holiday and the S&P500 is down -0.3% in Thursday trade. Overnight, European markets were all up between +0.8% (London) and +1.3% (Paris). Yesterday Tokyo ended its Thursday session up +0.2%. Hong Kong was down -0.5% and Shanghai fell -0.4%. Singapore was down -0.1%. The ASX200 ended essentially unchanged on Thursday but the NZX50 rose +0.9% in a good session.
The price of gold will start today up +US$26 at US$2355/oz.
Oil prices are up +50 USc at US$81/bbl in the US while the international Brent price is now just on US$85/bbl.
The Kiwi dollar starts today a little softer at just under 61.2 USc. Against the Aussie we are marginally firmer at 92 AUc. Against the euro we are unchanged at 57.1 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today unchanged at 70.7.
The bitcoin price starts today at US$64,672 and down -0.6% from this time yesterday. Volatility over the past 24 hours has again been modest at just on +/- 1.5%.
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
The easiest place to stay up with event risk is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
111 Comments
I don't know what Yemen's current rules are for transit are but you are allowed though if you agree to boycott Israel. I think China to EU is still open. It's only 10m people not enough business to be worth it for you entire fleet having to go the long way.
https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/Middle-East-crisis/Chinese-cargo-ships…
Not being able to deal with the "Houthis" is a massive blow to US imperialism.
In the news above it says that Chinese shipping costs have been hard hit, likely because of increased insurance costs of transiting through the Red Sea.
The US is not an imperial power, the US is anti-imperialist. The Houthi menace is merely a nuisance. They hurt China more than the US. Sure the US has lost the odd drone but that's what drones are for. It's laughable to suggest he Houthis have dealt the US a "massive blow".
"The US is not an imperial power, the US is anti-imperialist."
What word view are you desperately trying to hold on to? Let's try this: go find one of those graphics that shows where all the US military bases are around the world post a link to it and then tell me again afterwards that the US is anti-imperialist. Or a map of countries that US has couped after they tried to enact anti US policies would work too.
"The Houthi menace is merely a nuisance." If you say that enough times you might just be able to believe it. The US of 2003 was at least able to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and now they have to keep their distance from Yemen because of a few cheap missiles and drones. The most recent consequence of this is the cancellation of the petrodollar agreement.
China would not use the route if it was not profitable. See the headline.
Someone said 1000 hajj pilgrims dieing of heat exposure is normal yesterday ....? Heat domes have always been this severe.
by JustAnOpinion | 20th Jun 24, 9:49am
Nope, that is not a difference. People were dying on the streets in 2004, I remember seeing them.
If it were normal, why then would it be news today? And i think you are wrong to suggest they have always been this severe. Reporting on them has only happened in the last couple of years. Yes there have been heat spikes in the past, but not to the degree or frequency that is occurring now.
People dying of heat stroke has always happened, and to be fair if any culture has come to terms with being able to live in that sort of environment it is the Arabs, but losing this many in a single Hajj? That would surely be unusual?
Yesterday I commented that science indicates that at and above 50 degrees C the body is unable to cool itself, but a huge number will be vulnerable at temperatures well below that. A hospital in Delhi, India has reported identifying internal body temperatures of 110 F when 98 is concerned the norm. At 110, the internal organs are already failing.
If it were normal, why then would it be news today? And i think you are wrong to suggest they have always been this severe.
The problem we have now is that literally any weather event becomes a climate change story. So it's really hard to determine what extent of anything is related to climate change, because the news media will now seek out bad weather news to slot into that overarching narrative.
Sorta like how we're getting more airline related incident stories currently, alongside news of issues at Boeing. It's not like no one has ever died from turbulence in the past.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38457640/
See figures 4 and 5.
Climate patterns always cycle and unless the states as fact it was the hottest ever chances are this has occurred in the past as well and even then they might also be manipulating the stats.
We need to stick to science/math.
Firstly, the Hajj occurs earlier each year, so it will get closer to their winter, for a good few years ahead (not apples with apples).
Secondly, the numbers attending increase, in line with populations.
(One down-trend, one up).
So 'record' has to be tempered by 'date'; not by moving event. The all-time SA records are predominantly this century; tells us all we need to know, in geographical-time terms.
That link is published research.... and they are some plots most likely showing what you are describing. Have a closer look at the axis labels.
I really don't know enough about this but I would assume there have always been significant deaths associated with the pilgrimage.
if you undertake a desert walk for more then 6 hours with a severe cardiovascular condition, without any chance to stop & rest and without adequate water or provisions you are already highly likely to die without any severe heat, even in temperate climates it is likely to kill you. The real tragedy is that the highly likely outcome will be a loss to the family.
Using the above as an example of climate change is not only moronic but utterly self defeating in aim. Next time try to learn it is easy to spot misinformation and really bad arguments. Sure most don't have the ethics to speak out against misinformation but we do not do better with a more poorly educated population if we use misinformation tactics to advocate for sustainable changes to limit global anthropogenic climate change. We need people to be able to spot and call out blatant misinformation tactics like the ones used by yourself and the OP. If you want people to understand anthropogenic climate change learn to understand it yourself and stop with the misinformation tactics that not only worsen the public information understanding of science. You are also making more of the public more susceptible to greater fraud (often for the opposite side of your argument & for unscientific conspiracies inc far more population risks to health) as well as turn a great many away from your statements because you opted to use bad faith tactics and methods to try to score points.
...and here was me thinking that you knew so much about everything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Mina_stampede
More than 2000 died in 2015 just like 'I seemed to remember'. My memory is very good.
Interesting records also note significant numbers of those who died from heat stroke had severe medical issues that would put them at risk of death even performing daily activities, (let alone the Hajj).
Number of total death (mortality rate) by year and city during the Hajj (2012 – 2017).*.
Year Total Deaths
2012 1315
2013 637
2014 657
2016 714
2017 657
Looks like anyone using the Hajj for climate change points is just causing more harm to the issue and muddying the waters. Using the above as an example of climate change is not only moronic but utterly self defeating in aim. Next time try to learn it is easy to spot misinformation and really bad arguments. Sure most don't have the ethics to speak out against misinformation but we do not do better with a more poorly educated population if we use misinformation tactics to advocate for sustainable changes to limit global anthropogenic climate change. We need people to be able to spot and call out blatant misinformation tactics like the ones used by yourself and the OP. If you want people to understand anthropogenic climate change learn to understand it yourself and stop with the misinformation tactics that not only worsen the public information understanding of science. You are also making more of the public more susceptible to greater fraud (often for the opposite side of your argument & for unscientific conspiracies inc far more population risks to health) as well as turn a great many away from your statements because you opted to use bad faith tactics and methods to try to score points.
I must have learned the cherry picking thing from you. Someone has cherry picked the annual death toll from this pilgrimage and attached climate change to it, when it happens every year, and always has. I am sure it is hot every year. Maybe they forgot to take water bottles this year, who would know. Regardless of what they do they manage to kill a bunch of people every single year so it is not unusual. Aligning that with climate change is just more nonsense, but, it is consistent because everything bad that happens is sheeted back to climate change one way or another. Maybe the solution to this problem is to apply some good old fashioned New Zealand health and safety f**kwittery to the event and either ban it outright or make them install 100s of road cones that the people must follow and apply some silly covid separation rule of 1.5 meters between each person while they are within the road coned area. Surely that would solve all the problems.
Global warming is but one of the problems...
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/19/microplasti…
The clickbait of this article was strong & so it was often regurgitated by media without any scientific peer review or context (the same strategy that caused the vaccines cause autism conspiracy). What would be of significant interest would be an actual series of medical studies with actual peer studies instead of media republishing recons. Sadly our media cycles don't allow for medical research timeframes, or peer review. They need a constant stream of clickbait that sounds catchy. If it acts to stem anxiety in the male public even better, secondary to that would be concern for children. We also need a diverse series of population studies and source investigations. Even the initial review of this article showed severe flaws in approach and massive gaps that if reported without context applied for the public would be highly unethical. Oh look world media rose to the unethical award challenge.
I am sure our general public with dropping science & reading comprehension rates will be able to grasp the nuances. /sarc
The linking of micro plastics with penises may well be clickbait but the fact (scientifically ratified) that micro plastics are now found in organs of people and animals and every part of the environment should be cause for concern....but ignore if you so choose.
Excess carbon pollution is only one of our many problems.
The 1930s was a lot hotter than it is today.
difference between then and now is that obesity was not a big thing in the 1930s so people were better able to regulate their body heat and cool off.
also more trees and shade opportunities instead of the concrete jungles that exist today.
and people could swim in rivers without fear of gastro
strange how it’s largely *that* generation what wrecked it for their grandchildren. Lootin’ and pollutin’ is not the way.
"A common talking point aimed at refuting human-caused climate change is that the 1930s was the hottest decade in recorded history. This is true, but only for the United States during the era known as the Dust Bowl. It was far from true for the planet as a whole."
https://www.wfla.com/weather/climate-classroom/does-1930s-record-heat-u…
The difference is now it is reported. Previously it wasn't, or wasn't available. When the last lot of major bush fires happened in Australia the greenies (and then the media) told us due to climate change, these would now happen all the time. That was of course a lie. The real truth is that almost the exact same number of bush fires happen now, as in the past, and much worse bush fires have occurred in the past also. The difference is we here about them more now due to international news being instant. Same with weather events and turbulence events. There are not generally more of them, there is just more reported. That's all. There is one thing however, and that is the destruction of the natural environment due to plastic bags floating around everywhere, killing all sorts of wildlife. So, the climate change cultists and the greenies should really own that since they invented them and go start cleaning up their mess instead of complaining that it is everyone else's fault (this should be real news).
Yes. Plastic bags were invested because paper bags (that can be re-used, composed or whatever), were bad for the environment and plastic bags would save the world.
https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/plastic-bags-pollutio…
Nice spin by your denial cult. Personally I'd rather get my facts from experts, not random Jeremy and his QAnon fuelled bollocks.
Australian fire chiefs reporting on the climate linked fire crisis in Australia.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=z1iya-k4sQY&t=8s&pp=ygU8Rm9ybWVyIEF1c3RyY…
I'm sure Jeremy would be out protesting with these clowns. Here's the thing fuckwits, the planet and physics doesn't give a fuck what you believe, that's why we have the scientific method for getting a better understanding of the physical world.
“CALM does agree existing infrastructures should be protected and maintained, for example sea walls and drainage, and steps should be taken to mitigate coastal erosion. We do not, however, believe the sea levels are rising significantly and we will all be flooded.”
https://www.thepost.co.nz/nz-news/350315031/residents-protest-against-k…
It is a fact that the person who invented the first plastic bags thought it would be good for the environment. However, they did not create single use plastic bags, they created reusable ones. I assume you are referring to single use bags with your deep concern for animal welfare?
Regardless, the fact that one person thought a product that they designed would be good for the environment (or possibly just used it as a selling point), does not discredit all other people who want to be more environmentally friendly, nor their ideas.
The fact that there has always been bushfires in Australia is correct. Fire is a natural part of the forests over there. Taking that as proof that there is no warming is not logically correct however. If you wanted to see if temperatures have risen in Australia, you would ask someone who is studying it like the following link.
https://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/media/ccia/2.2/cms_page_med…
Bollocks.
You need to be called out.
How often have crowds of Aussies been on beaches waiting to be evacuated?
https://plastic.education/history-of-plastic-bags-how-did-we-get-here/
Stop cherry-picking to invent a case. The one thing about 'environmentalists', is that they don't do it for money, they do it because they care. The GND types will not always get it right; they're still believers in what economists peddle (unlimited economic growth - it happens to fit with 'care'; you can claim the ability to 'lift people out of poverty' while reducing energy-input - a cognitively dissonant pair if ever there were one).
But they're much to be preferred of short-term, self-centred, argue foe me/now types.
If you are going to criticise "greens" for being self righteous, at least their plan isn't to trash the only planet able to support complex life in our sector of the galaxy.
I would have thought greens would be well down the list of those deserving a lashing, considering the psychopaths and their drones actually wrecking our life support systems for a handful of cash?
We can't really limit psychopathy to the behaviour you're describing.
PDK likes to put "growth" as the fundamental problem, but the problem really is the evolutionary tendency for the human mind to place itself as being somehow distinct from the world around it.
So the identity of "green" hasn't really resolved this problem. It's still a dualistic construct.
Can we fundamentally address what is innate in us as humans? Potentially, but it requires self realization rather than shouting.
This. The view that we are somehow special, above other species instead of being part of a system that requires balance and where death is natural and a certainty, not something to avoid and prolong for as long as medically possible. Hence why I heavily favour cremation vs burials, as at least as ashes, your bones too can contribute to new life someway when scattered, and the cycle continues.
"the evolutionary tendency for the human mind to place itself as being somehow distinct from the world around it."
Disagree. That is learned behavior. It can be unlearned. Before the era of monotheism humans behaved differently. That's the thing about humans, as individuals we can rationalise behavior.......if allowed to. Like all species, we seek out the easiest way to obtain energy, by instinct.
Letting others do thinking for you is an energy saving fault in the human psyche, used against our interests by the worst among us, but we have the ability to overcome this if the avalanche of BS is staunched.
Disagree. That is learned behavior.
It's innate in humans once they reach about 2.
Those non-monotheist belief structures came to be as a direct response to our natural proclivities.
I'd agree I can be un-learned, the challenge is for real individual progress to be made, the individual has to be extremely willing. If you're sitting there making moral judgements, it gets much harder for your message to come across.
2-3 is a time when brain synapses develop a level of egocentrism. Most people who've ever had young children can spot the point where a previously charming toddler starts developing a sense of wants. Our thoughts at this age become indistinct from our view of the rest of the world.
Our actual ability to influence their behaviour starts taking a backseat from then on. Some say it's gone altogether by 7, others 12.
Yeah, it's called learnt behaviour. It's when consumerism immerses them and sets them up on their journey to good little life long consumers, preferably funded with debt. Having had children myself I was careful to limit exposure to this training and frankly it worked. As twenty somethings they are aware of the systemic manipulation of current culture.
"Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man" Aristotle
We're confusing two different processes here:
- the ability to imprint information, values, behaviour etc into a young human
- the brains change from an infant's mostly sensorimotor functions, to a toddlers development of a mind able to think in abstraction, and of one's self.
Addressing the latter is a fundamental core of many of the non theistic belief systems. Less the subject matter of your thoughts, and more how you are using your mind. That branches out into how you and I view ourselves in relationship to everything else.
My kids sound like your kids. They're not into recreational shopping, and all their clothing is second hand. I've never told them what to do, I have always just explained your actions have consequences and it's up to you. And from watching so many kids grow up, I actually think it's not what you tell your kids, but how they respond to how the parents are behaving.
Spin it however you like. It was a massive fail. Needs to be called out. You cannot on the one hand blame everyone else, and then hide the fact that you created the problem. It is like the arsonist standing around at a house fire complaining that the fire department are not putting out the fire fast enough. I think how people refer to this, is an inconvenient truth.
Yes, can't believe they tried to blame the Singapore flight that hit turbulence on climate change. Like turbulance had never happened before in the history of aviation.
And every hurricane, cyclone, typhoon, and anything over a mild wind is now climate change. Along with trying to gaslight people into believing that a temperature of 24 degrees is "an extreme heatwave". No, its called SUMMER.
Because human caused heating is global, i.e. energy trapped in our climate system resulting from human activity, every weather event has an input of increasing human interference now!
"Climate change is making clear air turbulence more common"
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240524-severe-turbulence-climate-c…
Interesting records also note significant numbers of those who died had severe medical issues that would put them at risk of death even performing daily activities, (let alone the Hajj).
Number of total death (mortality rate) by year and city during the Hajj (2012 – 2017).*.
Year Total Deaths
2012 1315
2013 637
2014 657
2016 714
2017 657
Looks like anyone using the Hajj for climate change points is just causing more harm to the issue and muddying the waters. A better point to make would be to focus on the smaller ecological effects in those areas caused by climate change that are far more significant in the long run (especially related to species survival, food supplies, water & logistics). Sadly the deaths at the Hajj, like many in desert nations, often get little effect by local govts but are used for props by others in temperate climates. You cannot prevent the deaths without effective change and ensuring more controlled access. Nobody in that area really wants that though. Like scaling Everest it is probably not advisable to do the Hajj with a severe heart condition, immune and respiratory failure already and then try to do it in heavily crowded conditions that put you at risk of severe exposure for long periods. Protip don't do something so deadly to healthy humans that your death becomes a near certainty. It will hardly drive change. It can even be written off as natural in those same medical centers because to go into strenuous activity in exposed conditions will likely risk death.
Even with strong evidence for anthropogenic climate change the misinformation in messaging and media has caused far more to turn away from initiatives that previously had higher social cohesion & participation leading to worsening of environmental impacts. E.g. rising rates of burning, increased fly tipping, burnouts, more fast fashion purchasing & disposable consumer culture, tossing appliances that become uneconomic to fix instead of stripping parts & recycling, more theft of public services structures, push for higher amounts of wasteful events that increase generator fuel use, more trashing of local parks and spaces during events, more disposable tech (even solar tech that does not last a single season), stripping kaimoana on shores & local waters etc.
The silent generation is actually far more environmentally conscious and participated more in sustainability initiatives then our current millennial and gen z who are far more wasteful in practice. The baby boom generation is actually in the middle between these generational gaps. Even with the rise in better technology it does not offset the waste and harmful practices. This is actually the downfall. The use of misinformation messaging does not aid a cause it only leads people to harm it more.
I certainly agree with that. If there is a problem, it is most probably far less serious that it's made out to be (almost certainly), and the messaging is so dramatic and mostly made up, it has turned most people off, and they now ignore it. Just like the person that cried wolf too much.
The US opening up approval for Ukraine to carry out counter strikes into Russia is long over due. Russian military leadership may well find they need a bigger buffer. Belarus might want to think twice about hosting Russian military too, if attacks are to be launched from there.
The US also looks to be halting delivery of Patriot anti air/missile munitions to regular customers, and diverting deliveries to Ukraine. While Russian anti-air assets in Russia and Ukraine have been a point of focus for recent strikes.
It would appear they're gearing up to try and establish an air corridor for the incoming F-16s. Russia seems woeful at combined arms, it'll be interesting to see if the Ukranians have managed to abandon Soviet style doctrine themselves.
I don’t usually engage in the binary arguments around climate change. But thought I would share this exceptional article:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/article/2024/jun/20/what-if-the…
Yes indeed. Any objective look at the evidence will tell you we are totally f*cked.
But the human capacity for willing self-delusion is strong and we are all capable of it. Some describe it in evolutionary terms.
Fascinating stuff from Varki here.
Good link mouse. PDK often criticizes people for not getting the science (physics) but he doesn't quite get the science of human behavior. We aren't giving up fossil fuels until they are gone, but I disagree that his post collapse scenario is as close as he thinks.
There is a chance it doesn't play out how he says in the timeframe he says, but what do you think his margin of error is? 10 years, 20 years, 30 years?
Because looking at hard data on the physics (much less open to reckons) and looking at historical precedent for how humanity might respond (debatable but fairly consistent response when you look at the long history of societal collapses) I can't see how our kids/grandkids escape a devastated planet, conflict, famine and disease.
There is a very slim and ever decreasing window that would allow us as a species to minimise the level of devastation but it requires us, the global super rich and super-consumers to change our lifestyle (not the super poor).
The time-frame I don't know, other than I think it will likely be a bumpy descent tied to oil availability rather than a quick and lasting collapse.
Pdk is currently posting a graph showing food production collapsing from next year without any reasonable commentary as to why. A couple of times now I have managed to wiggle a date of collapse from him, both have passed without it being so.
It is a very small percentage of environmentally aware people I know that live a non-consumerist lifestyle. They could, but they choose not to. In NZ if your cost of living is more than your rates bill plus say 5k (without bludging off others) then you are likely consuming at an unsustainable level that exceeds most other humans on the planet. Now who wants to give up the easy life and do that?
Clearly public spending and increased demand for public services kept our GDP rolling over in the last 4 quarters.
Meanwhile, the real economy that is supposed to help us pay for all that is tanking YoY.
- Manufacturing -1.2%
- Construction -3.1%
- Mining -1.7%
- Wholesale trade -0.3%
Under no scenario does this end well.
They can measure ground water via satellite. And the news is not good.
The gravity variations studied by GRACE were used to determine ground water storage on land masses. By comparing recent data to an average over time, scientists can generate an anomaly map to see where ground water storage has been depleted or increased.
Groundwater Depletion in India, 2002-2008 : GRACE-FO (nasa.gov)
Fascinating analysis of geopolitics from RNZ.
Talks fertility/production, the rise of piracy threatening globalisation, and the effects this could have (more coal/wood consumed), the 2-pillar trade policy we have with China.
it's all in his book. A good read. The End Of The World Is Just The Beginning: Mapping The Collapse Of Globalization : Zeihan, Peter: Amazon.com.au: Books
Does a weekly you tube.
"2019 was the last great year for the world economy.
For generations, everything has been getting faster, better, and cheaper. Finally, we reached the point that almost anything you could ever want could be sent to your home within days - even hours - of when you decided you wanted it.
America made that happen, but now America has lost interest in keeping it going"
Aligns with the US 10 year yield - a 40 year trend ended in 2019/2020. Something broke/change over the time period and (to me) it appears that we have moved to a whole new phase of the global economy which is only just now beginning. Aligns also with the theory of the 4th turning (end of the boomer reign over the economy and the rise of the millennials).
Both reliant upon one another, not that they would like to admit that. America to import their cheap goods (to keep costs down), and the China to receive the influx of payments for their manufacturing of said goods (to keep employment/wages increasing).
Imagine what will happen to the world if we stop importing Chinese goods? (and they stop buying our exports).
His point about hitching ourselves to the US is nonsense. We need to sacrifice our soul to get into the club?
The US isn't interested in anything we can supply, so what is the actual benefit? More Wall St bankers able to supply work to local builders for their doomsday bunkers?
Just a point regarding Peter Zeihan - he has been banging on about the imminant collapse of China for well over 5 years, both in books and on Youtube.
As another Youtuber pointed out, he is a speculative analyst and his conclusions are at the extreme end of the spectrum:
Economist Fact-Checks Zeihan's China Collapse Story (youtube.com)
US is now spending more on interest expense than Defence spending.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GQWQ_gqWAAA-QQg?format=png&name=small
I was reading elsewhere that if/when this happens to the global power of the time, it is a sign that it is end of empire stuff (can't find link right now).
The US desperately (in my view) to pull back from its international commitments and sure up its own house before it tries to play world police. But this seems to be the trend of all global super powers - they over commit globally then impoverish their own people at home trying to keep their global power status. ie. they either have to tax their citizens heavily to keep defence spending up, or they have to devalue their currency to the eventual point that there is a run on that currency - which is the end game.
Agreed - but given the scale/footprint of historical hegemonies, there was always room for another to rise, somewhere else.
This time - for the first and only possible time - the experiment is running globally. Not enough left for China to displace the US; not enough for the US to re-boot. Leadership can only blame 'others'; the net result is always war.
I have a lot of time for Krugman; The Great Unravelling is right in front of me on the bookshelf - but the problem with debt is it needs belief that it can be repaid, or the system falls over - bank runs, flights to safety, not enough backing, end of story. Nearly happened in '08, and can't be held off if ( when) it happens again.
In essence, a system is only as useful as the belief by it's users that it functions. Our economies and governments are held up on the fragility of human sentiment and trust. Bizarre to the N'th degree when you pull back and see this objectively isn't it? You get one life to play the game, gamble your whole life (investments) in the goal to be able to live out your later, less functional years in comfort and with the hope that your parent's haven't passed you the short straw of genetics that may leave you incapable of even living them out no matter how well you look after yourself. Eat drink and be merry folks, enjoy the one life you have and value the small things :-)
Its called the El Nino phase. Its NORMAL
El Niño events cause short-term (approximately 1 year in length) spikes in global average surface temperature while La Niña events cause short term cooling
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation…
Don't worry, when it switches back to La Nina the climate change hysterics will be screaming about people freezing to death.
We also have the Tongan volcano that is going to cause changes in the climate for the next 5-10 years, like the massive floods in NZ and AUS over the past few years. Climate change scientists don't really know what the full effects will be, so they are just guessing like normal (but it will be bad of course). So, we need to panic about that also. We really need to find the human that kicked the top of that volcano so we can all point to human induced climate change and panic that little bit more.
We are already 2 years past Hunga Tonga. It's effects are rapidly disappearing.
"The solar flux reduction by aerosols is larger than the net IR flux increase due to stratospheric water vapor. In other words, the direct solar radiative cooling associated with the HT aerosols overwhelms the enhanced thermal radiation from stratospheric water vapor plume. Our results are in good agreement with net radiative forcing changes estimated by Silletto et al. (2022) and Zhu et al. (2022). We find that the zonal mean peak change in net radiative forcing occurs in May 2022, but the SH average forcing peaks in June/July as the constituents spread throughout the SH. Using the observed impact on tropospheric temperatures from Pinatubo as a scale, Hunga-Tonga would produce an SH annual average surface temperature change of less than −0.038°C for clear skies and −0.021°C for all skies."
https://essopenarchive.org/users/543714/articles/644623-the-estimated-c…
Obviously the effects on day 3650 aren't going to be as noticeable as day 100! Nor will effects completely disappear on day 3651, but other climate forcings will dominate to the point HT is irrelevant. The eruption is irrelevant compared to human greenhouse gas pollution, which incidentally remains the dominant climate forcing since HT.
El Nino is getting hotter due to human CO2 pollution.
From your reference.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o%E2%80%93Southern_Oscillation…
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/christopher-luxon-and-the-c-listers…
Christopher Luxon and the C-Listers: An open letter to the Prime Minister about trade delegations from Ian Taylor
I don't get the climate change deniers on this site. I mean it takes a special kind of arrogance to confidently go against 99.9% scientific consensus on human induced climate change when you aren't even a climate scientist but why?
What's the point?
It's literally like going on a site having never done any training in civil engineering and telling the building crew to disregard the structural drawings and do something completely different because you saw a nice render on a Facebook page.
Jeremy, Pacifica, can any of you explain why you are so confident about your science when the rest of the scientific community is telling you the opposite? It's baffling.
The climate is variable, it changes all the time, always has, always will. Every single time a climate prediction has been made in the last 50 or so years, it has been wrong. I don't think it is that hard to understand why most people doubt it or are unconcerned about (I will give it to you that 3% of people said that climate change was an issue for them, in the last issues poll I saw, down from 9% last year, and insignificant compared to the 39% of people highlighting cost of living as an important issue). When 3% list such a supposedly important issue as an important issue for them, it kind of highlights that 97% of people either don't believe or don't care.
Right so no science background but you're definitely confident you know more than actual scientists.
And pretty much every climate prediction has happened as predicted.
You might be confusing weather with climate but it's fine, it's just good to know you're talking shit and are in no way qualified to even comment on the topic.
Have a good weekend.
Actually I do have a science degree as well. But...I don't think it makes a lot of difference to you anyway. I know a bunch of other people with science degrees too, that like to call themselves 'climate scientists', and their science degrees are things like animal behaviour and chemistry,.....but, they still argue till they are blue in the face that they know about climate change because they are 'scientists'. Seems par for the course.
And pretty much every climate prediction has happened as predicted. Haha. Nice one.
Some light reading for you.
https://www.agweb.com/opinion/doomsday-addiction-celebrating-50-years-f…
You have a nice weekend too.
Climate models that predicted the emissions track that actually eventuated were indeed accurate!
https://www.science.org/content/article/even-50-year-old-climate-models….
They are capitalist growth cultists, probably fancying themselves as "libertarian", although not really intellectual enough to know what freedom means, or what personal responsibility entails, possibly with a dash of anthropogenic supremacy masters of the universe delusion thrown in, just to complete the full yeast/lemming picture.
Maybe to help the discussion along you can start by stating whether you have a science degree and then explain why you think climate change is a hoax. I'm really interested to hear from the non-scientists who are so confident they know better than the scientific community.
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.