sign up log in
Want to go ad-free? Find out how, here.

Hardliner Lighthizer to return; Fed's balance sheet shrinks; Canadian jobs rise; Japanese households cautious; China to swell local govt debt; UST 10yr at 4.30%; gold and oil lower; NZ$1 = 59.7 USc; TWI = 68.8

Economy / news
Hardliner Lighthizer to return; Fed's balance sheet shrinks; Canadian jobs rise; Japanese households cautious; China to swell local govt debt; UST 10yr at 4.30%; gold and oil lower; NZ$1 = 59.7 USc; TWI = 68.8
Punakaiki coast on the West Coast, and the Paparoa National Park
Punakaiki coast on the West Coast, and the Paparoa National Park

Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand with news that Robert Lighthizer, one of the leading figures in Trump’s earlier trade war with China, has been asked to return as US Trade Representative. How effective he will be the second time around now depends on the billionaire elite that is central to the new Trump administration and whether they profit from new trade restrictions. There are likely to be many voters who don't get what they expected, (obvious to those outside).

Americans remain cautious taking on new personal debt. That rose by only +US$6 bln in September, a slowdown from the almost +$9 bln rise in August and well below the expected +US$14.5 bln increase. Now the average balance is US$23,087, up from US$18,008 four years ago. These are not actually high levels. (The divisor we used is the total population 18 years and older.)

For the first time since May 2020, the US Fed saw its balance sheet assets fall below US$7 tln last week. That is a -US$53 bln fall in a month, a -US$2 tln fall since it peaked at US$8.96 tln in April 2022.

Before their election, consumer sentiment as tracked by the University of Michigan survey, rose for the fourth consecutive month, rising 3.5% to its highest reading in six months. While current conditions were little changed, the expectations index surged across all dimensions, reaching its highest reading since July 2021.

The November WASDE report from the USDA sees 2025 with more world wheat, slightly less coarse grains, and more rice. The world's ability to feed itself seems stable, without unusual price pressures. They expect to import more beef from Oceania. In a change they now expect more US milk production even though cow herd numbers might slip slightly. Access to this market now depends on the incoming capricious Administralion.

The October Canadian labour market report shows a +14,500 rise in jobs, less than expected. But full-time jobs rose more than +25,500 and part-time jobs slipped -11,000.

Japanese households aren't feeling all that great. Household spending fell by -1.1% in September from a year ago, a smaller decline than the -1.9% drop in August and better than market expectations for a -2.1% decrease. This marks the seventh month of reduced household spending in 2024.

Foreigners love the place however, not only as tourists, but as investors too, raising their equity investment stakes in each of the past six months.

Taiwanese exports rose +8.4% from a year ago in October, building from a +4.5% rise in the previous month. Imports were up +6.5%, a slower rate of increase than we have seen in the prior four months. Robust Taiwanese trade contrasts with what its unfriendly and jealous neighbour is able to achieve,

Speaking of whom, China will release its October CPI data later today and it is expected to stay out of deflation, just, with an unchanged +0.4% rise from a year ago.

And China has sharply raised (+40%) their local governments’ debt ceiling to ¥35.5 tln (NZ$8.3 tln) when they announced the total value of the current program increase will be ¥10 tln (NZ$2.3 tln). But officials did not announce additional measures to directly stimulate domestic demand, probably disappointing markets that had been hoping the package would also help consumers. The did say however they are 'studying' such moves, probably waiting to see the impact of the challenge from Trump.

In Australia, they released life expectancy data yesterday - and it declined for a second straight year. An Aussie born today is expected to live to 83.1 years (boys less, girls more). The years 2021-2023 saw the highest number of COVID-19 deaths with 15,982 in Australia, which was up by 4,100 from 2020-2022. (The emergence of the antivax movement and weird alternative approaches won't be helping either.) As a result, life expectancy has fallen by 0.1 years for men and 0.2 years for women over this period. Despite this decrease, Australians still have a higher life expectancy than many comparable countries, like New Zealand (82.8 years), the UK (82.2 years), the US (77.6 years), and Canada (81.5 years). Today, a 60-year-old Australian man can expect to live another 24.2 years, and a woman another 27.1 years.

The UST 10yr yield is now at just on 4.30% and down -5 bps from this time yesterday. A week ago it was at 4.37%. The key 2-10 yield curve is now less positive, by +8 bps. Their 1-5 curve inversion is more inverted, now by -13 bps. And their 3 mth-10yr curve inversion is also more inverted, now by -28 bps. The Australian 10 year bond yield starts today at 4.59% and down -9 bps. The China 10 year bond rate is little-changed at 2.12%. The NZ Government 10 year bond rate is down -5 bps to 4.67% but up +18 bps from a week ago.

Wall Street has opened its Friday with the S&P500 up +0.4% to a new record high which is +4.8% higher than a week ago. Overnight, European markets all fell about -1%. Yesterday, Tokyo ended its Friday session up +0.3% for a +2.6% weekly rise. Hong Kong fell -1.1% yesterday to be +0.7% higher than a week ago. Shanghai fell -0.5% taking it to a +5.4% weekly gain. Singapore surged another +1.4%. The ASX200 ended its Friday session +0.8% higher on the day and +2.2% higher for the week/ And the NZX50 jumped +1.5% yesterday for a weekly +1.7% rise.

The Fear & Greed Index ends the week having moved into the 'greed' zone which will be no surprise given the week's events.

The price of gold will start today at US$2685/oz and down -US$8 from this time yesterday. That is -US$52 lower than week-ago levels.

Oil prices are -US$2 lower at US$70/bbl in the US while the international Brent price is now just on US$73.50/bbl. Both are just +50 USc firmer than a week ago.

The Kiwi dollar starts today at 59.7 USc and and down -½c from this time yesterday. A week ago we were at exactly the same level. Against the Aussie we are up +40 bps at 90.7 AUc. Against the euro we have dipped -10 bps to 55.7 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today at just on 68.8, and down -20 bps from yesterday at this time but up +10 bps from a week ago..

The bitcoin price starts today at US$76,099 and up just +0.3% from this time yesterday. But it is up +9.2% from this time last week. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been low at just on +/- 0.9%.

Daily exchange rates

Select chart tabs

Source: RBNZ
Source: RBNZ
Source: RBNZ
Source: RBNZ
Source: RBNZ
Source: RBNZ
Source: RBNZ
Source: CoinDesk

The easiest place to stay up with event risk is by following our Economic Calendar here ».

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.

99 Comments

It’s a bit naive to assume that the billionaires backing Harris wouldn’t have had their noses at the trough had the election gone the other way. Her campaign spent far more than DJT’s and had more billionaire backing. Unless of course they were all altruistic billionaires concerned about reproductive rights and gender equality #sarc

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kylemullins/2024/11/04/the-billions-behind…

Up
35

How many of said billionaires became so by the grace of globalisation the resultant cheaper cost of materials, machinery, componentry and on based on cheap overseas labour and conditions and do they still have reliance on that? If it is Trump’s strategy in part, by imposing  tariffs to increase the cost of imports, possibly intending to price them off the market and resultantly have American production replace whatever,  that will hardly happen overnight and the billionaires club may have quite a few unhappy members.

Up
9

Materials costs are constant, cheap overseas labour drove the margin improvement. That model will unravel. The trade deal trump negotiated with Mexico required Mexican workers to be paid US minimum wages too, so adding to the consumer base. A Chinese worker on their minimum wage does not buy western goods at western prices. 

Up
7

No, material costs are NOT constant. 

Materials - mainly mineral at source - are in varying concentrations; at varying depths; and at varying distances away (both physically and geopolitically).

And we ALWAYS go for the best, first. So every 'next' option is 'worse' in terms of the effort required to secure it. Seem through an energy/physics lens, then, your posit cannot be true.

Seen through a money lens - artificial digital proxy keystroked into existence, unrelated to anything real (notional valuations, fiat-levered, do not count as real); add in the US dollar/hegemony/petro thing, and it may well seem to you - in the West - that 'cost' is the same. It is not. 

Up
7

Yes but the iron ore price is the iron ore price irrespective of where the smelter or manufacturing takes place. Freight is variable. 

Up
2

Material costs can change dramatically. Silphium went from expensive to astronomically expensive as it became extinct. On the other hand aluminium was more expensive than gold and only an emperor could afford aluminium cutlery and now its so cheap we wrap baked veg in it. Even steel becomes cheaper as the numbers of employees needed to produce it reduces ""the steel industry had reduced its employment around the world by more than 1,500,000 in 25 years"". Was it Marx who said money was labour? 

Up
1

The USD adult minimum wage is $7.25 per hour.  If we convert the NZ adult minimum wage to USD, ours is USD$13.78.

And when you do a PPP comparison - it gets worse, not better for Americans place in the global rankings;

https://ilostat.ilo.org/blog/the-true-value-of-a-paycheck-understanding…

It was last raised in the US in 2009.  You do have to wonder whether successive administrations are running a policy of race to the bottom in order to be globally competitive.

 

Up
5

That's a national minimum. Somewhere like California, you can get over $20USD flipping burgers. 

Then again, you'd have to, California is expensive.

Also of consideration; the average annual health insurance bill in the USA is around 8 and a half grand.

Up
4

Yes, states have their own ability to set them for their state; here is California;

https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/minimum_wage.htm

But check them out for red states = the national minimum is retained by many; e.g.,

https://www.minimum-wage.org/tennessee

 

 

Up
5

Guess the removal of tax on tips will assist some then?

Up
0

It will (if implemented) for sure.

Up
1

Will it ? I heard that they get round the minimum wage for people earning tips and pay them as low as $2 an hour and they rely on tips for the rest. The whole tipping thing is just stupid, then again there is a long list of stupid things over there.

Up
5

Yes, the devil is always in the detail. Presently, if your tip income does not meet the per hour minimum wage - the employer must top that amount up to at least the relevant minimum wage for your state.  In which case, I suspect the employer contribution to match minimum wage would be taxed as per norm.  Because of that manner of payroll application, the beneficiaries of the "no tax on tips" is likely to only apply to the sums earned over the minimum hourly wage rate.  Tax on tips taking you up to the minimum wage would likely be taxed as per norm.

Up
0

As I understand it USA will cut back on imports and make everything within USA. Then they will expel all so called illegal immigrants.

So who will man all the factories that will presumably be built. I guess they will just reimport the illegal immigrants, cor.

Up
7

Elon Musk's Robots 

Up
5

Remotely operated by people in India.

Up
6

There are a lot of unemployed and underemployed Americans. This "who will do all the shite jobs?" is erroneous and a bit racist.

Up
3

But will they do those jobs for the pay offered or demand higher wages. America may just cut it's nose off to spite it's face. 

Up
1

What's "a lot".  Without quantification backed by evidence that just sounds like an opinion based on who knows what.  And where are these "a lot" located?  Probably not in places of high worker need/high vacancy rates.

Stats tell us that 40% of all crop farm workers in the US are not legally authorised to work in the US;

Group 30, 2020.
Item 1, U.S. born 30.4.
Item 2, Foreign born: Citizen 5.6.
Item 3, Other Authorized 22.9.
Item 4, Unauthorized 41.2.

That's a lot of work/jobs which will become vacant arising from mass deportation - if we can believe Trump's promises.

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor/#:~:text=In%202….

 

 

Up
2

billionaire elite 

...thank goodness they're billionaires or we'd have to simply compare one bunch of elites to another bunch of elites.

There are likely to be many voters who don't get what they expected, (obvious to those outside)

Obvious full stop.  You'd have to be light on wants to have your party elected and get everything you expected as a result. 

This is the lack of independence I have spoken of from this site.  The statements are true regardless of who is in power, but they only get rolled out when *one* group of elites is in power.  Fine, but don't ask me to pay for an agenda, I can think for myself thank you.

Up
24

Agree, I'm feeling quite conflicted about supporting this website now. Why can't we just let Trump and co get on with things and judge how it went later? You can sense that someone like Chaston is terrified of Trump being successful. 

Some people would rather see our civilization eventually fail than do or support something they feel is mean. 

Up
23

Yes, on one hand, I would like to contribute for the platform/infrastructure/even tip individual comments as I think the discussions are valuable.  On the other hand, I don't want my support to be tacit agreement with the below claim of independence which is patently false:

SIGN UP TO SUPPORT US!
While advertising is a source of income, our subscribers and especially the financial contributions of our Supporters allows us to stay independent and unbiased

I've historically made suggestions, such as a blue tick, as to how that could be accomplished.  If a reason code was attached to the 'tick', it could even be a useful exercise to find out what people value in the site.  i.e. their reason for supporting.  If anything, I'd be looking at ways to increase the value component of the comments section eg limit contributions quantity per article, per day.  Possibly link that to likes so someone hits enough likes that doesn't count as one comment used.  It doesn't shut debate down, but it encourages comments others found valuable for whatever reason - maybe just a good joke.

Up
10

"If anything, I'd be looking at ways to increase the value component of the comments section..."

Enable downticks.

Up
0

Why bother? Just wait for an ad hominem response (which you can be 100% certain will appear) and 'thumbs up' that instead. 

If there's downticks, I hope there is an annual prize to the poster with the most ;-)

Up
1

Just wait for an ad hominem response (which you can be 100% certain will appear) and 'thumbs up' that instead

The amount of zeros you get on the board suggests this isn't a reliable strategy, and the inverse is probably a better approach.

You could always critique a view without personal attacks and name calling.

Up
8

Whatever ...

Up
3

Could your ego cope the daily influx you would receive?

Up
2

I despise Trump but you're going to have to try to be a bit more objective or this website will simply be opinion posts and rants. 

Up
26

But surely his track record speaks for itself our do you think this time will get different? 

Also everyone's gone very quiet on the Bitcoin price...???

Up
5

He's a douchetard but pointing that out non stop doesn't help for an understanding of the real world ramifications.

Up
7

But surely his track record speaks for itself our do you think this time will get different? 

Also everyone's gone very quiet on the Bitcoin price...???

Is it possible that the price of the ol' rat poison is positively impacted by the early indicators that the US govt will add it to strategic reserves or Trump's pro-crypto position?  

Up
0

The vast majority of commentors here couldn't give a rats ass about the price of Bitcoin, or any other crypto. 

Up
9

The vast majority of commentors here couldn't give a rats ass about the price of Bitcoin, or any other crypto. 

Agree. People might take more notice when the BTC price reaches USD500K. People are also not particularly interested in the prices of gold, silver, and even platinum. We get a little spring in our step when dairy auction prices rise. But in reality, most people couldn't give a rats about those prices either, except when shelf prices rise at the supermarket. 

Until then, our primary focus is on house prices as that's where the nation's 'savings' are centered. And prices at the petrol pump can be a pain point. 

Up
2

Most people are concerned about their relative position at any point in time. If you go through life wishing you'd bought up asset A instead of asset B, you're probably doing it wrong.

Up
3

This is true P. But back to prices. We like prices that are a 'cost' to us to fall. OTOH, we like the prices of things we 'own' to rise. Now crypto is somewhat different IMO. Because the greatest opportunity is when fiat prices fall. I like to think extreme volatility is a feature, not a bug. Not the easiest thing to explain at the water cooler.    

Up
0

All really comes back to what you're trying to achieve. You can prosper from volatility, but mostly if you're capable of pre-empting and responding to it accordingly.

Such high frequency, low predictability volatility is of little interest to many. Unreliable, and the chances of failure greater.

Up
0

Such high frequency, low predictability volatility is of little interest to many. Unreliable, and the chances of failure greater.

That all depends P. People tend to think that BTC is too volatile and unpredictable. But the reality is quite different. In its relatively short lifespan and for those with the ability to 'zoom out', it's growth curve is quite smooth when plotted on log scale.

And even the more speculative cryptos show consistent patterns. One is when you see explosive growth in a short space of time followed by decline until they eventually die or rip higher in periods after the BTC higher. That's where we are right now.   

Up
1

That all depends P. People tend to think that BTC is too volatile and unpredictable.

Relatively speaking, it is. With how I invest funds, I can predict returns with a much higher degree of reliability, with a minimal amount of time with any money being underwater. I can increase scale as a relatively known quantity.

If we were pitching to an unknown, your view mandates to the potential punter that their investment may very well drop in value in the short term by maybe half, or more. But eventually it should increase in value. I'll tell someone a way to make a return 6 days out of 7, and they can use the reliable, continual net returns to keep building their pile (or just use them however they please).

Yours is a harder sell for many.

Up
0

With how I invest funds, I can predict returns with a much higher degree of reliability, with a minimal amount of time with any money being underwater. 

I hear you P. This is why the 60/40 portfolio exists, which has worked very well in the past. That being said, depending on who you listen to or read, adding BTC to a portfolio actually improves the Sharpe Ratio.    

Up
1

What do you base that on Prag? Going to xero by Xmas was the catch cry of many of you...now crickets..

Up
1

Agree. And seemingly no recognition of how the Dems have failed and helped create this monster.

It’s quite redolent of the middle class liberalism that has got us here. I know plenty of people like this - smug, ‘progressive’ liberals. Nice people, but living in echo chambers 

 

Up
10

This is a really shit argument HM. It's like blaming the Allies for the Holocaust atrocities committed by the Nazis because the Allies were not good enough to beat them earlier.

*I just reread what I wrote and thought I'd clarify I'm not comparing Republican's and the Coalition to Nazis, just that the argument would be similar, blaming the people who are supposed to fight against something you don't like for not being good enough when they don't succeed. 

Up
5

That’s a really poor comparison. Completely different contexts and degrees of impacts.

 

Up
2

The argument you are making is at it's core the same if you take away the context and degree of impact. You're laying the bulk of the blame in the wrong camp. 

How about? 

  • The police are at fault for crime because they are not good enough at catching criminals
  • Women are at fault for being raped because they didn't do a good enough job at making themselves unnattractive to predators
  • The council is at blame for people parking illegally because they haven't done enough enforcement

You can be angry at the Dems for not being good enough to beat Trump, but you can't blame them for Trump and his allies actions, which you seem to be doing. 

 

 

 

Up
4

Actually, You CAN blame the allies for the Nazis. 

If there had been no punitive reparations in the Treaty of Versailles, it is odds-on that their (the Nazi) message would have fallen on sterile ground. 

And we can trace WW1 - like WW2 - to a fight for resources. 

Be very careful suggesting things - big picture is always good. 

Up
7

Some of the English elite also had a nazi fetish

Up
3

Well, at least the Dems seem to be self reflecting on how they blew it…

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn7m24zg85eo

Up
1

Agreed. The problem comes when folk form a 'worldview' which isn't based on fact. They can project it while there is no divergence - but often fiercely cling to it as the false nature of it becomes ever-more apparent. I use the analogy of believing that having a mole on your left cheek, is the reason you don't have cancer. It works by default, until the day you walk out of oncology...  but it was never correct. 

The biggest false belief on the planet - and one held by some near here - is that economic growth on a finite planet, is perpetually possible. That posit is walking out of oncology - but many are still in denial. 

Here's an example of a mole on the cheek: 'There are likely to be many voters who don't get what they expected, (obvious to those outside).'

Yes, it is quite correct, as it stands. But the fact is that we are up against the global limits to growth - and the poor suffer first because they are further from power (ecology has the Maximum Power Principle - well worth understanding). That (suffering) has been increasing bottom-up, to now be well into the middle class and even into the lower-upper. They know they have less ability to tap into the energy/resource stream (to consume) than they did. They also see how the winners consume - and the incumbents are, roughly speaking, the winners. So they vote the 'winners' out. Trump (and Johnson) carefully cultivated a rumpled/dishevelled brand and tapped into that angst.   

But the reason those folk won't get what they expected, isn't Trump - he's a symptom, not a cause - it's the Limits to Growth thing, which our social stratification ensures hits the bottom, first. Yes, if MSM journalism continues to insist that the mole is a valid indicator of health, it will increasingly cease to be relevant. So too will the brigade who react to the fact that the mole might not be the amulet we have believed it to be - by concocting a replacement amulet (Radio New Zealand being a classic example). 

Kamala Harris got closer than she knew with her book title (I've had it for a couple of years - it's mixed moss): The Truths We Hold. 

Touche

Up
6

it's the Limits to Growth thing

Is it though? There's an insane amount of material abundance and wealth out there.

What we're seeing is almost timeless. Power consolidating. Rule by Oligarchs. Feudalism in various forms. The apex hegemon retracting untenable global reach. Conflict arising in the vacuums.

Like a car crash in slow motion.

Have a happy weekend everyone.

Up
3

"Is it though? There's an insane amount of material abundance and wealth out there."

..which all nets out to zero.

Up
4

Draw a simple bell-curve. Time goes left-to-right.

Imagine it represent global resource-stocks. Start in from the left, consuming the area contained within the graph, and do so at an exponentially-increasing rate. It fits the left-hand side of that bell-curve.

Now look near the top, left-hand side. Your growth wants to continue upwards, ever more vertically. The bell-curve wants to flatten, then descend. You can push on upwards for short while, but the area you are fitting into the divergence. has to be coming from somewhere, and that somewhere is the right-hand-end of the graph. 

So the inevitable drop-off gets steeper - and steeper - and steeper....  At the top, things have never looked bigger, or better - but it is an illusion, and the fall must be near at hand. 

It seems folk find that simple concept really hard to grasp...

 

Up
1
Up
1

Thanks for sharing

Up
1

and the fall must be near at hand

"Near", being a relative term.

Up
2

One minute to 12 has been and gone...we are in the 'seconds' count.

Up
1

In an existential sense, we are indeed occupying split seconds of a much longer timeline.

Highlighting where we sit in a short term timeline is much harder to ascertain. Something dies and rebirths every instance. We are observing the death of many norms, but new ones arise and we can only make blind stabs as to what they'll grow into.

Up
0

Anicca

Up
0

That'd require nothing existing.

Maybe it nets out as one, but it's just divvied up into smaller portions.

Up
0

the net to zero is the 'financial measure' ....debt/credit (the wealth you refer to)....underwritten by the resources PDK refers to with the downside of the bell curve(s) observation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHuwgxrTKPo

The disconnect between the two will disappear because it cannot do otherwise.

Up
2

Yeah I'm talking about the material sense, not accounting.

Up
0

Then you should be aware that we do not have an "insane amount of material abundance and wealth out there"....as the links show.

(I note the distinction you have made between the two)

Up
3

The links say one thing, what I view in the world says another. Grand, expensive shows of affluence, the resources and energy consumed by them, in both their construction and operation, could have immense benefit for those with far less.

Up
0

Indeed they could (and in my mind, should) however that is a 'lagging indicator'....e.g. those are the resources already consumed, not those available yet  to be consumed.

And every day the amount available to be consumed grows less.....so less to share even if sharing is your mindset.

Up
2

Abundance and wealth. Both words being misconstrued and misused by the single minded focus on materialism.

Overly focused on material growth and we've missed human and humanity's growth.

Still focused on building empires because we failed to learn from all previous failed empires.

Up
2

Abundance and wealth. Both words being misconstrued and misused by the single minded focus on materialism.

We are talking about resources though. A minimum set of material requirements to live free from physical deprivation and suffering.

We could all perhaps become Indian Sadhus, requiring little more than some rags and chillum to be free, but the average person lacks the motivation and mental focus for that.

But yes, we have not changed our nature to see beyond the material, so will continue to fall into the same traps as we've always done.

I can't see a substantive evolution away from that, without some form of mass permanent or prescription bio hacking.

Up
0

Maybe the editor(s) had a big Polymarket bet on Harris and are feeling salty about that? I joke ... I joke (well sort of)

Ultimately the editors can pursue whichever perspective/agenda they wish with their content. None of us has to read it, nor do we have to support it financially (and I must admit that the more 'biased' the site appears to become, the less inclined I am to cough up any dough towards it). "Freeze peach" and all that.

I do think, however, that the site will become less tolerable over time if the current direction continues. 

As others have pointed out, it's not like Harris and the Democrats didn't have a litany of powerful interests and billionaires lined up to fill their coffers and assist in campaigning. Not to mention all those vapid celebrities who wouldn't be able to comprehend the struggles or motivations of the average person on the street. Or is money only bad when it promotes a more right wing perspective? 

Up
12

Maybe the editor(s) had a big Polymarket bet on Harris and are feeling salty about that? I joke ... I joke (well sort of)

The emergence of Polymarket and the crypto-driven betting markets represents something much bigger. Many of the brand-name pollsters have been upstaged and their data-driven models from dodgy online panels have shown that they're no longer fit for purpose or need augmenting. 

Up
0

Everyone should learn from Polymarket. Founder Shayne Coplan did not come from Silicon Valley. He was never anointed by prestige VCs and it’s always been hard to raise money and attract attention. He didn’t get into crypto to launch a token and get rich quick. He got in with an intense product focus and deep belief in the mission.

He was just a random guy on the internet who had no good reason to win but hustled his way to building the most culturally impactful crypto product the world has seen in recent times. 

Up
1

the most culturally impactful crypto product the world has seen

How so? Has he created a crypto product or simply a betting/gambling product enhanced by algorithms and AI?

Blockchain could be a useful technological tool, but crypto just feeds on a fear and scarcity mindset tainted by current human conditioning.

Up
0

How so? Has he created a crypto product or simply a betting/gambling product enhanced by algorithms and AI?

Polymarket came out of nowhere and was being quoted by and referred to by leading media organizations. Even with traditional online betting / gambling products, this is entirely new. 

Unlike what most people know as an online betting / gambling website, Polymarket functions as a decentralized Web3 application, allowing users to place bets directly on the platform through non-custodial web3 wallets. Users can interact directly with the platform's smart contracts to place bets, provide liquidity, and collect winnings without going through a centralized authority

Instead of relying on a central market maker, Polymarket incentivizes users to become liquidity providers. These providers supply funds to ensure sufficient liquidity in the markets, earning a portion of the transaction fees in return.

The outcomes of events are determined and payouts are executed automatically through smart contracts, removing the need for a trusted third party to verify results and distribute winnings. 

.

Up
1

"......the most culturally impactful crypto product the world has seen in recent times......."

Mercy JC.  Have mercy on us.  Please stop.

Up
0

The author conveniently ignores the fact that Zuckerberg, Bezos, Buffett, Gates and Brin all supported the Biden/Harris campaign.  And mouthpieces like billionaire Taylor Swift, Oprah Winfrey, and Beyonce. 

Apparently one billionaire (Musk) vs all the rest is a Right Wing Conspiracy To Destroy The World!

Personally I am sick to death of the whole Trump Derangement Syndrome.  Let the guy get on with the job, and judge him in four years time. 

Up
16

We've already had 9 years of his daily insanity and are pretty well placed to judge him now thanks.

Up
4

Interesting number of Trump supporters on here considering the TV1 poll I think it was last week that had 77% of Kiwi's voting for Kamala if they could. Interest has really one sided views on here, its really not balanced at all.

Up
0

I would say it would be about 50/50 in terms of commenters.

Up
0

So 15 to 4 is now the new 50/50 ? 

Up
0

" this website will simply be opinion posts and rants."  - it already is. Haven't you realised? 

Up
5

I don't like the guy either, but I voted for him.  The Dems lost their way - they may have the MSM and celebs on board, but the average working class American, not so much.

Up
5

"they may have the MSM ... on board"

Did they though? Perhaps you missed my post? Here it is again ...

In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies, by 2011, 90% was controlled by just 6 companies.

Also worth noting that the owners - all exceeding wealthy - of quite a few well known media outlets forced their editorial staff to pull content, e.g. endorsing a candidate. Further, they stepped in with temporary 'appointments' to ensure content was as they wanted it. To be honest, it was blatant.

Why did these owners do this? The rich in 'merica were terrified that the Dems would tax the rich more. 

I guess 'mericans must love deficits and/or declining standards of living because that's the way it'll go.

Up
3

Switched to a more aggressive KiwiSaver fund a week ago. Hoping for some good gains over the coming year. 

Up
2

Are sharemarkets not just a collection of people betting that the mole will override cancer?

:)

I see sharemarkets as part of the 'everything bubble' - which may well have a year left in it, but which must inevitably be reconciled. I remember when dot.com was regarded as A1 is now... funny how human nature is short on memory...

Up
6

which may well have a year left in it

Could be decades. There's a lot more people yet to rinse money off.

As you've pointed out, there's plenty more stories to tell. .com, AI, vertical farms, NFTs, virtual reality (several times), 3D TVs, Theranos, the list goes on and on of future bets people want an ownership stake in.

Up
6

Can't be decades, because people need to live NOW, and that involves competing for the real (food, hardware, water, space). So the deferral, en masse, cannot go too long; the capacitance buffer is how long they can 'fund' immediate needs, without cashing-in the ponzi-bets. Wnen a certain percentage do (always the unknown) it becomes a stampede and - the phrase fits perfectly - all bets are off. 

 

Up
1

Can't be decades, because people need to live NOW, and that involves competing for the real (food, hardware, water, space). So the deferral, en masse, cannot go too long

It can and has gone on for centuries.

Up
2

Nope

It's exponential, as the Bartlett clip makes clear. 

Whereas your comment is completely linear ('for centuries').  It's exactly the nonsense Bartlett exposes. 

Edit - it really puzzles me, how a reasonably intelligent commentator can make such a flawed statement. There were 1 billion humans, mostly labour and animal-energised, in 1800. It took us only 11 years to add the last billion (from 7-8). And every measure about us if a similar hockey-stick. Yet - for centuries?

Sigh.

 

Up
2

I am there already but looks pretty pretty toppy so results would need to support. Past mid next year going to think hard about a more conservative fund.
 

the classic saying - share prices take the stairs on the way up but elevator on way down….

Up
1

According to ‘the experts’ we shouldn’t chop and change.

But yes I was thinking potentially along those lines. An initial sugar rush before some of the negative outcomes of Trump’s policies flow through

Up
2

Early statements from Trump and his close advisors on social media, that this transformation under Trump will be fast and furious;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj4Q2Zh4ot0

 

Up
1

Kate - social fears and physical realities.

Every American is doing whatever they are doing, now. They are trained for: now. Every machine is doing whatever it is doing, now. Every business, ditto. And they're tapping-out their net energy, and they're further down the infrsturcture entropy-track than most countries

Then there's the truth about the Biden years, and cohort (deep-state, the Nulands and the Kagans of this world are not partisan, they peddle it regardless). It was Biden blew up the pipeline, Biden who backed the Gaza genocide (a result of years of US-backed apartheid). Biden's mob looked like they were backing 'renewable ' energy, but that was merely political greenwash; anything looks good in percentage-gain when coming off a zero base. But it hasn't DISPLACED any fossil energy - merely been added to it. And they can't do anything else; gotta promise growth out you're out the door. 

Back to Trump - there are few in-country industries which are not dependent on outside componentry/materials. There are no 'sweet-spots left for fracking - they're tapped-out. Their infrastructure makes Wellington Water look fault-free... 

And he is powerless in the face of the inevitable Ponzi bubble-burst. Which, let's face it, is likely this side of 2030, and maybe tomorrow (has implications for Kiwisaver, ACC, many bets and beliefs are bound up in the 'sharemarket' and it's been blown (like Real Estate) globally since 2008, as the central banks have fired their limited arsenal (printed money). 

Don't panic...    :)

Up
1

And he is powerless in the face of the inevitable Ponzi bubble-burst. Which, let's face it, is likely this side of 2030, and maybe tomorrow (has implications for Kiwisaver, ACC, many bets and beliefs are bound up in the 'sharemarket' and it's been blown (like Real Estate) globally since 2008, as the central banks have fired their limited arsenal (printed money). 

That's DGM on steroids Power. But very important. 

Up
2

It worth keeping in mind - front and center !!! - that what the Orange One says on the campaign trail is largely bluster and b.s. Or put another way, it is what people who don't understand the bigger picture want to hear.

Consequently, we'll now have to wait to see exactly does happen. Getting things through Congress (the House and Senate) requires a massive effort. Further, court action can block idiocy for years and years.

As as the Orange One is actually pretty hopeless with detail, we need to look past him to who will actually be formulating policy.  Many of the Orange One's loudest backers are temperamentally incapable of doing the hard yards required to achieve what's been promised. Ergo, I expect many to quietly fade away. But there are a few, who haven't been very visible, that can achieve change. (And just quietly, some of them are extremely dangerous.)

Overall, the biggest risk to the USA, in my opinion, will be the 'de-regulation' that the Republicans are infamous for. These changes will most likely not be noticed by almost everyone but the systemic risks will be enormous. The GFC is a good example of this.

And let's not forget that a past Republican vice-president who also had a boss of dubious intellectual capacity said, "Deficits don't matter".

Up
5

Republicans decry deficits when not in power but embrace them when in power. I would argue that the US never really recovered from the GFC and Trump is promising a return to glory days of past. Sounds good but will it happen (and at what cost) - only time will tell. 

Up
2

"court action can block idiocy for years and years." 

I'm afraid that road block no longer exists.

"already picked three Supreme Court justices in his first term"

"He worked with Senate Republicans to help reshape the entire judiciary by naming 234 federal judges."

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-will-name-conserva…

Up
1

Agreed. It is a risk. Although I suspect most people didn't notice what the Rethugs were up to back then. I hope they're far more aware now.

Up
0

I find it interesting that you recently closed comments and deleted articles because the ranting and raving got out of control, but you start this article (and several others) with your own ranting and raving.  If you want commenters to stay respectful how about you start leading by example?  

 

Up
18

The top 500 disbursement recipients from the Kamala campaign sourced from the FEC. 

Leading recipient MEDIA BUYING & ANALYTICS LLC. It is described as a Georgia-based company. While the company shares some similarities with other opaque firms used by campaigns, it left clearer digital fingerprints linking it to an established Democratic-aligned media firm called Canal Partners Media. President is Bobby Kanh.

https://github.com/gaiaus/2024-us-presidential-general-election/blob/ma…

Up
3

Hardly a smoking gun - assuming that's what you intended.

Look closely at the size & spend of right-leaning PACs (fttdk, Political Action Committees) and you'll see how tiny those amounts are in comparison. And the actual amounts do not in any way tell the full story. Further, the media companies (mostly owned by the very, very rich) gave significant discounts to Republican-leaning adverts while asserting editorial rights over adverts that didn't align with their chosen message. The very, very rich have successfully taken control of just about all major media in the USA and control the messaging. The messaging ensures that anything that threatens their wealth & power is portrayed as weak, corrupt and/or untrustworthy. 

Up
0

Hardly a smoking gun - assuming that's what you intended.

It's public information. Never meant to be a smoking gun. 

For me, I'm more interested in who Canal Partners Media is and their level of expertise. Never 'eard of Canal but they have a long track record of spending money for jam on Dem-affiliated campaigns. Making out like bandits. But compared to the Trump campaign, the ROI is not particularly impressive.   

More of a smoking gun to me is that FTX is now pursuing dozens of left-leaning organizations to recover fraudulent donations made using customer funds. 

Up
0

Trump's billionaires build their own swamp.

Hey, I claim copyright for this phrase, I wrote that on the day Trump got elected, lol.

Up
2