Here's our summary of key economic events overnight that affect New Zealand with news US equity markets have made a comeback from yesterday's tech rout. But it isn't a full comeback yet in the tech space. In addition, general economic sentiment is more sober about the 2025 prospects.
But first, last week's US retail sales were up +4.9% from the same week a year ago.
However, new orders for manufactured durable goods fell -2.2% in December from November, following a downwardly revised -2% drop in November and far below market expectations of a +0.6% rise. Year on year, the December month was -3.8% lower than in 2023 and that dragged the full year result lower. Basically it held until December, and then there is this unexpected drop.
Also at a level less than expected and less than the prior month is the January survey results from the Conference Board for consumer sentiment.
The regional Richmond Fed factory survey remained soft in January, and their services sector survey softened too.
And the Dallas Fed services survey also 'moderated' in January.
Things are likely to get more uncertain. Brutal dawn raids are underway on undocumented workers, and the Whitehouse has stopped almost all Federal assistance programs. At the same time, access to the OMB website that can give details on this action has been disabled. Confusion reigns. Most at risk is funding for education, disaster aid, and housing. All up, it is a war on "poor people" in support of billionaires. The US Labor Board has been eviscerated. All foreign aid is halted too as the US gifts the world to China's influence, backed up by bullying of other nation's leaders. US public policy has suddenly become an ethical wasteland.
There was a slightly less-well-supported UST 7yr bond auction today and that brought a median yield of 4.41%. That was less than the 4.49% yield at the prior equivalent event a month ago.
In China, the Spring Festival migration is underway, and they expect a mammoth 9 billion trip events over the period. It will also be a test of their facial recognition tracking system (or "ticket verification system".)
In Malaysia, inflation seems well contained. But there is a 'but'. Their PPI fell -0.4% year-on-year in November, but it rose +0.5% on the same basis in December. While both levels are low that is a month-on-month rise of +0.8%, which is on top of a quite fast month-on-month rise in November. On a producer basis, they need to keep an eye on this momentum
In Australia, the December NAB business sentiment survey remained negative, but a little less so. The same survey shows businesses think conditions are positive, and a little more so.
And staying in Australia, we should probably note that the ATO, their federal tax authority, is now targeting landlords for undeclared income. They think more than AU$1 bln is being undeclared. The NZ IRD is running a similar campaign. Both have new data-matching capabilities. But what makes the Aussie effort interesting is that because they have a means-tested age pension program, it is a magnet for hiding income so that a claim on it qualifies. It is a vulnerability that doesn't apply in New Zealand. Aussies at risk will not only have to pay back the underdeclared rental income, plus interest, plus penalties, but they will also then have to pay back the super they weren't entitled to, plus interest, plus penalties. It will be a very expensive tax dodge for them.
Later today, there will be an important release in Australia on their inflation levels. They will disclose both their Q4 level, plus their monthly December level. Both are expected to ease to about a 2.5% level from 2.8% in Q3. Some think to 2.2%. An undershoot will encourage the RBA to move by reducing their 4.35% cash rate target. But a hold (or a rise) will likely put that off the table. The RBA next reviews its policy rate on February 18.
The UST 10yr yield is firmer at 4.56%, up +2 bps from yesterday at this time. The key 2-10 yield curve is little-changed at +35 bps. Their 1-5 curve is also still at +22 bps. And their 3 mth-10yr curve is now at +23 bps. The Australian 10 year bond yield starts today over 4.48% and up +3 bps. The China 10 year bond rate is unchanged (while they are on holiday) at 1.64%. The NZ Government 10 year bond rate is now at 4.55%, down -6 bps.
Wall Street is firmer today with the S&P500 up +0.9% in its Tuesday trade. Overnight, European markets were bookended by Paris up +0.1% and Frankfurt up +0.7%. Yesterday Tokyo fell -1.4%, Hong Kong held, up +0.1%, and Shanghai was closed and will be until February 5. Singapore fell -0.1%. Australia ended down -0.1% yesterday after their long weekend. And the NZX50 traded down -0.3%.
The price of gold will start today at US$2757/oz and up +US$24 from yesterday.
Oil prices are up +50 USc at just over US$73/bbl in the US and the international Brent price is now at US$77/bbl.
The Kiwi dollar is now at 56.6 USc and down -20 bps from this time yesterday. Against the Aussie we are up +10 bps at 90.6 AUc. Against the euro we are also up +10 bps at 54.3 euro cents. That all means our TWI-5 starts today just on 67.1, and unchanged from yesterday.
The bitcoin price starts today at US$102,256 and a +2.5% partial bounceback from this time yesterday. Volatility over the past 24 hours has been moderate, also at +/- 2.5%.
Daily exchange rates
Select chart tabs
The easiest place to stay up with event risk is by following our Economic Calendar here ».
175 Comments
Aussie landlords will not have to pay back the undeclared incomes just tax and penalties on it, super may be required to be paid back though if you where not entitled to it due to excess income
edit add below
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/new-report-younger-kiwis-feel-in…
- Young Kiwis, more than any other nationality in the world except the Dutch, feel less able to afford their own home or a rental than their parents' generation
Yeesh, reminiscent of the totally accidental nature of capital gains absolutely not invested for here, that's the standard nature of tax dodging in NZ property investment over recent decades. IRD obviously now going after some in retrospect, but dishonesty has been pretty easy for many.
'US public policy has suddenly become an ethical wasteland'
It has been that darned near forever.
Nixon/Allende, anyone?
The problem now is that we are traversing the global Limits to Growth - and the nation which consumes 25% of the resource-flow, has to get tough or wither.
Edit - and the poor have been being disenfranchised by the rich, for longer than Trump; it was Clinton who repealed Glass/Steagal and let the bubble grow. Obama who bailed the banks with the people's money.
The "Limits to Growth" argument predicts collapse due to resource limits and unchecked growth but underestimates human ingenuity, technological progress, and economic adaptation. Technological advancements, like renewable energy and precision agriculture, have improved efficiency and reduced dependence on finite resources. For instance, solar and wind now rival fossil fuels, while recycling and material innovations allow for resource reuse.
Economic systems adapt to scarcity. Rising prices drive conservation, substitution, and innovation, while modern economies increasingly rely on knowledge and services rather than resource-intensive industries.
Population growth, a key concern, is slowing globally due to better living standards, education, and healthcare. Predictions of resource-driven crises have consistently been wrong.
Environmental challenges persist, but regulation and innovation have led to cleaner energy, reduced emissions, and conservation successes. The pessimism of "Limits to Growth" ignores humanity’s proven ability to innovate, adapt, and turn challenges into opportunities for sustainable progress.
Sorry, when has nature taught us that in the past? I'm not saying you're wrong but surely humans have never before pushed up against planetary limits in the way that we are now. Nor have we had the (theoretical) capacity that we now to do adapt and coordinate on a global scale. The lack of precedent is one of the things that makes it so hard to reach agreement on how imminent a barrier planetary limits are.
You're thinking to narrow. Think any species. Technology and innovation may delay the threshold for a bit, but sooner or later the environment will not be able to support the numbers of people (animals) it is being asked to.
You can use fancy words to obfuscate and delay decisions but that doesn't mean it's not coming. One part of my role is risk management, and 16 or so years ago I oversaw Risk Management in a DHB. Back then the risk of a pandemic was extremely low based on historical precedence, and their interpretation of "extremely low" was "not going to happen". They didn't like being told "extremely low" was not "impossible". The consequences to the risks from too many people on the planet are already being realised, and you are still in denial.
That's like saying God will save us. He's not done it yet.
You might bet your life on it, but what of your children or grandchildren?
And you're ignoring that oil is perhaps the prime culprit in telling us we're ruining our habitat.
Hope is not and never been a strategy for managing risk.
Someone tell him he is "dreamin"..(Did you use Deepseek for that post Broocky)?
That outlook for Thursday,
Almost half of Australia to swelter in heatwave weather with Perth and Brisbane to bear brunt
Temperatures of more than 12C above average forecast for WA’s capital while parts of Queensland could remain in the 20s at night until next week
I would suggest the area of 'human ingenuity' that will be applied is how to seize/control the remaining assets rather than any method of rationing or using them more efficiently.....one thing is certain, we lack the ability to expand the diminishing resources we have.
There are a lot of unreferenced assertions there.
Technical advancements are really energy efficiencies - which have hard limits.
Substitution, when you're chewing into a finite planet exponentially, fails the doubling-time test.
Human ingenuity can only take both the above, to close to their hard limits. You cannot AI your way past the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
Wind and solar cannot be extracted/manufactured/delivered, ex fossil energy. They are still parasitic, and EROEI still applies (as readers will know I'm no knocker; I've been off grid for decades - enough to contemplate the drawbacks).
Yes, we will revert to more cranial, less consumptive, lifestyles (some of us have gone ahead on that). Don't overlook offshoring though; we still consume even if we don't manufacture.
Recycling takes energy - and we will be triaging that more and more. Stuff is so minutely cross-contaminated (think cell-phones) that it is unlikely to ever be 'economic' to separate them. Even now, only slave/no wage places do this work.
'Environmental challenges persist, but regulation and innovation have led to cleaner energy, reduced emissions, and conservation successes.' No, wrong. Renewable (better described as rebuildable) energy has been ADDED to fossil energy use. It has displaced NONE. Emissions have not reduced, and sinks are even fuller. So-called conservation successes, in the big picture, pale into noise. Humanity and their attendant animals are 97% of the animal biomass on this planet. Wildlife 3%. I call that an overall failure and seeing it as success as a cranial failure to conceptualise correctly. And regulations are being repealed left, right and centre, to try and keep 'growth' going. That's the US, that's here.
Technology is still energy-dependent; don't charge a Tesla, it runs to a halt and you're walking. We made the mistake of thinking it was technology applied to food, that dodged Malthus. Actually, we applied fossil energy to food, and in calorie-in vs calorie-out terms, it's still a bad deal; no matter how GPS-guided and air-conditioned the flashy tractor.
Solar energy in
Low-grade heat out.
That is the extent of this planet's thermodynamic external connections, and I've always said so.
https://www.interest.co.nz/public-policy/115678/murray-grimwood-outline…
First diagram. Please withdraw and apologise.
In a non-A1 manner...
:)
... interesting news that Chinese engineers have achieved nuclear fusion for 1066 seconds ... 17 minutes of 100 million °c , creating a plasma field .
... the moment of achieving limitless power is approaching rapidly ... zero waste , zero pollution ...
Wow ! Our resident doom & gloom Malthusian Luddites are gonna look even more ridiculous than they currently do ...
Don't mention nuclear!
The NY Times pointed out what a pile of crap the Rockerfeller Club of Rome was back in 1972 - where poor old PDK still seems to be stuck.
"...“The Limits to Growth,” in our view, is an empty and misleading work. Its imposing apparatus of computer technology and systems jargon conceals a kind of intellectual Rube Goldberg device—one which takes arbitrary assumptions, shakes them up and comes out with arbitrary conclusions that have the ring of science. “Limits” pretends to a degree of certainty so exaggerated as to obscure the few modest (and unoriginal) insights that it genuinely con tains. Less than pseudoscience and little more than polemical fiction, “The Limits to Growth” is best summarized not as a rediscovery of the laws of nature but as a rediscovery of the oldest maxim of computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out."
https://www.nytimes.com/1972/04/02/archives/the-limits-to-growth-a-repo…
They did. Now it turns out things are by and large tracking per Limits to Growth's standard track: https://mahb.stanford.edu/library-item/the-limits-to-growth-at-50-from-…
I'd say SOME US policy lacked ethics, not all of it. The US remain anti-communist and socialism is a condemnation there. But in that they have forgotten what being a democracy means and the differences between 'Socialist' and democratic. Perhaps they need a public discussion on Lincoln's speech at Gettysburg?
And Obama bailing the banks? I don't think he had much choice otherwise he would have watched their financial system collapse completely. I do believe he was wrong with how he did the bail out. I always thought he should have bailed out the people not the banks, and let the people decide where they would put their money.
And Obama bailing the banks? I don't think he had much choice otherwise he would have watched their financial system collapse completely.
The key here s that if they let the banks fail, the US would have crumbled and lost their global dominance plus possibly the reserve currency status as everyone flocked elsewhere to safety as best they could. And they couldn't be having that now could they when they could lessen the blow with a few keystrokes by govt.
Blowback time..
Fear of deportation empties California's farm fields, threatening U.S. food prices
In Bakersfield, located in Kern County, California, residents reported sightings of U.S. Border Patrol agents in unmarked Chevrolet Suburbans allegedly targeting field workers.
Sara Fuentes, a manager at a local gas station, told the California non-profit news site CalMatters that plainclothes agents detained individuals outside her store and only stopped those who "looked like they worked in the fields.
Just read/refer to Project 2025 documents;
Bookmark the website as it provides all you need to know about what is happening and what's next.
Moot point.
When uninformed people (the media still tell them growth is both possible and desirable) are hurting, they vote the incumbents out.
Happened here, happened there.
You call that a mandate? I call it the problem with democracy; the most money wins the propaganda flurry, short sound-bytes and shallow couplets, then a foot in the trough for your mates. Or their feet and their mates, as the public see it.
Mandate? no. And that is Luxon's problem in a nutshell.
Democracy isn’t perfect, but it’s how people hold leaders accountable. When voters are struggling, they vote out incumbents—it’s a feature, not a flaw. Dismissing that as a lack of mandate assumes your worldview is superior, but it’s just another tired excuse to dismiss choices that you don't like.
Sure, money and soundbites play a role, but democracy still gives people a voice and the power to demand change. If a leader wins, they’ve earned their mandate by persuading voters, whether through policies or opposition to the status quo. Refusing to accept that just shows a lack of respect for the democratic process.
. The Swiss saw the flaws, and took democracy to a higher level. I'm a fan, if for no other reason than voting in referenda tends to push people in the direction of making themselves informed. Their level of public discussion is streets ahead of ours.
Agree re refusing to accept - I've always said Trump is a symptom, not a cause. Same with Farage and Brexit. We don't have a media which examines cause.
The Swiss are rather different though. I both like and admire them. Centuries of being in the midst of European turmoil but positioned and protected by mountains may make them seem a bit insular but it is more that they are self contained as a nation and concentrate on what they know they can do well. That that independence has remained intact has been helped by staying clear of the cluttered bureaucracy of the EU which undoubtedly would have interfered with the efficiency of their referendum policy. Resultantly there is strong national maturity and identity which means that referendums of national importance are respected and meaningful which is why they have them. Said all that to say, from the top of my head, sad to say I can’t think of any other country where it would be the same.
They value education, and engagement with politics at a local and national level. Therefore they are most likely to be best represented in referendums and elections which will therefore push the motives of the majority over the minority, more often for the betterment of everyone as opposed to the individual.
That that independence has remained intact has been helped by staying clear of the cluttered bureaucracy of the EU which undoubtedly would have interfered with the efficiency of their referendum policy.
They stay clear of the EU because it would require them to provide more transparency in their banking system ...
Rarely do I agree with many of your comments agnostium, but I do on this! Personally I find the Swiss even more arrogant and entitled than Germans! One of the most corrupt Western countries in the world! If the cupboard could be pried open the skeletons that would fall out would be mind boggling! I do like their referendum system though.
" the most money wins the propaganda flurry" - data from campaign finance reports suggests not.
"The Democrats, their allied super PACs and other groups raised about $2.9 billion, versus about $1.8 billion for the Republicans." Yes, the $1.8b for the republicans includes the approx $0.25b from Elon Musk.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/12/06/us/politics/trump-harris-campaign-fu…
Add in the Hollywood celebrity advantage for the Democrats and this election result appears to show a lot more than 'most money wins'.
The man has verbal diarrhoea and low propensity for truth, it would be very difficult to find an issue that he hasn't argued both for and against. Voters will have selected their own desires from this smorgasbord and may be surprised at the other policies that show up. Many of the policies coming out are from Project 2025 which Trump denied all knowledge of and any intention of enacting.
Time will tell I guess - see how his support changes in the midterms.
You seem triggered.
First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me
Martin Niemöller
Only problem is Orwell never said that - https://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/11/07/rough-men/
While he may have said somethings that are in the same sentiment - they reflect the thinking of that time. I find it curious how the right wants to turn the clock back to the good old days. Society has changed and the right seems to have a problem dealing with that. As an example the executive order regarding the sexes. At conception the first cells are neither male or female and only later during development does the "sex" of the baby develop. Additionally it doesn't actually represent biological reality - what about intersex individuals.
Intersex is a general term used for a variety of situations in which a person is born with reproductive or sexual anatomy that doesn’t fit the boxes of “female” or “male.”
https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/gender-identity/sex-gender-iden…
I heard Ryan Bridge interview John Minto yesterday on NewStalk ZB ... Minto was nuts ... barking mad in his zeal for us to dob in Israeli soldiers who are holidaying in NZ ... eventually Ryan gave up & ended it ... couldn't get any logic or sense out of Minto ... hilarious stuff ...
Minto's always been flaky. He rose into awareness over the anti-apartheid movement for South Africa, but when a coup happened in Fiji (Rabuka) because a political party dominated by Fijian Indians, who just happened to be be biggest contributors to their economy at the time, won the elections Minto was conspicuously silent on that blatant racism, much closer to home.
His self worth relies on him being the centre of something - and for him it's a lefty cause. Comparing a war against a side that won't surrender and fights and hides behind children is incomparable to herding families into gas chambers.
RNZ almost offered him tissues this morning they were so soft.
... if you do chance upon an Israeli soldier on holiday ( how you guess his identity in civvies is another question ) , you're supposed to call the Minto hotline & leave a message ... they'll get back to you , eventually... and provide some "Free Gaza" brochures ... which you give to the guy ... if he's still around ... 2 or 3 days later ...
I know its a shock to New Zealanders, after 6 years of Labour doing absolutely nothing they promised and in some cases, the complete opposite of what they promised, but in other countries some politicians actually start delivering on what they said they would deliver to voters. The more mind blowing thing is that Trump is doing it all in the first week. NZ should be so lucky.
If Labour did nothing, why did National spend the first 100 days undoing it all?
I look around our neighbourhood and see a new school built under Labour, many new state houses built under Labour, many new private houses built under Labour. Since National have got in it all seems to have ground to a halt, the economy has turned to custard, shouldn't it be them that you criticise for not delivering?
Here is your National efficiency in action. Roads closed for 32 hours due to crashes. Guess what one of the highest factors in crashes is ... That's right: speed.
So let me get this right, National are going to increase speeds to above safe levels to create more crashes to close roads more often to *checks notes* raise productivity. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/hawkes-bay-today/news/police-urge-caution-af…
Funny thing though is they always tell us that speed was a factor in accidents, but they never tell us what the speed estimations were for specific accidents.
I recall some years ago on a notorious corner a car crashed and someone was killed. Not long after there was some media from the police about getting the speed limits in the area changed, and the cited the crash as a justification. What they didn't say was that a witness to the crash was passed by the vehicle in question shortly before, and the witness identified that they were doing 100 - 105 kph and the car went past them like they were standing still.
So yes speed is a factor, but it is speed inappropriate to the road and conditions, and attention of the driver. There are times and places when 130 kph is perfectly safe and times when 30 kph is not.
You are spot on Murray, speed limits should be context specific. That's what Natiknal are repelling they, are raising limits to arbitrary and default blanket high levels.
They are undoing all the work council's had done to assess and determine the correct speed for different sections of road. All based on ideology rather than evidence.
What they are doing will result in more people dying and being seriously injured, that is not disputed by anyone, even National. There is no evidence that the higher speed limits will improve productivity because National have not done the work to demonstrate it. Why haven't they done the work? Because they know it will show that there is no productivity benefit. Ideology trumps evidence.
What they are doing will result in more people dying and being seriously injured, that is not disputed by anyone, even National.
Statistically we have a greater population now than when the limits were dropped, so we will likely see more accidents regardless. The severity is the question, but I'd argue that if we were to invest in greater driver education to break the cycle of drivers teaching their kids and passing bad habits on, then perhaps we would see better outcomes in the crash statistics. Impatience, ego, and superiority complexes on he road are IMO more dangerous than he speed limits. There's also a level of personal responsibility needed to be taken by all drivers, therefore education would likely get better outcomes than punitive approach by fining speeders as a deterrent and dropping limits.
Personal responsibility has never worked anywhere, it's a myth that it will address safety issues in anything other than at the margins.
Nearly every single major road safety improvements over the years have been down to systemic changes not personal responsibility.
Read up on Vision Zero, the whole point is to shift responsibility to system designers because that is where you can make progress, not victim blame.
Enforcement is 100 times more effective than education campaigns, backed up by actual data not reckons.
@agnostium
i suggest you read this, it might open your eyes.
https://www.transport.govt.nz/statistics-and-insights/safety-annual-sta….
The combination of driver alcohol/drugs and speed contributes to 22 percent of fatal crashes. Driver alcohol/drugs alone contributes to 26, and speed only to 11 percent of fatal crashes.
in total, 42% where from neither speed or alcohol and drugs, 33% involved speed as a cause, 48% involved drugs and alcohol as a cause.
speed only as a factor is on 11% of fatal crashes.
drugs and alcohol alone? 26%.
Guess what one of the highest factors in crashes is ... That's right: speed.
Actually, that's wrong, drugs and alcohol are a higher factor .
Someone should go to Australia and study how they all manage to survive with 60 kmph suburban street speed limits, 110 kmph highway speeds, 80 kmph road works speed, no speed humps, flat pedestrian crossings (not even a traffic light!) and only variable school speed limits. Its a conundrum!
Australia (via State and Local Councils) is in the process of lowering their speed limits to bring them in line with Vision Zero principles. Where they have done this they have seen massive safety improvements. One of the guys overseeing first Auckland then the National programme came from Australia. Most of the guidance used to inform the safe system are developed in Australia by Austroads.
So yet again it appears you are talking out of your arse.
Perhaps you should actually go to Australia and drive around there. I have, and its like chalk and cheese to NZ. Driving in Australia is actually a pleasant experience, unlike NZ where they just aim to piss you off. Frustrated and annoyed drivers are more likely to speed, overtake, be reckless, and otherwise be bad drivers. Unlike people who know they will get to where they want to go in the fastest possible time so they dont need to take risks.
If you wanted to lower the road toll, you would be better off reducing the number of young offenders stealing cars, or enforcing drug laws so druggies dont get behind the wheel.
You seem to confuse having passed legislation, banning stuff, and dreaming up more regulation for having "delivered" something. That legislation and over regulation is partly the reason why even the private sector struggled to deliver anything. Banning stuff because it was good PR achieved nothing but poor outcomes for the country.
And only an insane person would claim that causing a 500% increase in the public housing waitlist and a 1000% increase in emergency housing is a "win for Labour" because it meant they had to build more state houses to house all the people their policies left homeless. Not to mention that some of those public housing units were built at a cost of $1.7M each.
As for private housing being built - that was due to developer greed, low interest rates, and a flood of cheap lending from the RBNZ. Which resulted in massive inflation in asset prices and cost of living that has left everybody worse off. If thats #winning then I would prefer to lose.
Delivered...like ferries and balanced budgets.
Thankfully, simply not putting people on lists makes those pesky long waiting lists go away. The same way they'll solve the healthcare problem while enable money to be prioritised for tax cuts for entitled property speculators.
"What is the Trump administration doing that they didn't campaign on and receive an electoral mandate for?" :-)
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/elon-musk-vows-war-over-h-1b-visa-prog…
Who wrote that para about dawn raids etc?
It was a real lefty brain fart.
What is happening in the US right now is a crackdown on illegality. It favours lower paid citizens and legal migrants, and it starts to rectify the lawlessness and corruption of Biden's regime.
if we were a perfectly ethical species, no hard decisions would be made.
is laying off thousands of people from work and causes some to lose their homes ethical?
is euthanasia ethical?
is abortion ethical? is abortion ethical as a result of rape? is abortion ethical if the mothers life is at risk?
is expelling a child from school ethical? rather than giving them continuous support until they come in to line?
sometimes decisions need to be that might not be purely ethical but are required for the greater good. it's a balance of harm vs help.
It may have some legs if a female politician campaigns on it due to genuine concerns raised by females who were affected. But it always seem to be right wing old men campaigning on it primarily to persecute the woke.
I don't know if you have ever seen inside a female bathroom, but they have stalls, so I don't know why it would matter.
The question is where is the harm most likely? A biological man dressed as a woman lining up at the urinals next to a bunch of rednecks at the bar, or the risk of a man deciding to dress as a woman to gain access to the women's toilet.
I note that women's bathrooms are generally not guarded or swipe-card access only - they are already very accessible to those with bad intentions.
I'd be looking for stats on violence against trans people to help weight those outcomes out. It is one of those situations where any decision has harmful outcomes - either you put trans people at risk, or you put women at risk (to an arguable degree), or you spend a lot of money making all toilets unisex cubicles or adding a third 'anyone else' option.
I don't know about disgusting, just one possible solution to a difficult situation. Obviously there are still plenty of laws to use against any actual threatening behaviour.
It's similar in sports - if you let trans women compete then you disadvantage other women. If you don't, they are unable to compete unless you start a trans-only competition. Could preclude them from a chosen career path. It's one of those situations where you can't really compromise, you just have to choose the least-bad outcome and that will always upset some people. Anyone who talks in black and white over these issues is ignoring half of the picture (and there are people on both sides who do so).
The whole point of having 'women only' sports is to protect women from harm. Non 'women only' sports need not be specific concerning sexual orientation. Women or trans-women should be able to freely compete in those sports. People forget that the class of 'women only' sports is for the protection of women because they are the "fairer" sex. The same philosophy for women only prisons.
As for bathrooms, my own daughters have reported that they and their friends often feel unsafe and sometimes ask their gay male friends to accompany them as they feel their girlfriends are not up to the task.
Lest we forget how " Posey Parker " was treated in NZ : she was heckled , assaulted & abused ... for daring to question that men posing as transsexuals/transvestites could be in women's toilets and sports ... Posey was for the protection of women's rights & safety ...
... shame on us !
Sounds like quite a superficial understanding of ethics. There's plenty of ethical structures that allow for difficult decisions to be made that involve harm to some - in fact that's very much the point of ethics, to balance those various harms.
We can certainly disagree about ethics - for me abortion is ethical, for others it is murder of what they consider to be a person.
US public policy has suddenly become an ethical wasteland.
Coupled with information black outs in terms of government websites. The temporary 'take downs'/restricted access gives them the time to re-write history and law. I hope the resistance is scrambling to archive all the current website versions across all of government.
As Yogi would say it’s déjà vu all over again. Reverting somewhat to a pre-computer/ website era when bureaucracy could isolate itself and maintain unaccountability and secrecy behind a wall of paperwork. As was illustrated in some old movies - Mr Smith Goes to Washington for example.
And of course, the Chinese have been doing it on all of their government website for years/forever since the proliferation of online information.
The difference being that the CCP never needed to do a "purge" because they never had any transparency in the first place..
This will be fascinating to watch the systematic execution of government information black outs and cancellation of currently routine online statistical and other information provision.
US public policy has suddenly become an ethical wasteland.
I think it is quite the opposite. Allowing crime to flourish is unethical. Not protecting borders is unethical. Removing protection from women is unethical. Weakening institutions such as the military, education and the public sector with DEI policies is unethical. Giving the people's wealth away to corrupt foreign powers and "ne'er-do-wells" is unethical. Censoring the truth is unethical.
He literally said he had nothing to do with Project 2025 and now he is implementing it. Sounds like another bare faced lie from a convicted criminal and adjudicated rapist.
But it would be wrong to focus on Trump himself, he is not running things, he doesn't really know what the hell is going on, he's like a useful idiot the hard-right can get tondo stuff for them, leveraging his narcissism and susceptibility to flattery. That's why his speeches are nonsensical rambles, he has no idea what's going on, just repeats a few soundbites they feed to him.
"They've been told officially, legally, in every way, that we have nothing to do with Project 25,” Trump said
Always interesting to hear a different perspective. There may be some good that comes from some of the actions but the way it is being done will be hugely disruptive.
I find it harder to deal with the open corruption. The crypto currency is an open door for anyone to buy influence (starting in a few months there will essentially be a monthly auction for Trump's favour, with the proceeds going straight to him). This makes the low grade grifting like forcing local and foreign dignitaries to stay at his resorts and hotels look like child's play. To carry on like that while running a law and order set of policies is bizarre.
Yes, they were a very bad look. I am feeling more understanding towards it as the evidence grows on Trump going through with his threats to weaponise the Justice system. Some of these people were genuinely at threat from this guy as he goes through his revenge agenda.
I'm not 100% supportive for sure - feels like the Dems contributing to the national spiral downwards. Another norm broken.
Suffice to say, it's complicated. If we see Trump hound those involved in the Jan 6th convictions, and others who he perceives as acting against him, the decision is vindicated. If he doesn't, then the decision looks like crazy over-reaction.
I'm waiting for more evidence to decide - I know what I think but I'm happy to give Trump time to show he's not that petty.
Both sides of the political spectrum seem to have gone a bit nuts IMO.
The right are obsessed about being anti-woke, making sure society is the same as it was in 1962. They don't seem to care about economic conservatism anymore.
The left are obsessed about being extremely woke. They don't seem to care about poverty or the working class anymore.
I'm stuck somewhere in the middle not knowing which is worse.
The US faces an unmitigated disaster with the Federal Debt Level. In Trumps last year of 2019 before Covid interest on the US Debt was $400 Billion.
This year it is projected to be $1.2 Trillion. Once Covid hit in 2020 over $4 Trillion Debt was added that year alone versus less the $1 Trillion the year before. Stopping Spending is now a National priority. Shock & Awe may be the only way to redirect the entire countries focus to the issue--the same as the "Dawn Raids" make it know that Illegal Immigration must stop. Tom Holman-Immigration Czar-reported that during the last 4 years 2.2 million "got aways" were recorded crossing Southern Border. The country has no knowledge of who any of these people are or where they are.
I’m with you ZS - the Biden administration was dodgy as hell on so many fronts and yet I don’t recall David giving them the unethical label - please correct me if wrong David.
Id much prefer if the authors would remain politically neutral on American politics - but recent comments and censorship of comments shows quite a strong left leaning bias. The point of difference for this website was that it wasn’t Ike the MSM, captured by corporate interests and providing reporting in favour of one group over another. Ideally the balance between left an eight would be fair and right leaning political views wouldn’t be labelled as unethical because the author personally disagrees with them.
What makes you think Trump represents the right wing? To me he seems to be anti freedom, anti free trade, anti conservative economics. He's no Margaret Thatcher.
I think if Trump was a right wing neo liberal, David would have no problem with him, I don't think David is particularly left wing. David can be anti Trump without being a lefty.
Personally I consider myself right wing because I believe in concepts such as personal responsibility, free markets, economic conservatism, etc. I don't think Trump aligns with any of that, I think he is bonkers. But he may actually work out OK, we will see I guess.
This is the main point, he doesn't represent what the conservative right / republican movement traditionally represents. He's more into oligarchy, support a few rich and powerful people and divide everyone else.
If Reagan were around he would hate, absolutely hate what Trump stands for.
You know when you knock on the door of an illegal immigrant who in a past life was a drug lord or child molester from central/South America and don’t left them have their morning coffee at Starbucks in the city before you put them in the plane back down south. It’s brutal stuff..
There is likely to be some brutal confrontations though. For instance sections of Miami are Hispanic to the point no english is spoken and within there are extremely hardened elements such as ex Cubans and no shortage of armed criminals. Getting in there and getting that out will likely require tantamount to martial law. Don’t get me wrong an illegal immigrant has broken USA law, but enforcing the deportations is going to get harder and harder and more violent.
BREAKING NEWS
Fascinating Herald article;
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/us-first-lady-melania-trumps-offic…
Whereas Donald is fashioning himself in the eyes of a former German dictator; Melania's gone for a former female strongman from the UK.
Who needs their favourite daily soap these days - just watch the US news instead.
Yup, though it's the propaganda masters in behind that are orchestrating the show-side of things. It was a very interesting first press secretary briefing for the White House this morning. For example, what Donald Trump used to refer to as "illegal aliens" or "illegal migrants" during the campaign - have been rebranded "illegal criminals". When questioned as to whether these folks rounded up all have criminal records, the PS explained that if you are living in the US because you crossed the border illegally, you have committed a criminal offence.
Well, that's a whole new approach - in that many of those who crossed the border without documentation (i.e., crossed not through an official border crossing) will have walked up to the first Border Patrol person and claimed asylum. They were then registered and processed through a queue of others and they are awaiting their asylum claim to be heard in court.
So, hence she should have said they are criminals lawfully on bail awaiting trial. Big difference, but that's the level of cleverness in their propaganda machine.
These folks are incredibly, professional (i.e., well studied and practiced) propogandists.
* opps - correction - people crossing the border at anything other than a legal entry point are not criminals in any sense of the national US law. An illegal crossing is a civil offense, not a criminal one. If you have been deported and cross the border a second time at a non-legal entry point, then you have committed a misdemeanor crime.
On balance, very happy about the reversal of the speed limit changes north of Wellington. Some made sense (e.g. Carterton to Masterton in the absence of a median barrier, around schools), others (e.g. Featherston to Carterton) were not made based on statistics or assessments of the roads, just to "harmonise" with a section of road further north.
Glad the school zone changes don't appear to be getting wound back - that made a lot of sense, it's the long stretches of good, wide, straight road with few accidents taken down to 80 that rankled so many.
The 30kmh limits in the city seem a bit draconian. Perhaps 40kmh would be better? I've had people honk their horns at me for doing a real 30kph (GPS speed) as I have a monitored company vehicle.
My solution to the road toll problem would simply be more monitoring and more fines. It would easily pay for itself and is known to be the most effective road safety measure.
My solution to the road toll problem would simply be more monitoring and more fines. It would easily pay for itself and is known to be the most effective road safety measure.
It is necessary but it is not the most effective road safety measure. It is a roading system, good road design, well maintained, with appropriate speed limits is also needed.
How often are there going to be turn arounds installed? How will you back the boat down your driveway? and how will young kids cross the road to visit their mates, walk down to the nearest turnaround point?
30km/h speed limits are the answer in residential streets, not median barriers.
GBH appropriate speed restrictions for the road environment.
He's correct that if you put up a median barrier on high speed rural roads you can have higher speeds. I'd be super happy if National went back to the Labour/Green solution which was to lower speeds until the median's could be rolled out over a whole bunch of the network super cheaply instead of National's approach which seems to be increase speed limits again and use up all the safety budget building about 200m of RONS instrad.
To note, medians work on open roads though, where the crash will normally be 2 vehicles or a vehicle loss of control leaving the roadway and hitting something stationary like a light pole or tree.
Medians do not really provide a benefit in urban areas because they mitigate the risk of head on collisions. In urban areas the bigger risks are side impact, rear ending, pedestrian, and cyclists/scooters, etc...
Excessive speed is the single biggest factor in fatal road crashes - contributing to 30% of all fatal crashes in 2002.
Speed enforcement is one of the most effective means of saving lives and preventing serious injuries on our roads.
My solution to the road toll would be to make everyone re-sit a full written and practical driving test three years after they first get their license.
Also, a full written and practical re-sit if you lose your license for any reason. If you fail, you can ride a nifty 50 scooter for six months.
it's the long stretches of good, wide, straight road with few accidents
That's where the highest risk for death and serious injury sits. If someone makes a mistake and has a head on at 100kmh then you're toast, with modern car safety features at 80kmh the survival rate increases and consequences drop dramatically.
Proper road safety approach isn't based on treating places where people have already crashed, it focuses on addressing high risk areas.
Anyway, apparently evidence is no longer relevant, safety is now based on feels and vibes.
I hear they are getting rid of air traffic controllers next and allocating runways on a first come first served as those little power hungry wokesters in the control towers are just part of the useless bureaucracy.
perhaps take a look at this, it's based of more recent data, its also published by the ministry of transport
https://www.transport.govt.nz/statistics-and-insights/safety-annual-sta….
The combination of driver alcohol/drugs and speed contributes to 22 percent of fatal crashes. Driver alcohol/drugs alone contributes to 26, and speed only to 11 percent of fatal crashes.
in total, 42% where from neither speed or alcohol and drugs, 33% involved speed as a cause, 48% involved drugs and alcohol as a cause.
speed only as a factor is only 11% of fatal crashes.
drugs and alcohol alone, 26%.
This shows that drugs and alcohol are more of a cause in fatal accidents than speeding alone.
I know this sounds like a dick comment but I'm not trying to be: you don't really understand how to interpret those stats. Posting below in the vain hope you are actually genuinely interested rather than just trolling.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https…
Take a look at NZ's road toll per capita or by vehicle kilometres travelled. Steadily down, due to technological developments and modernisation of the fleet.
While I don't disagree with your point re risk, crashes and injuries measure realised risk. My point was based on NZTA's own analysis some sections weren't considered high risk but the limits came down based on a different sort of feelz.
Take a look at NZ's road toll per capita or by vehicle kilometres travelled.
We have one of the highest per capita road tolls of the OECD. Nearly everyone has come down, only much more quickly. Pedestrian deaths are the outlier. They are going up. One reason given is that cars are getting bigger and heavier and safety features are aimed at protecting occupants not those outside.
Putting the Napier-Taupo back up to 100km/h is less welcome, at least in some parts. I've driven it many times, and will be a lot more over the next few years. 80km/h makes a lot of sense through the more technical sections, while the straighter areas closer to the Taupo end can easily go back up to 100km/h.
I'm aware I'm free to do 80 in the 100 sections (until tailgated), but it's not my own abilities I'm worried about. I used to enjoy doing 100 over the entire road, but the first time I drove it at 80 it just "felt" much better. Ever since then it's been a more relaxing drive, with fewer heroes looking to set records.
Nelson to Blenheim ( via Rai Valley ) was reduced to 90 kph a few years ago ... I'd heard that locals were mightily annoyed by that maximum of 90 ... but , having driven it several times , I've found that the intermediary limit of 90 kph is spot on ... the ideal combination of safety and speed ...
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.