Today's Top 10 is a guest post from Alex Tarrant who is now based in London. More on what he is doing below (#10).
As always, we welcome your additions in the comments below or via email to david.chaston@interest.co.nz.
And if you're interested in contributing the occasional Top 10 yourself, contact gareth.vaughan@interest.co.nz.
See all previous Top 10s here.
Hello again, from the streets of London! I hope all is well with you all. Here's a wee review of today's excitement, plus a few choice extra bits from this side of the world. I've put a brief 'catch up' down the bottom.
1. Forget the spying argument between Germany and the US right now.
Much more exciting is the to-and-fro over Germany's trade surplus.
The US Treasury took a swipe at Germany's surplus, saying it's deflationary for Europe and the global economy.
While everyone else are cutting their deficits and restructuring, the Germans should be helping on the demand side by reducing their surpluses, Paul Krugman explains:
First, the facts. Remember the China syndrome, in which Asia’s largest economy kept running enormous trade surpluses thanks to an undervalued currency? Well, China is still running surpluses, but they have declined. Meanwhile, Germany has taken China’s place: last year Germany, not China, ran the world’s biggest current account surplus. And measured as a share of GDP, Germany’s surplus was more than twice as large as China’s.
Now, it’s true that Germany has been running big surpluses for almost a decade. At first, however, these surpluses were matched by large deficits in southern Europe, financed by large inflows of German capital. Europe as a whole continued to have roughly balanced trade. Then came the crisis, and flows of capital to Europe’s periphery collapsed.
The debtor nations were forced – in part at Germany’s insistence – into harsh austerity, which eliminated their trade deficits. Trade imbalances But something went wrong. The narrowing of trade imbalances should have been symmetric, with Germany’s surpluses shrinking along with the debtors’ deficits.
Instead, however, Germany failed to make any adjustment at all; deficits in Spain, Greece, and elsewhere shrank, but Germany’s surplus didn’t. This was a very bad thing for Europe because Germany’s failure to adjust magnified the cost of austerity
2. And all at the time this is about to happen:
It's hard to argue against bank stress tests, given what the financial system has just been through. But uncertainties about the upcoming review in Europe has banks scrambling to deleverage.
This was raised by a chief economist at one of the world's biggest banks during a conference I attended the other week. Just as European credit growth was starting to creep up, the banks are starting to hold back. Perhaps that puts the onus back on government's to stimulate demand ... but the one in the best position to do so gets shirty when asked to. Lorenzo Bini Smaghi explains on the FT's A-List.
As a result, the comprehensive assessment exercise is generating strong undesired headwinds to a fragile eurozone recovery, which is also weakened by an overly appreciated euro and high real interest rates resulting from the very low inflation that makes deleveraging even more costly. Given these constraints, the pain can be reduced only through more accommodative monetary conditions.
3. Accommodative monetary conditions coming right up!
Here comes Draghi. Bloomberg reports:
The ECB now has just one more quarter-point cut left before reaching zero, increasing the likelihood of unconventional tools such as quantitative easing or a negative deposit rate if prices slow further or the economic recovery stalls. Euro-area inflation is less than half the ECB’s 2 percent target and unemployment is at the highest level since the currency bloc was formed in 1999.
The ECB kept its deposit rate at zero and trimmed the marginal lending rate to 0.75 percent.
Pledging to keep borrowing costs low for an “extended period,” Draghi said weakening price pressures justified the ECB’s surprise decision to cut its main interest rate.
“We may experience a prolonged period of low inflation,” Draghi told reporters after the central-bank decision.
4. All good right? Not everyone's happy. Economist Danny Blanchflower has been on fire today on Twitter:
Eurozone now in big trouble as monetary & fiscal policy too tight & now headed to deflation plus they have no mechanisms to respond quickly.
5. Channel4's Faisal Islam had a hunch of what's coming next:
So the decision to cut ECB rates to new record lows was not unanimous ... can anticipate a Bundesbank speech soon to clarify dissenting view
6. And lo-and-behold ... Bild gets some reaction.
Please excuse the Google translate function. It was in German):
The response of the scientific community on the decisions fell from shared. GCIC chief economist Alexander Schumann said there was no reason for a rate cut passed: "What the Euro-zone is a continuation of structural reforms. The measures taken slowly take effect. Cover up problems with more and more central banks, only increases the risk that the reform zeal waned "KfW Chief Economist Jörg Zeuner disagreed:".. This is the correct response to low inflation in the euro area "
7. Let's change the subject. Are you all still keen on property taxes?
It's big in London too. And property stories. The Evening Standard survives from front pages on London house price rises.
Who pays the most tax? The Brits do of course. Gives them lots to whine about. All we need is a queue, and we've got a great British cultural experience. This from the Guardian:
British people pay the highest levels of property taxes in the developed world and more than twice the average for the 34 rich countries in the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), according to a think tank report.
The right-of-centre Policy Exchange said politicians should reject new levies on property – such as the "mansion tax" on residences worth over £2m favoured by the Liberal Democrats and Labour – and instead pledge to bring down housing costs by building 1.5m new homes by the end of the decade.
The report called for at least one new "garden city" and changes to planning rules to deliver 300,000 new houses a year.
Councils that fail to hit their own housing targets should be forced to release land to local people who want to design and build their own homes, said the think tank.
8. Sky's Ed Conway reckons he's found the chart:
9. Another big story over here is the Scottish Independence referendum.
I couldn't believe this was still around - they were banging on about it seven years ago when I was over last. Back then there was a survey on it that I remember seeing (pre-GFC of course).
A majority of English respondents wanted the Scots to have independence, while only a minority of Scots were keen.
Now it's getting political. And warships are involved. Imagine if the Scots did break away. The English wouldn't have a navy. Again, the Guardian:
The coalition has been accused of sacrificing Portsmouth's 500-year-old shipbuilding tradition to save the industry in Glasgow before Scotland's independence referendum, as it unveiled plans for almost 1,800 job losses in the two cities.
Philip Hammond, the Conservative defence secretary, said it was "regrettable but inevitable" that BAE Systems' Portsmouth site would have to close, as there would no longer be enough orders to sustain two major military shipyards in the UK.
The closure in Portsmouth removes the immediate threat of closure from Glasgow's Scotstoun and Govan yards, although 835 jobs will be lost at those sites as well as at two other locations, in Fife and Bristol. These will be kept open to build three patrol boats while they wait to begin construction on millions of pounds' worth of type 26 warships in 2015.
However, ministers faced claims that they were playing politics with UK jobs as Alistair Carmichael, the Scottish secretary, said it would be difficult to award the type 26 work to Scotland if the country voted to leave the UK in 2014.
10. A bit of an update, for those interested.
We're having a great time in London - arrived in February, spent a couple of months looking for jobs from an East London apartment while it snowed until Easter. Found jobs. Moved towards the North-west (Willesden Green, Jubilee line).
I'm working for an outfit called Dealreporter, which is part of the Financial Times Group. Behind a pay wall unfortunately. Choice office right on The Strand. I'm covering Mergers & Acquisitions news in Europe regarding some of the largest companies in the world. It is eye-opening. There is so much going on in this place, it really is the centre of the financial world. Having a great time.
I'll try and do this every so often. Is great to touch base with everyone again,
All the best,
Alex
119 Comments
Re #1. Have to agree regarding Germany's surplus. If Germany is determined to keep the EU intact, why don't they contribute by reducing their surplus? Instead they are backing the future of the EU provided it's on their own selfish terms. The result of this scenario is the ECB rapidly using up it's options to keep the EU out of disinflation.
It's unfair to blame the Germans. They were strong armed by the French into creating the Euro as the price of being allowed to unify West Germany and East Germany.
The Euro and the wet dreams of world monetary domination that went with it led to truly massive increases in bank credit creation by the French and German banks (think 80 times leverage versus 18 times in the US and Britain). This led to massive unrepayable debts in Southern Europe. So either they admit the French and German banks are bankrupt or they bankrupt Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland, Italy and Cyprus, which countries are effectively in receivership.
No one knows what debts are real and what is smoke and mirrors, it is rumoured that Deutsche Bank has 80 trillion dollars worth of debts in the form of derivatives, but only the net amount is ever mentioned - assuming all debts are payable.
Love ya work Alex......!! great to see you about....the telly is still the place for you though like a Corrin Dan with a bit more financial savy.
Anyhoo, all the best from down on the farm here, and we're missing you sure as hell, I'll pass on your regards to Billy Bob n John Boy....
BTW....Cunny's back baby...eh ...uh...whad I tell ya, Clint Eastwood can only dream of that squint Cunliffe's got and he's got it in both eyes to boot.
I'll try to get back for a Friday ...Yay! for ol times sake
SECOND THAT , COUNT ..... DO WE HAVE TO SHOUT , SO ALEX CAN READ THIS ALL THE WAY OVER IN YE OLDE LONDONIUM TOWNE ?
... I'M A BIT CONCERNED ABOUT FADEAGE OF THE PRINTED WORD , ACROSS ALL THOSE INTERNET MILES ...
EXCELLENT TO HEAR FROM YOU , ALEX ! .... CAN YOU STILL READ THIS , WHEN IT GETS THERE ?
That girl/guy Sorelooser and others got banned for capital shouting last year.
Why is it one rule forsome and not for others..
I know you were all happy to see him go, as were the powers that be, that did not agree with his personal style and stance, so kicked him out of this blog.
Ambrose dropping a bombshell about China:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/10431…
Ta Roger, but for me not a bombshell but a fair reflection of their strategy to date, the single biggest force they have to fear is Western Pop Culture, it has a real habit of tearing down walls from the inside......
I can just see the Premier saying..."bruddy Co co cola und a Lebi jean" wot to do, wot to do.
Hey on #9 why do they need a Navy anymore...? didn't the Villiage People break down those barriers...? Getaway cruises to the Faucklands for fun n frolics is a bit old school....
Besides they would be umming n ahhhing if we ever needed them just like in the Coral Sea....let it go...we'll get it back...was the response then, thanks to Uncle Sam we're not dining out on Sushi three square.
It's really hard to tell from the shades of grey in the chart used in #8, but is the tiny sliver on top of New Zealand's column the old gift duty? Or is there some 'net wealth tax' that I'm blissfully unaware of? I'm presuming the 'recurrent taxes on immovable property' refers to rates in our case (unless there's some other Land Tax that I've been avoiding).
Very curious about the negative 'other' tax in Iceland. Some sort of community rebate to land owners? Agricultural subsidies? Anyone know?
Haha. For all those orthodox neoliberal accolytes out there.
He suggests “requiring economics majors to take courses in behavioural economics, which considers the role of ‘social preferences’ like fairness, altruism, cooperation, and even being rationally altruistic”, as well as “breadth courses in social sciences … which place substantial emphasis on how people are concerned about others, not only themselves”.
But economics courses themselves should also “do a better job defining the principle of self-interest around utility, which involves anything a person values—including helping others”,
http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/the-internaut/how-economics-makes-you-selfish/
Nice quote from Amatrya Sen too.
“The purely economic man is indeed close to being a social moron.”
Well lets face it Shearer was National's biggest asset, now they have lost that...and they are a lot lower in the Polls.
Maori have been canned by mana, that voting is going to be interesting to watch. Bye bye National support I would think.
The one ACT seat looks fraudalent and dodgy, though I expect he'll be re-elected.
Dunne is hanging on by his eye teeth, notice he's now pro-gay, suddenly finding his liberal colours, hopefully too late.
Green's are pretty left yet still have a decent big % of the vote.
National is looking lonely and unloved.
NZF, Whinie hates the Greens I think....but really he'll be looking at his voter base and how they feel....electrcity prices up.....yes vote winner that one amongst the OAPs.....not.
The SOE referendum could really hammer them even if they win but its only be a small margin...but if they lose, oops major election platform and credibility gone bye bye.
Yes I'd be worried if I was the Nats.
regards
Paula Bennett and David Cunliffe; The Yeah Nah leader.
I'm a fan of Cunliffe, and think he might do okay. Closer to the election though he will have to be a little clearer on some positions.
In the meantime Paula Bennett was brilliant in this piece in parliament. It's an aside but if she nudged John Key aside from the top job, I'd almost vote National.
Hugh,
You do seem to put more faith in National and their role in, and the eventual outcome of, the Housing Accords Bill than I do.
From an Auckland perspective, the Bill seems a way to endorse Auckland city's (Labour led) Council planning by shortcutting parts of the Resource Management Act. So giving the Nats all the credit seems a bit rich, but never mind.
You reasonably enough note that affordable land seems a good place to start with affordable housing (along with breaking down some Nimby barriers- but that seems too politically tough). Am not holding my breath for the Housing Accords to sort that out, but time will tell. It will likely deliver some extra housing, which is a related but different thing.
Hugh,
Good luck with it all, especially in Christchurch. To be fair to Nick Smith and Labour for that matter, housing in Auckland looks a Gordian Knot to me. Lots of vested interests, plenty of NIMBYs, and current infrastructure that you wouldn't start with if you started now. Life here is pretty good for most most of the time also, so the pressure for change is not all that great.
Steven do you feel bad that impact of environmental constraints, that you think are natural events and most others think are man made (artificial residential land shortages) is the poor, young and propertyless?
Surely the pain should be more evenly distributed. When Finland lost a fifth of their land in WW2 the whole country paid to resettle in new land those that had lost their properties. What are you willing to pay to help the next generation cope with the new environmental constraints?
Or is your belief in environmental constraints only dependent on you being uneffected.
Huh?
You first talk about environmental constraints, then talk about artifical land shortages. An artificial land constraint isnt really what I call an environmental constraint, so Im unsure where you are coming from.
The pain will never be evenly distributed, even under a so called communist ideal. Yes the poor suffer the most in any event. If as a society we dont have checks and balances in place to reduce inequalitythen it isnt much of a society. Take it to extreme if we do not and take such actions/pre-cautions events as the French Revolution as an end game. Im sure no one sane wants to end up there, again.
Again how you word "What are you willing to pay to help the next generation cope with the new environmental constraints?"
Its not "pay" pay is money which is a proxy for energy. You still are unable to grasp the conceept of an energy constrained, over-populated world it seems. In which case house prices are moot, they'll collapse.
So whats best here? stand aside while ppl over-pay for property? Consider the impact of house price collapses on the poor, young and heavily mortgaged on the newly propertied.
V
What am I willing to pay to guarantee the well being of my children and on? even us as a species? maybe ask yourself that.
So really we are not on the same plain, at all, I dont think you can even see what I mean.
Its pretty clear virtually no one is prepared to "pay" little let alone sufficiently to mitigate, hence we will be extinct inside 200 years IMHO. In terms of the planet's species besides us that appears to be a good thing...though too late for many.
It would be interesting to have a time machine and jump 500million maybe 1000million years ahead and see what the new top dog is looking at our fossilised remains and thinking. "oh my god where they that dumb" or "oh my god we are as dumb" Given DNA I suspect the latter.
Now time to finish my coffee and get on with some work.
regards
The question was if you believe in this impending environmental disaster, what are doing to spread the pain evenly. What are you personally willing to give up, or will you just crow from the sidelines about carrot pullers?
Also extinct in 200 years. WTF!
My prediction is in 200 years time NZ will have stabalised at a population of 5-6 million. Energy production will be similiar to current levels but sourced locally and renewably rather than imported fossil fuels. Our economy will have diversified and we will not be so dependent on exporting dairy products.
Life will go on and people will be happy.
Brendon - you need to get real.
First your nonsense about Ireland, then Finland. Then on the basis of putting the cart there without appraising the horse, you hypothesise a number? Spare me. (one was heading for overshoot BEFORE the fossil fuel era, the other just had 'more land' to settle folk on? Sounds like Hughey, or an economist.
It the planet staggers on towards 10 billion, depletes the once-off stored energy-source, ignores the pollution/degradation while it has a maybe-chance of doing so, then NZ will not be left alone to decide its fate. That's wishful thinking.
Don't shoot the messenger(s), don't cherry-pick your 'facts' (while conveniently ignoring others), and your prediction is hogwash. How can you write that penultimate sentence, after all that has been presented here? Please state the source, quantity and storage you expect.
Disaster, well are we on the same page yet? Im looking at AGW and peak oil. Your defination of disaster from your first Q seemed to be pricey housing. I saw in that no clear question, it wasnt understood.
Ive talked about swamped lifeboats before. Hence really we cant re-distribute NZs resources world wide to what will be many millions of starving ppl. We will actually be lucky to feed our own population. At that point the locusts syndrome swings in....or mass migration to find food, not that many will make NZ shores, but maybe enough....swamped lifeboat time.
"Carrot pullers" let me define this yet again. A carrot puller is someone whos education and employment history is so specialised that they are unable to move to another skilled line of employment given the context of less fossil fuels = a simpler life. So someone with a degree in media studies and a decade in such an occupation isnt likely to become a blacksmith, chippy or other skilled trades, hence to survive they will be carrot pullers, ie un-skilled. This isnt without precident BTW...but you know, to brain dump 9 years of reading etc into a few paragraphs cant be done.
200 years is based on AGW getting to 6Deg C when we will be in a superwarm period. Before that by 4.5Deg C agriculture will be gone, by 6Deg C there will be pretty much no food chain as we know it, hence its most likely but not certain we will be extinct.
Your prediction on energy is written by someone with no apparant engineering background and especially in terms of scale. Now sure we will indeed be local, but think in terms of Amish style low energy local not 1960s futuristic style local, which I think is where you are, it will be a lot less.
The amish are very happy (it seems), myself I'd just like to trade out the religious mumbo jumbo part otherwise no problems.
regards
Most of my replies are further below but you question my statement that New Zealand can replace fossil fuel energy with renewable energy sources. I have talked to engineers in the electricity sector and it is their belief this is quite doable using existing technology. I will continue to believe this until the consensus view from the industry is this is untrue.
Of note this is not without challenges -storing electrical energy is not as easy as with liquid fossil fuels and replacing heavy mobile machinary -diggers, tractors, big trucks etc will be difficult. But work around solutions will be found.
It could be society changes into something like a more scientific and electric version of Victorian times. Not sure. I think a non religious Amish type society without the population growth is definitely doable and I note that is not extinction.
I notice that nowadays you are moving away from an energy argument specific to New Zealand and instead argue New Zealand will be swamped from other energy depleted countries and problems caused by climate change. This changing argument indicates you are less certain about your facts than you make out to be.
The more you think about NZ alone, the more you have to realise that inverted quarantine doesn't work.
http://landandpeople.blogspot.co.nz/2008/01/inverted-quarantine.html
So you have stop building your nuclear fallout-shelter (who wants to emerge after a fortnight to a post-blast shambles anyway - and go protest the rule-makers, go tell it on the mountain enough that they're voted out, and do your best to ensure it never happens.
Nuclear fallout, climate change, fossil fuel depletion, ocean acidification, ozone hole, they're all global. The Denniston plateau coal - actually coal, regardless of source-site - does what it does to us, regardless of burning-site.
Your stateroom (or in your case, privateentrepriseroom) may still be warm and dry. Good luck with that.
I have been in a couple of smaller meetings by Paula Bennet. Forget the silly stuff that parliament seems to bring on - in person she is very impressive.
Never thought of her as PM. But now it suggested i do think it's worth a thought.
Simon Bridges is the other long tern one to think about as well.
I've been in a meeting with her and about 50 others (mainly women who deal with lots of unpleasantness). She spoke briefly about some of the truly horrendous and tragic stuff she deals with, which I found rather humbling. Her analysis was factual but in a very engaging and human way, not your usual wordy drivel at all. She is energetic, practical and has a big heart. In short I liked her. She may not have the cold hearted native cunning that a Prime Minister sometimes needs, who can say.
It's Friday Yay.......finally i've learned the value of flogging a dead horse.....
Happy day's Alex....this one's to Bernard for ol times sake.
An out-of-towner drove his car into a ditch in a desolated area. Luckily, a local farmer came to help with his big strong horse named Buddy.
He hitched Buddy up to the car and yelled, "Pull, Nellie, pull!" Buddy didn't move.
Then the farmer hollered, "Pull, Buster, pull!" Buddy didn't respond.
Once more the farmer commanded, "Pull, Coco, pull!" Nothing.
Then the farmer nonchalantly said, "Pull, Buddy, pull!" And the horse easily dragged the car out of the ditch.
The motorist was most appreciative and very curious. He asked the farmer how come he called his horse by the wrong name three times.
The farmer said, "Oh, Buddy is blind and if he thought he was the only one pulling, he wouldn't even try!"
......Happiness.
There's a group of young couples at the pre-natal class , listening intently to the instructor's words of wisdom ...
.. " it would help you ladies to get regular , but gentle exercise .... such as long walks ... that will strenghten your pelvic muscles .... and make the delivery of your babies so much easier ..... I suggest you walk on soft green grass ..... and as an aside , you men may think about joining your partners on these walks .... "
There is a silence .... then from the back of the room , young husband Christov pipes up , " ummmm , is it OK if while we're on our walk , the wife carries my golf bag ? " ...
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11154046
Auckland Grammar Zone puts 500,000 on the price of a house. So uild two or three more Auckland Grammars in Auckland the market clearly wants them
If you want an example of the fail-fail joke that is left/right politics, the Hughey/StevenL interchange above,takes the cake.
The most powerful storm ever recorded, was happening even as that one-two was being tapped out. Correlation, anyone?
http://www.resilience.org/stories/2013-11-07/economic-growth-a-social-pathology
Constant 230kmh and gusts to 280kmh?
Mind boggling, I'd expected more frequent and more severe events but 280kmh is mind blowing....if not roof and wall blowing.....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/typhoon-haiyan-strongest-storm-ever-at-lan…
Yet the Governor of New Jersey says Sandy wasnt an AGW event, oh no business as normal....
regards
The Emperors have no clothes. Scary stuff (if a little technical).
I have been having a disquieting concern that the central bankers really are like Gosplan in the USSR (now where is that Adam Curtis link? Ah yes http://thoughtmaybe.com/pandoras-box/#top). This rather confirms my fears. It appears the relation between unemployment and cpi inflation that we are supposed to believe in does not exist in fact. In fact there is no correlation at all:
http://www.hussman.net/wmc/wmc131104.htm
PDK I used Finaland as an example of a country that went through bad times. The post war settlement between the Soviet Union and Finland meant they lost something like 20% of the thier land and their 2nd biggest town. Th residents wanted to remain in Finland so needed to find new homes. That resettlement process was financed by the whole country. That was the point I was trying to make about Finland.
So the question was if you think bad times are coming how do propose spreading the pain evenly.
Secondly I dispute that Ireland was heading for overshoot before the fossil fuel era. That is not the conclusion of historians such as Belich or economists such as Amartya Sen. The problem was a lack of democratic freedoms something which you seem to have little respect for.
I conclude that NZ will be self sufficient in its on energy supply in 200 years time because Grantham who has cruched the numbers for the energy and resource peaks that are coming and concludes that with population growth tailing off and solar power coming on stream there is a hope we might be ok. If any country can manage this tranistion it is NZ. We are half way there already.
Brendon - this guy is way smarter than the both of us put together.
http://questioneverything.typepad.com/
Read it carefully. Grantham is an enlightened epithaniser, in contrast. See the list:
Here is the list of minimal actions needed to salvage some semblance of humanity:
-
Stop all reproduction
No new babies for twenty years at least and then only ten percent of the adult population should be allowed to reproduce afterward. -
Stop capitalistic profit taking
Forever. No more capitalism and profiting ever again. Freeze prices and wages (except for the overpaid executives; reduce theirs). -
Take back the wealth of the top 10%
It will be needed to support survival activities. -
Destroy the financial system
Revert banking to hold savings and eliminate securities and futures markets. -
Reallocate housing to handle the poor
Move those living in squalor and homeless into the mansions in the Hamptons (for example) -
Put all able-bodied men and women to work restoring soils and growing food for local consumption
Turn all arable and climate-viable land over to permaculture. -
Begin immediate mass migrations of peoples living in climate danger zones
For example all of the people of the MENA and central Africa regions are in danger from severe climate change. They will need to be relocated north as far as Russia and Europe. -
Eliminate all luxury product/service productions
Re- purpose the capital to producing absolute necessities such as plows! Besides, with some of the above actions there won't be anyone who could afford to buy luxuries. -
Redirect all fossil fuel production to supply energy for recycling materials, food production, and migration
Minimize energy consumption by the public to just that essential to support the above.
Good luck with relocating significant parts of Africa to Russia. And this is the problem I have. I can't do anything about Nigeria or a Super power like Russia. I can't even conceive of how that sort of change could be campaigned for. So it might be a good idea but I prefer to concentrate my time on the achievable.
Finland was stand alone, the World has a problem today thats global. Sure in Finland ppl moved, how many moving to NZ do you think we can sustain? 2million? maybe, 20million? cant see it.
"Pain evenly" world wide? NZ wide? all the people today with speciality qualifications that have no context in a simpler society, how will they see "pain evenly"? WINZ distributions of $s to buy food wont work as it is. So we'll have a lot simpler lifestyle and work far less for "profit" instead we'll spend our time growing our own food. Unless you happen to have a skill like a blacksmith say. Ahrd to know the end game but it wont be a 1960s futurisitic thast for sure.
So the second point is really we have massive over-population. How do we fix that "evenly"?
regards
I refer to NZ. In part because this is a New Zealand website dealing predominantly with NZ issues, such as housing affordability. And in part because it is not feasible to solve the world's problems from here. I think if you want to solve global problems go find another forum -not sure what others think.
Pain wise I refer to NZ and it is not up to me to say what you should do to mitigate the bad times that you say are coming. I say the bad times can be dealt with as long as we transition to renewable energy sources and stop buggering around with artificial planning restrictions which causes houses to be unaffordable and debt to skyrocket. Plus the objective of campact cities are of dubious value in a post fossil fuel world -eco villages might be better. Worse than that compact cities aren't even achieved as the natural experiment of Christchurch shows.You just get satelite town leapfrog sprawling.
Population wise I would be most comfortable in the 5-6 million range. Basically allowing expat kiwis to return and relations of current citizens but that is about it.
A lot of your argument is based on New Zealand being flooded by rich or poor immigrants but whether that happens is pure speculation, not the hard science that you say is the basis of your view of the future.
I am not sure what your 1960s fututuristic point was. I am not sure exactly what NZ will be like in say 200 years but it is quite within our means to replace the energy equivalent of our fossil fuel use with renewable sources so I think our future will be fine.
As I said before life will go on. People will be happy.
Brendon - you need to seriously do some homework. Preferably physics, energy and resource consumption/pollution. You can't isolate NZ - you're fooling yourself if you try (and I suggest you're fooling yourself by starting with the 'artificial planning restrictions' thought. It's noise, and barely that.
Life may go on - but not happily, and not for most of the projected 10 billion. You will never let yourself see that; and the fact that most folk are wired like you, is why it's happening.
This country imports it's fossil energy, it's consumer crap (from whiteware to cars), and an amount of its food. It exports its coal, the global atmosphere cannot be quarantined-from. By buying from the likes of China, Bangladesh, the Phillipines, Mexico, Nigeria, we are offshoring the pollution resulting from our consumption. You seem to be at the level of thinking of us as 'clean and green' - via conveniently ignoring the unpleasant-to-contemplate. We are seeing Russian fishing-boats reduced to going to the other end of the planet. We don't do medicines/drugs, lots of stuff. We can't be seen in isolation - indeed much of this site is indeed about other parts of the planet.
I see where you're coming from, though. "I don't want to know, and if you keep saying stuff I don't want to know, I want you off the site". Good luck with that. That's 'shoot the uncomfortable-news-bearing messenger'.
Have a think about where you aren't - and a lot of folk here arent - in this sequence:
(climbing thae ladder of awareness)
I hit '3' about 1980, 4-5 through the 80's, and do the 'outer path' thing. Where are you? Seriously, you appear to be at '1'. Maybe - via the 'housing restriction' focus, you could claim '2', perhaps even 3. What do you reckon?
PDK have you read the history books I sugested by Belich. I would also like to suggest Development as Freedom by Amartya Sen. He has Nobel prize in economics based on his studies on famine. So before you make claims about why the Irish famine occurred maybe you should.
I do not want you to leave this site. If you remember I suggested some time ago that you write your own articles and I welcome it that this site gives you the space to do that. I can get on board with discussng global issues on this site.
What I disagree with is that if I or others have a specific concern -say housing affordability we are criticised by you because it is not a whole system viewpoint. Essentially in a complicated hippie way that is what your link http://www.paulchefurka.ca/ is about. It is another type of shooting the messenger. Shouldn't we have the space to discuss the little probems too? Why can't we look at both the little and big problems?
Murray if you have a big problem that you cannot solve it do you mope around and whinge or do you get on with a smaller achievably task like pruning the trees and wait for inspiration on how to solve your big problem?
Why criticise the tree pruners because they haven't worked out how to stop the sky from falling down.
yes, they espouse world views that are arrogantly self assured and absolutist, not that different to fundamentalist Christian world views or for that matter fundamentalist atheistic world views.
The thing is, the fundamentalists on either side of the debate on most issues are both usually wrong...usually the truth lies close to the middle, because so many things in life are so complex, often much more than we mere human mortals think, and human knowledge in most fields is often turned on its head.
And for me the climate change denialists are just as guilt as the climate change fundamentalists.
In my opinion - my opinion, NOT THE GOSPEL - climate change is occuring, it is part attributable to human activity, and part attributable to natural cycles. I side with the greens on much more needing to be done. But I don't think its doomsday, and I don't think humanity can not find a way around this
And beyond reasonable, and affordable measures, what more can we do? We still need to live, and love, and do eveyrthing else humans have ever done. We just need to try and do it in a more environmentally responsive way. If we fail, we fail. I sincerely hope we don't.
Maths 2+2=4, not open to challenge or voting for something else, say 5 or 3, not unless you are delusioned anyway.
AGW isnt so cut and dried, though in terms of risk management, impact and mitigation there is more than enough certainty to mitigate/act.
It isnt gospel either its maths and science, evidence, logic and reasoning, not blind belief.Try reading how worried the [re-]insurance industry is and how they intend to offload risk or even no longer insure.
Further I suggest you look at their comments on the claims from the flattening of the Philipines.
regards
Steven - providing a maths equation of 2+2=4 is rather absurd. Have you considered that something might not have been counted that should have been or something that was counted that shouldn't have been and so the SUM amount is now incorrect.
I'm getting very basic here so sorry to other readers.
If I have 2 oranges + 2 bananas I have 4 pieces of fruit. I assume you would agree to that sum being correct.
But what if I had 1 lemon that I either didn't know about or had forgotten about?
Is my SUM accurate or is it a lemon of another sort i.e.unexpectedly defective.
My point is to highlight that while maths is pure it is only as good as the known objects you are counting and the accuracy of those entering data.
Steven.........which one is the lemon...........Biogenic Theory or Abiogenic Theory?
Biogenics would require one hell of pile of dead organisms to make an oil field?
Since you learnt 'higher maths" you should be able to work out the necessary pile of dead organisms to make a barrel of oil.
Again you miss the main point, hardly suprising though. As its a moot point as in either case neither produces enough to match our rate of consumption.
Otherwise, as usual you missed most of the salient points; geology, time, pressure and temperature.
Try googling, rather than blind guessing or blinkered faith as per normal.
regards
Matt, you might guess by my username my thoughts on the subject. What you say on the surface seems reasonable most people agree that client warming is a thing and we are causing it to a certain extent.
The danger is this sentence "And beyond reasonable, and affordable measures, what more can we do?" This statement appears to be competely reasonable and if you object to it you are a crazy nut.
What is reasonable however depends on the fact at hand. I don't think people on this site spend enough time looking at the facts. Until all the facts are on the table we can't decide what action is reasonable. If it turns out that the facts show that we have heaps of energy left and the buring of fosil fuels don't contribute in a dangerous way to climate change then a reasonable action is relatively minor given the consequence.
If on the other hand the facts show a high likelyhood of either a quickly dimisihing of resources or a large impact from global warming then reasonable measures come to mean completely different things.
The same goes for affordable with the added proviso that the later we leave things before we look to transition away from fosil fuels the less energy we will have to achieve the transition.
Every sane person knows that the world can only sustain so many humans and growth is finite. We can choose to move away from a continual growth economy now or have that option forced upon us by hard limits. I hope for the former but suspect the later.
I look forward to having respectful discussion with anyone who is interested in the subject
Good and constructive, is it?
He may be a nice fellow - and not a tout/spinner/fearful-type, of which there are a few here - but he misses the logic. Mobus gets it (the link above) and Bartlett got it - you have to start from basics, and hit the overriding problems first, and adequately.
That's global population, resource consumption, and the race between fossil energy-depletion and work-yet-needing-done.
If you don't address those - totally - then all other bets are off, the only variable is 'time'. Yes, that's a scary thought, but so is walking out of oncology with a bad prognosis. Get over it. I listened to Kennedy Graham last Friday (I'm no Greenie, some of the audience were still back at the 'protest offshore drilling' stage, Horatioing backwards on the bridge) and he articulated exactly the same thing: You have to tell people the enormrity of the problem, or they won't bother. I suspect he knows we've lost too, but that the only valid choice is to contunue warning, and offering best alternatives.
Which in our (NZ) case involves becoming as resilient as possible as fast as possible, before there is no longer the chance to do so. Which exponential numbers say will be soon. That says we haven't the time to replace the existing housing-stock. Which says we have to retro-upgrade the existing - if we discard any, it should be the darkest/coldest first. We also have to get on with food resilience. Transport is all about food and essential resources, forget the discretionary (electric cars etc). They can come later, if you've got the surplus grunt. Infrastructure maintenance in the face of material/energy scarcity will be a headache too.
This guy was closed to discussion:
http://www.biography.com/people/thomas-andrews-283620
"When the ship hit an iceberg on April 14, 1912, he calculated that the damage would sink it in two hours. He went from cabin to cabin, urging women and children to get aboard the lifeboats".
He had acquired enough knowledge to be sure of the truth. The Limits to Growth truth is pretty undeniable, too.
I hope your particular baulk floats, t'will leave you with just the hypothermia question. Good luck with that. The problem, of course, is that individual actions (inverted quarantine, in effect) can't solve the whole problem(s).
:)
The problem, of course, is that individual action can't solve the whole problem.
I can agree with that. But I think the level of the problem we can address is evolutionary change at a national level. I think as a nation we could do a lot better (and that doesn't include the smart growth nonsense ) and be a beacon of sustainability, a bigger version of the Grimwoods lifestyle block. Maybe it doesn't fix the whole problem but it is a step in the right direction.
But to expect revolutionary change at a national or international level, such as getting rid of capitalism, or the mass movement of peoples from one continenent to another is not going to happen and all it does is waste your energy. For change to occur you have to gain the consent of the people and that has to be done in stages.
Ah right, single track mind, back to build, build & and um...build. But OK to satisfy PDK we'll call it green and sustainable, maybe even paint a bit green.
Nature will force such revolutionary change such as mass migration caused by starvation or economic plight at least. For sure we dont want that to be to here, like I keep saying swamped lifeboat.
"consent" well a) ppl have to be informed and Pollies certianly dont want to or cannot do that having promised growth for decades. b) Nature wont care about consent, it will simply, do.
regards
Sometimes Steven you come across as not a nice person. Someone who likes to crow over others misfortunes.
What was the crack about Notaneconomist education level about, was that necessay -you had already made your point. Or do you like a bit of nastiness?
You are still resisting the idea that building houses are ok in NZ. We have the energy to do it. It could be renewable if we wanted. There is nothing unsustainable about people having homes to live in. It is not nature that stops people from building in NZ, it is stupid rules that people like you suppport. Again it seem you like the idea of others experiencing misfortunes...
Bollocks back to you Murray. I had a really good reply but lost it (forgot to do a back up save).
But my question to you is if Ireland got to 8 million people on a third of NZ land mass before hitting overshoot in pre fossil fuel times like you say. I don't argree that they did overshoot and you should read Amartya Sen to find out why. But lets assume that Ireland's peak carrying capacity is 8 million. Then how high could NZ's population go -25 million?
And why do we in NZ have such a problem with peak fossil fuels when we can replace all our fossil fuel use with renewables using existing technolgy?
So far you have avoided answering these questions because they are awkward and inconvenient for you.
If New Zealand isn't about to collaspe on its own then you have to argue that New Zealand will collaspe beause the rest of the world collaspes and that is less convincing.
It is not clear why collaspes in over populated and under resourced countries will cause the collaspe in places like NZ where neither condition holds.
Further if New Zealand is not about to collaspe on its own. It then has the luxury to choose for ideological reasons to be 'clean and green', to be a beacon to the world of how to be sustainable. This is what I believe is happening but some of the clean and green policies, specifically the smart growth city ones are backfiring.
The poor, propertyless and young who pay for it in unaffordable housing are shouldering an unnecessary burden.
It is just ideology to make one group feel better but another group pays for it.
I don't agree with the opposing idea that NZ is too small to impact on the global stage where these environmental problems lie. I think we should be a clean and green beacon. But we should do it in much better ways than this smartgrowth nonsense.
For a start, we would have trouble - and couldn't maintain BAU, with renewables.
"So far you have avoided answering these questions because they are awkward and inconvenient for you"
Who said? I understand that all populations of all species, expand withing their habitat till they hit the ceiling. Ireland - they dug peat, didn't they? - was no exception. Try and understand that if you're chewing-down ANYTHING (aquifers, peat, oil, fisheries, potato-carrying capacity) you're not sustainable, and yuor overshot population will collapse.
You need to understand the difference between sustainable, and resilient. I live a resilient lifestyle, but not a sustainable one. Although I'm in the 1% who are closest to being sustainable. My concrete weighed over 40 tonnes, so was responsible for 40 tonnes of CO2. We can't keep doing that.
Can you point to one chemical parameter we are not going backwards in? Hint: halving the pollution per farm while tripling the number of farms. is going backwards.
I understand that all populations of all species, expand withing their habitat till they hit the ceiling.
Do all species collaspe after reaching their peak or do some manage to find a stable balancing point? Extinctions do occur but not always, as our very existence proves. Life has managed to beat the terminal collaspe so far, how many billions of years is that of one species or the other beating the collaspe.
I believe it is possible humans find that balancing act, especially in NZ, in particular over a relatively short period in evolutionary terms -say thousands of years.
By the way PDK do you agree with Steven exinction in 200 years is likely to happen. If you do that explains why you don't care about housing, we are all buggered anyway.
We are only buggered for sure if we carry on as is.
Have a look at "lmits to growth" and its revisit. BAU was warned about then in the 70s as not a goer, it was ignored. So carry on it seems we will.
Ive not seen any significant signs that a species can stabilize, most seem to boom and bust. Kind of hoping we'd be better.
regards
Have a look at some fossil fuel output graphs prediction. There are two glaring point of concern,
a) As yet unidentifed production, ie no one in the industry knows where that output is going to come from, so its a huge un-filled hole.
b) Renewables even with the staggering growth projected of say 300% per annum for reneables they are coming from fractions of a % so would take far too long to get here to replace the losses even if that pace could be maintained.
This is a very good and up to date piece on those numbers,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4aaOPWvw3I
regards
Brendon, did you read what notaneconomist said before hand?
"I'm getting very basic here so sorry to other readers."
So really, give up on the cherry picking.
Building houses, sure but consider its a) can kicking, "hugey "its better to build out of a recession" So take on debt to stimulate the economy. b) its risky c) we waste energy in building the wrong thing.
Im all for homes, yet we see rents going up? no. Hence the Q is why not. Is it real demand or rampent speculation? Look at similar messages from abroad, Ireland, London etc cash sales no mortgages in expensive areas. Suggests some ppl awsh with money and no where else to put it buying up property....
Just why do ppl just have to own? At what point do we say the FHB's left are unsafe bets ie NINJA loans aka the USA?
Others misfortunes. no far from it.
Yet again you seem to want to shoot the messenger.
Its also swings and roundaabouts, consider the ppl who have bought in the last 5 to 10 years on 90% mortgages....collapse the housing back to 3 to 1 and they are financially devastated. Think mortgagee sales with full recourse. Whos guilty here? preditory banks lending way too much? the ppls own greed? "desperation?" btw I know couples with kids perfectly happy renting.
Consider peak oil and a 25 or 30 year mortgage taken out today. Even taking out a mortgage at 3 to 1 its looking like big losses. Yet we seem to be hell bent on building more to enslave more.
regards
There are a few other things you obviously haven't been for a while, Gonzo.
One of them would be: Thinking.
Do you ever feel a loser, when all you are allowed to do is denigrate dumbly? When you know you're hamstrung by having to push a lie? From behind a mask? I feel sorry for you, or at least, I would. I'm too busy feeling sorry for the innocent victims of your continued actions:
http://www.odt.co.nz/news/world/280728/destruction-massive-scale
as i recall, the Quislings dodn't get too good a write-up.
Funny enough, Snoddy, I'm way past that.
At that Kennedy Graham talk, there was a woman all fired up to lambast John Key, about offshore drilling. The discussion was about the pending international crime of 'ecocide', and whether his ilk should be charged.
I pointed out - and she didn't like it - that everyone there who was going home by car, was a potential crim in that scenario - there aren't enough jails. I pointed out that if we all stopped buying the product, the Companies would be gone by lunchtime.
Guilt isn't the problem - though I note that by putting it into the arena, you presumably hope to slow the required change - lack of action is the problem. En route to taking action, we may well have to expose some political lying (sorry, statistic-alteration) in an election year......
It means that this discussion is uncomfortable, and - despite the kindergarten-level of what was writ - there is a desire to eliminate the discomfort.
Some will be Party hacks, some will be fear-driven deniers (interesting, considering this is a thread :) and some will be vested interests.
Theye are there in society too - 50% still would vote unsustainability via the Nats, 30something via Labour - so what?
Did the passengers vote that there wasn't a sinking about to happen? Would that have changed their reality?
KH - if that's the best you can do, might be time to eather. .
Either his message is right, or it's wrong.
Perhaps you could ascertain which? From a first-principles, factual basis. Come back when you're up to speed.
You could start to understand your cranial shortfall (in appraisal terms) by understanding that the readership here is many, many times 8 (or 11, or whatever). And that there are some worried folk out there. Worried politicians, party hacks, investors, developers, folk who are exposed fiscally/strategically. There are a lot more than 8 (or 11). If 8 (0r 11) was the total readership, then any effort would be a waste of time, but conversely, if readership was so low, the touts/spinners/hacks/etc, wouldn't be bothering. Catch-8 (or 11).
Does Steven lack humour hereabouts? Certainly. Is he close to the truth, big-picture. Hell yeah. Much, much closer than you. I suspect he understands the nonsense of approving of 6% interest, in that the chargers of it expect to exchange it for yet-more bits of the planet. Do you?
Not really....been here 5 or so years, the amount of ppl from the right who object to anything that doesnt agree with their usually extremist views ceased to amaze me some years back.
"does not work" again, those with closed minds will learn the hard way, those who take it on board will do better the choice is there.
Their call.
regards
Steven.....your idealistic rhetoric appears to hide a sinister agenda.
Treating people with dignity and respect is frequently lacking in your postings and those of PDK. I get the strong feeling that you would prefer others not to challenge you....WHY do you not want to be challeged?......my conclusion is that you can obtain your goal if unchallenged......how convenient for you.......the trouble is your goal is personal......and doesn't assist humanity.......and is being rightfully challenged by others........and those who are challenging you......have become a thorn in your side.......
I can't help but notice that the words closed-mind and finite have similarities... both can only take on so much.........your frequent use of both is interesting..........
Notane - pot calling kettle.
You clearly have a set mind-set, one that happens to have been tenable in the recent past (last 200 years) but isn't now. Actually, anythime in the last 200 years, you could have done your homework, but like the vast majority, even now, you didn't.
What is more intresting is that when given the opportunity, you avoid it. What your wee rant misses - and the KH persona does too - is there is a truth, and a non-truth about the multiple paradigms unfolding now. The non-truth is that they're not happening.
Shooting the messenger won't sweep the truth under the carpet - we (yes we) are stuffing the planet, rapidly, and if we continue (in fact, it may well be too late) it won't be habitable. I call continuing that, stupid. Before this election year is out, it will be being called criminal. Pass that on up the chain.
Lets see lets look back at your posts....attempts at put downs etc, rife. So simple, treat others as you expect to be treated, until then expect a reciprocal reply.
Rightfully challenged? actually its the opposite. Simple when I see the right wing / libertarian agendas being pushed here that are based on, well no fundimentals, wonky economics, unfathomable hopes and unfounded beliefs then Im going to point out its hocus pocus.
regards
Steven - its time for you to get out of denial. (and PDK as well of course) I suspect that many people do not at all mind your view of the planet's future. They might even share it. But they do object to your obsessive, repetitive and indeed abusive presentation of such. Pity you can't hear.
Speaking of the planet's future - this is obviously a must not read - as none of these commentators are making it into MSM;
And note - this work starts sometime this month.
I get this sinking feeling that oil reserves and SLR are the least of our worries. Frankly, I can't see how an accident can't happen ..
Thks Kate... my favorite commentator about Fukushima is Arnie...
Thank you Kate. The Fukushima situation is just rendolent of the sort official reassurance that causes serious alarm. It's bad and they really don't want to tell us. And they are on the shore of the same ocean as us and right now even that vast ocean does not feel so big.
People need to think in whole systems. Yes, Fukushima is a disaster, but when you run a parallel series of exponentially-bigger experiments and activities, you must expect more Fukishimas, more Haiyans and more Christchurches (no, we aren't causing earthquakes - yet - but exponentially-more people and infrastructure per square, ensures more damage per event), and more often. Which means there will be a time that insurance falls over, infrastructure will be left in derelict form, and things get ugly.
Our problem is that we don't measure real things. Real depletion, real disaster potential, real overshoot, real climate alteration, real pollution. We measure some artificial thing which relates to nothing in particular - a situation which applied before Nixon left gold.
What miffs me however is the fact that we have spent trillions upon trillions in time, effort, written materials, simulations, forecasts, modelling, data gathering, scientific analysis and political bantering .. over GHG emissions - while above-ground stockpiles of nuclear waste have grown, and grown and grown and grown. It just seems to me, an international agreement on nuclear waste disposal, as opposed to climate change mitigation, would have been much, much, much more sensible. One can look to adaptation in respect of climate change - but not with respect to radioactive contamination.
Kate - who told you that nonsense? You're something academic, aren't you? So help us, have you asked an energy specialist how much effort - work - the mitigation/sequestration of low-grade emitted exhaust would require? Anyone who tells you it's possible, is lying. LYING. Get it? I understand you may be on more familiar ground with anti-nuke, and it certainly can harm and kill us all - but climate change is more guaranteed,
You can't 'adapt' to tipping-point Climate Change. It's a lie, and no academic - even out of field - should be in the business of lying. I happened to give a lecture at physics about the whole thing, interrelationships and all. Get in touch via DC, and I'll send it to you. Pass it round for rebuttal. The joke is that CC isn't the biggest elephant in the room, nor are those two the only ones in the herd.
Dr Susan Krumdiek did a lecture a while ago about delusion:
http://computingforsustainability.com/2009/09/02/green-energy-myths-causing-paralysis/
Come on, we need better than that.
pdk, adaptation and mitigation are separate issues. IPCC/academic wisdom generally sees the absolute need for both - as the consensus agreement suggests we are beyond the stage where any amount of mitigation, no matter how 'large' the effort, will not halt or reverse the anthropogenic aspect of CC. See discussion here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_to_global_warming
As for the accusations of lying - get a life.
I presume the result of that is that you'll 'worry' about something you can't do anything about - the proper action would, in hindsight, have been to push the anti-nuke issue all the way to the UN and get it outlawed.
Alternatively - and logic requires it to be considered - we could have gone to war with Japan over it. If the ramifications include total hunman annihilation, then pre-emptive war is a lesser option.
While another which will get us, and which we can do something about - is duck-shoved (I acknowledged you're not an energy-studier). Sure, adaption and mitigation are separate issues, but it becomes a rather esoteric exercise very rapitly, especially as the energy you need to do either, needs to be not-used for either to be effective.....
Strange yet they were saying not long ago they could end up knocking down partially completed housing as it was unlikely to be ever occupied.
Further, he's making "fair guesses",
"the 12.3 per cent annual increase in Dublin house prices as "worrying", coming as it does in the absence of normal levels of mortgage credit."Whatever increase is under way in Dublin, to be clear, is happening in the middle of a mortgage famine. If mortgage availability was back to even 'normal' levels, it is a fair guess that Dublin would now be in the middle of a renewed bubble in house prices."
So its not mortgage driven. Sounds similar to some parts of Auckland, cash buyers buying.
Some sort of mis-guided flight to safety?
So lets build, built on a "guess" rather than real analysis.
Yes that makes sooo much sense, not.
regards
China making the same mistake as the US?
"Unlike the U.S. postwar sprawl, which mixed houses with schools, supermarkets and diners, the new Chinese commuters have to drive back to the city, or even across town for basic services, boosting energy consumption and emissions that have made the nation’s cities some of the most polluted in the world."
So, yes lets have lots of houses, with nothing but houses necessitating car use to take kids to schools considerable distances away.
Like Hugey's maths some things are not as simple.....lots of Qs outstanding....no real answers.
http://grist.org/cities/is-china-repeating-the-u-s-s-sprawl-mistake/?ut…
regards
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.