Award-winning Japanese knives loved by hundreds of Aussies: Here's why you need a set in your kitchen
In the market for a few new kitchen utensils?
Rather than settling for average quality that will need replacing after a short while, invest in the best to make your time in the kitchen a breeze.
We've got our eye on the award-winning Japanese knife block from Furi, the winner of the Good Design Award and home to innovative designs.
Available in five ($499), six ($549) or seven-piece sets ($649), you can get your hands on a brand new stone block, along with a fresh set of knives.
Made from natural stone and cement and made to last, these blocks are great for securely storing your knives and keeping them in pristine condition.
Ideal for a home cook or a professional chef, choose between a chic cream colourway or a classic black, whichever best suits your kitchen and taste.
Made to last
Designed to keep knives organised and displayed on the kitchen counter, Furi blocks offer the perfect subtle storage for frequently used knives.
Containing universal slots to fit knives from other labels, and you can choose between five, six of seven piece sets to suit your chopping needs.
Perfect for cooking endless meals from veggie dishes to hearty meat casseroles this winter, each knife is made with secure handles and blades, from high-carbon Japanese stainless steel alloy.
Invest in the best
If you're ready to invest in a new set of knives PLUS a Furi Stone Block to store them in, get ready to shop up a storm.
Each set includes five of the most popular knives for the kitchen.
With plenty of five-star reviews, it's no surprise that Furi is a firm favourite among shoppers.
'Amazing quality. So beautiful to use as well as very well weighted for easy handling. This looks exactly as the photo online. Very stoked with this purchase. Completes the look of my kitchen nicely,' one shopper commented.
'An excellent set of food preparation knives. Well balanced, comfortable to hold & use. Also convenient & looks great on the kitchen bench,' a second shopper wrote.
'I've become quite keen on cooking over the last couple of years but I've always tended to baulk at the cost of genuinely good knives. However I took the plunge on these, which are a budget level above my usual, and they are VERY worth it. Lovely balance, great sharpness, and the magnetic storage block is really handy for keeping them neat in the kitchen,' another customer wrote.
'Excellent set of knives, very sharp, good grip! Well worth it,' said another.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Age
9 hours ago
- The Age
The government can print money. So, why can't it keep borrowing?
So, why do governments borrow money in the first place? Why are countries such as Japan (with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 240 per cent) aren't freaking out? And what's stopping governments – including the Australian government – from just continuing to borrow? Well, borrowing a bit of money is generally a good thing. As independent economist Saul Eslake puts it, most households want to pay off their debt at some point in their life so as not to leave debts behind for their children. But it's a different matter for governments and well-run companies because they don't (usually) die. Australia, right now, is better positioned than most countries when it comes to the money our government owes. In fact, he says funding some infrastructure spending – such as on a new railway, hospital or renewable energy technology – is a reasonable way of making sure future generations contribute something to the cost of creating something they will benefit from, rather than the entire burden falling on the current generation. Of course, it also depends on what that borrowed money is spent on. Relying on it to pay for day-to-day expenses such as salaries and wages is probably less fruitful than investing it in big projects like a new train line that people can use for years to come. It also depends on the state of the economy. When growth is weak or receding, there's a stronger case for the government to borrow money to pump into the economy. But when things are going well and business is booming, borrowing can drive up demand and push up prices. It's also less worrying for the government to be borrowing when interest rates are low. When the cost of borrowing starts to creep up, that's when a big pile of debt can be problematic. Then, there's also the question of whether the government is borrowing from within the country, or outside it. The Japanese government, for example, borrows mostly from its own Bank of Japan, Japanese financial institutions and Japanese citizens. That means, despite its huge debt, it tends to pay lower interest rates because there's a huge supply of savings within the country and lower transaction costs than if they were to borrow more from overseas. It also takes out loans in its own currency: the Japanese yen. By comparison, only about one third of Australian government debt is held domestically. Most debt crises, including the infamous Greek debt crisis in 2009, came to a head partly because those countries were borrowing from outside their borders or in currencies that weren't their own. That left them vulnerable to sudden global movements and also meant they couldn't just print off money to pay down their debt. Of course, it's not really a strategy at all for governments to just print money. As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, a larger supply of money floating around the economy pushed down its price, or value. In other words, printing too much money leads to inflation because everyone's money becomes less valuable and, therefore, they are less able to buy things. But back to the Australian government's debt, which Treasurer Jim Chalmers managed to trim back to 38 per cent of GDP, then 34 per cent, before this year letting it creep back up to 36 per cent. This year, the federal government has set aside $28 billion towards interest payments. That works out to about $1400 per Australian taxpayer. But it's also only $3 billion shy of one of our most expensive government programs: Medicare. There's no hard and fast rule for how much debt is optimal. And for now, with an AAA credit rating – the best possible mark for a country's ability to repay its debts – the Australian government can borrow at lower interest rates than many other countries. If anything, it's our state governments that have received a warning from one of the world's biggest ratings agencies that their rating could be dropped to AA if they don't rein in their spending. And while Australia's government debt is far from being at crisis level, it is important to keep in mind that it comes at a cost. We know that printing money comes with its own problems. But higher debt also means the government will have to hike taxes, reduce spending, or a combination of the two, to pay it off. Loading Losing that AAA rating is not the end of the world for the states or for the federal government. But it does mean our borrowing options will shrink a bit, and the interest costs will pick up. Our government does most of its borrowing through the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM), which sells loans (also known as bonds or bills) on behalf of the government. These loans are then bought mostly by huge asset managers, including pension funds and insurers, hedge funds and central banks, including the Reserve Bank – with some of it bought by non-professional individual investors. As Eslake points out, some of the big borrowers will be barred (by their own rules) from taking on more Australian government debt if our rating is knocked down a notch. However, pressures on government spending will probably only rise in years to come as the population ages, the energy transition becomes more urgent and housing demands intensify. Loading While a debt ceiling such as the one in the US is an arguably silly concept, it's not a bad idea to have a debt-to-GDP target to measure up against.
Sydney Morning Herald
9 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
The government can print money. So, why can't it keep borrowing?
So, why do governments borrow money in the first place? Why are countries such as Japan (with a debt-to-GDP ratio of 240 per cent) aren't freaking out? And what's stopping governments – including the Australian government – from just continuing to borrow? Well, borrowing a bit of money is generally a good thing. As independent economist Saul Eslake puts it, most households want to pay off their debt at some point in their life so as not to leave debts behind for their children. But it's a different matter for governments and well-run companies because they don't (usually) die. Australia, right now, is better positioned than most countries when it comes to the money our government owes. In fact, he says funding some infrastructure spending – such as on a new railway, hospital or renewable energy technology – is a reasonable way of making sure future generations contribute something to the cost of creating something they will benefit from, rather than the entire burden falling on the current generation. Of course, it also depends on what that borrowed money is spent on. Relying on it to pay for day-to-day expenses such as salaries and wages is probably less fruitful than investing it in big projects like a new train line that people can use for years to come. It also depends on the state of the economy. When growth is weak or receding, there's a stronger case for the government to borrow money to pump into the economy. But when things are going well and business is booming, borrowing can drive up demand and push up prices. It's also less worrying for the government to be borrowing when interest rates are low. When the cost of borrowing starts to creep up, that's when a big pile of debt can be problematic. Then, there's also the question of whether the government is borrowing from within the country, or outside it. The Japanese government, for example, borrows mostly from its own Bank of Japan, Japanese financial institutions and Japanese citizens. That means, despite its huge debt, it tends to pay lower interest rates because there's a huge supply of savings within the country and lower transaction costs than if they were to borrow more from overseas. It also takes out loans in its own currency: the Japanese yen. By comparison, only about one third of Australian government debt is held domestically. Most debt crises, including the infamous Greek debt crisis in 2009, came to a head partly because those countries were borrowing from outside their borders or in currencies that weren't their own. That left them vulnerable to sudden global movements and also meant they couldn't just print off money to pay down their debt. Of course, it's not really a strategy at all for governments to just print money. As we saw during the COVID-19 pandemic, a larger supply of money floating around the economy pushed down its price, or value. In other words, printing too much money leads to inflation because everyone's money becomes less valuable and, therefore, they are less able to buy things. But back to the Australian government's debt, which Treasurer Jim Chalmers managed to trim back to 38 per cent of GDP, then 34 per cent, before this year letting it creep back up to 36 per cent. This year, the federal government has set aside $28 billion towards interest payments. That works out to about $1400 per Australian taxpayer. But it's also only $3 billion shy of one of our most expensive government programs: Medicare. There's no hard and fast rule for how much debt is optimal. And for now, with an AAA credit rating – the best possible mark for a country's ability to repay its debts – the Australian government can borrow at lower interest rates than many other countries. If anything, it's our state governments that have received a warning from one of the world's biggest ratings agencies that their rating could be dropped to AA if they don't rein in their spending. And while Australia's government debt is far from being at crisis level, it is important to keep in mind that it comes at a cost. We know that printing money comes with its own problems. But higher debt also means the government will have to hike taxes, reduce spending, or a combination of the two, to pay it off. Loading Losing that AAA rating is not the end of the world for the states or for the federal government. But it does mean our borrowing options will shrink a bit, and the interest costs will pick up. Our government does most of its borrowing through the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM), which sells loans (also known as bonds or bills) on behalf of the government. These loans are then bought mostly by huge asset managers, including pension funds and insurers, hedge funds and central banks, including the Reserve Bank – with some of it bought by non-professional individual investors. As Eslake points out, some of the big borrowers will be barred (by their own rules) from taking on more Australian government debt if our rating is knocked down a notch. However, pressures on government spending will probably only rise in years to come as the population ages, the energy transition becomes more urgent and housing demands intensify. Loading While a debt ceiling such as the one in the US is an arguably silly concept, it's not a bad idea to have a debt-to-GDP target to measure up against.
The Age
20 hours ago
- The Age
The most important meeting of Albanese's career just got trickier
The federal government's decision to sanction two far-right Israeli minsters, Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, has been a long time coming. It underscores the deep frustration with the Netanyahu government felt by some of Israel's oldest and most reliable allies at the intransigence of that country's prime minister and a growing disgust at the human toll of the war in Gaza. It's also an exquisite piece of timing, coming on the eve of Anthony Albanese's expected first meeting with Donald Trump on the sidelines of the G7 Summit in Canada. But the PM has hardly signed up to a radical position. Joined by the Norwegians, the conservative prime minister of New Zealand, Christopher Luxon and a pair of centre-left leaders – UK's Keir Starmer and Canada's Mark Carney – the sanctions carry weight, as evidenced by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio's almost immediate pushback, and the move is sure to be discussed if, or when, the president and the PM finally meet in person. Given that the only world leader Netanyahu appears to pay any significant heed to is Trump, leaders like Albanese have a part to play in both publicly and privately lobbying the president over ending the war in Gaza, and a possible, eventual two-state solution. At the time of writing, on the eve of a trip that will take him to Nadi, in Fiji, Seattle, Washington and Kananaskis, Canada for the G7 summit, a sit-down between the prime minister and the US president had not been confirmed. But it seems highly likely that the men will meet, if Trump turns up at the summit. Albanese will have bilateral meetings ('bilats') with world leaders including Carney and Starmer, Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba and South Korea's new president, Lee Jae-myung. The Australian decision to sanction the Israeli ministers comes less than two weeks after US Defence Secretary Pete Hegseth called publicly for Australia to increase its defence spending to 3.5 per cent of GDP, an increase of about $40 billion a year and a near-doubling from the current level of about 2 per cent. Hegseth's call received a lukewarm reception, at best, in Canberra with Albanese noting at the National Press Club this week that 'if the health minister or the comms minister or the infrastructure minister came to us and said, 'we want you to spend X percentage of GDP but we won't tell you what it's for' ... they wouldn't get far in an ERC [Expenditure Review Committee] process'. The prime minister's view is that his government will find the necessary equipment and capabilities for the Australia defence forces, rather than increasing its spending before it knows what it wants to spend it on. Taken together, the decision to sanction the two Israeli ministers and to push back against the American defence spending demands signal something more significant.
