| The Pound 13:57 - Sep 24 with 96405 views | Stanmiguel |
Well, the money markets didn't like the mini budget.
I met Liz Truss in a hotel in Monmouth a few years ago.
She said her solution to pensioner poverty would be to feed them on Pedigree Chum.
Not only would this save a lot of money, it would give them shiny coats and a nice cold nose. |  | | |  |
| The Pound on 11:27 - Oct 3 with 2333 views | Sakura |
| The Pound on 10:34 - Oct 3 by Hunterhoop |
Straw man alert!
You asked me one direct question on inflation, which I responded too, and which you subsequently ignored. The rest of your post was replying to ParkRoyal. |
Your response only took into account a very narrow part of the overall picture. You didn't address for example the relevance of the growth in the money supply
80% of all dollars in existence were created since 2020. That wasn't Ukraine related
"At the start of 2020, there was $4.0192 trillion in circulation. On January 4, 2021, the number increased to $6.7 trillion dollars. Then the Fed went into overdrive. By October 2021, that number climbed to $20.0831 trillion dollars in circulation"
To pretend 80% increase in supply of money isn't relevant to inflation I think is an odd position to have. That's why I didn't take your response seriously as I didn't see your narrow framing as credible
Post 2008 people expected inflation but were wrong as much of it wasn't injected into the real economy. Our ageing population is also deflationary by nature
But when the West borrow money into existence and used it for direct stimulus cheques. When it's for furlough or soon to be for energy bills. That money goes into the real world system. More money chasing same amount or less goods even and inflation occurred (along with the valid points you raised on shipping and supply chain interruptions)
I agree shipping costs are/ were part of the issue. But the change in money supply and it's expansion or now in some areas contraction in credit are also relevant. You can't isolate and minimise the issue as you wish to
Also Biden has been draining the countries SPR. Which are meant to be for emergencies. He's been doing this until the November mid terms. So that stopping after he has bought those votes will also be relevant
If Labour want to come in and take a risk with living standards with unproven and unreliable "green" energy then god help us
It's so naive it's untrue. They need to acknowledge this will be the first time in human history a society has voluntarily moved to a less dense energy source.
They are showing a worrying lack of awareness about the harm to the environment involved in creating a wind turbine and how it moves Europes reliance on Putin to a reliance on China [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 11:29]
| | | |
| The Pound on 12:38 - Oct 3 with 2154 views | traininvain |
| The Pound on 10:29 - Oct 3 by PunteR |
That's my point though.
All that will do is have politians scrambling for power once more and overlook the primary objectives.
Basically what you want , it seems to me ,is to just overthrow the existing government and stick another one in place who also won't know wtf to do with the economy and specifically The Pound. Anyway the blues have already made a U turn so maybe they are starting to listen to financial experts.
Maybe they read LFW. ?
That's how I see it anyway. |
I’m not looking to overthrow the government. I believe the electorate should be given the chance to decide given how much has changed over the past few years and the recent undemocratic attempt to reduce taxes for the wealthiest in the country.
It’ll never happen for obvious reasons but I don’t agree with your logic as we needn't bother with elections moving forward going by your rationale.
Edit.
Nadine Dorries suggesting that if Truss wants a whole new mandate (as seems to be the case), it should be taken to the country.
[Post edited 3 Oct 2022 13:21]
|  | | |
| The Pound on 12:43 - Oct 3 with 2131 views | JimmyR |
| The Pound on 11:27 - Oct 3 by Sakura |
Your response only took into account a very narrow part of the overall picture. You didn't address for example the relevance of the growth in the money supply
80% of all dollars in existence were created since 2020. That wasn't Ukraine related
"At the start of 2020, there was $4.0192 trillion in circulation. On January 4, 2021, the number increased to $6.7 trillion dollars. Then the Fed went into overdrive. By October 2021, that number climbed to $20.0831 trillion dollars in circulation"
To pretend 80% increase in supply of money isn't relevant to inflation I think is an odd position to have. That's why I didn't take your response seriously as I didn't see your narrow framing as credible
Post 2008 people expected inflation but were wrong as much of it wasn't injected into the real economy. Our ageing population is also deflationary by nature
But when the West borrow money into existence and used it for direct stimulus cheques. When it's for furlough or soon to be for energy bills. That money goes into the real world system. More money chasing same amount or less goods even and inflation occurred (along with the valid points you raised on shipping and supply chain interruptions)
I agree shipping costs are/ were part of the issue. But the change in money supply and it's expansion or now in some areas contraction in credit are also relevant. You can't isolate and minimise the issue as you wish to
Also Biden has been draining the countries SPR. Which are meant to be for emergencies. He's been doing this until the November mid terms. So that stopping after he has bought those votes will also be relevant
If Labour want to come in and take a risk with living standards with unproven and unreliable "green" energy then god help us
It's so naive it's untrue. They need to acknowledge this will be the first time in human history a society has voluntarily moved to a less dense energy source.
They are showing a worrying lack of awareness about the harm to the environment involved in creating a wind turbine and how it moves Europes reliance on Putin to a reliance on China [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 11:29]
|
15.4 bn at the start of 2020, 19 bn by the end of it - https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/20210107/
21.6 currently
Whats your point that the fed printed a load of money when coronavirus hit and now we have inflation? well no sh!t sherlock
"At the start of 2020, there was $4.0192 trillion in circulation." this is just simply not true
It's not really useful looking at the growth or reduction in the money supply without seeing what's happening to aggregate demand or supply (as i'm sure you know)
What does the youtuber say about that? The figures the BOE/FED/most central banks make public every week is all just a big conspiracy I expect. Does he offer advice about crypto too? | | | |
| The Pound on 13:48 - Oct 3 with 2018 views | Hunterhoop |
| The Pound on 11:27 - Oct 3 by Sakura |
Your response only took into account a very narrow part of the overall picture. You didn't address for example the relevance of the growth in the money supply
80% of all dollars in existence were created since 2020. That wasn't Ukraine related
"At the start of 2020, there was $4.0192 trillion in circulation. On January 4, 2021, the number increased to $6.7 trillion dollars. Then the Fed went into overdrive. By October 2021, that number climbed to $20.0831 trillion dollars in circulation"
To pretend 80% increase in supply of money isn't relevant to inflation I think is an odd position to have. That's why I didn't take your response seriously as I didn't see your narrow framing as credible
Post 2008 people expected inflation but were wrong as much of it wasn't injected into the real economy. Our ageing population is also deflationary by nature
But when the West borrow money into existence and used it for direct stimulus cheques. When it's for furlough or soon to be for energy bills. That money goes into the real world system. More money chasing same amount or less goods even and inflation occurred (along with the valid points you raised on shipping and supply chain interruptions)
I agree shipping costs are/ were part of the issue. But the change in money supply and it's expansion or now in some areas contraction in credit are also relevant. You can't isolate and minimise the issue as you wish to
Also Biden has been draining the countries SPR. Which are meant to be for emergencies. He's been doing this until the November mid terms. So that stopping after he has bought those votes will also be relevant
If Labour want to come in and take a risk with living standards with unproven and unreliable "green" energy then god help us
It's so naive it's untrue. They need to acknowledge this will be the first time in human history a society has voluntarily moved to a less dense energy source.
They are showing a worrying lack of awareness about the harm to the environment involved in creating a wind turbine and how it moves Europes reliance on Putin to a reliance on China [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 11:29]
|
You’re a boxing historian here.
I didn’t argue against any of what you’ve said. You asked how inflation was at 6% before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the increase in energy costs. I first challenged that inflation was at 6% and then explained why it was elevated prior to then.
I understand the impact of QE and pumping money into the system. But it didn’t magically suddenly have an impact after over a decade of huge QE globally with little to no inflation. It was, in my opinion, entirely down to the supply chain inflation seen (as described), which was predominantly pandemic related (sudden increase in demand, supply reduced/under pressure), certain companies with excellent leverage profiteering, e.g global shipping carriers, continued by the energy companies.
Basically, I agree (as I tried to explain) that there are/were a lot of macro factors outside the UK’s control driving inflation but a) we have been hit worse than some for being out of the EU, and b) the mini budget was pouring fuel onto the inflation fire. In my view, that was ludicrously stupid, all in the name of “hopefully” obtaining GDP growth in 5-10 years (supply side economic policies are entirely unproved), both economically and politically in the UK at this time.
My only contribution on this thread was with regard Kwarteng’s mini budget. I still think, in the current climate, with the macro factors at play, it is wrong.
EDIT: just looked at the ONS figures. Inflation (CPI) starts rapidly rising from March 2021 onwards. The reason for this is almost entirely global logistics (plus some other key commodities), as rates went from $2k per 40HC in Oct to $15k by Jan 2021 ( pre-CNY), and the goods affected would have been in store from March onwards. The Suez Canal blockage then caused a further escalation in rates.
However, logistics rates have cooled and dropped from April 2022 onwards, but inflation has continued to increase. This is because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent increase in energy costs. The issue is why you would produce a mini budget that will drive further inflation. That’s why I think it’s stupid. It’s already caused a 1% jump in mortgage rates in a week, more than offsetting the money given the public through the energy price cap, so you’re making people poorer over the next 5 years, whilst also having to borrow more (as money becomes more expensive) to achieve that. Had they done nothing, people would have lower forecast rising living costs and the govt could have borrowed money more cheaply. Basically, what Kwarteng is giving back to earners stimulate growth is less than the cost of the inflation he’s causing for people in the UK, on top of what inflation was tracking at. That’s my reading off it. Economically and politically daft. [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 14:01]
|  | | |
| The Pound on 13:59 - Oct 3 with 1973 views | Lblock |
| The Pound on 10:48 - Oct 3 by Hunterhoop |
I didn’t realise you were economically left of centre, L Block? Higher taxes, state investment on major infrastructure and (green) energy sector initiatives…absolutely. It’s what the country needs and has needed for while. Won’t happen with a Tory govt though. |
I notice the caveat on the use of "economically" there.
I never mentioned higher taxes.
I'd like higher tax revenue by more people being in work.
Major (or minor) infrastructure projects I am all for - as long as they mean something and aren't stupid vanity projects.
Green energy... couldn't care if it's green, blue or pink with yellow dots - anything that reduces costs and makes us a bit more self sufficient will do for me. |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| The Pound on 14:19 - Oct 3 with 1914 views | Sonofpugwash |
Credit Suisse shares are plumetting today - could it be the beginning?
We're also seeing an upsurge in "the mattress syndrome" - people getting their money out and putting under the mattress(if they're allowed to).Physical gold demand and silver at an unprecedented level,silver almost at the stage of being dubbed "Unaffordium" and "Unattainium". |  |
| |
| The Pound on 15:15 - Oct 3 with 1835 views | CamberleyR |
| The Pound on 08:10 - Oct 3 by traininvain |
A general election would give us a democratically elected government with policies and a mandate to govern that people actually support. I don’t think we have that at the moment hence why a general election should be called.
Irrespective of today’s entirely predictable u turn, we have a prime minister and chancellor who thought it was a good idea to cut taxes for the wealthiest in the current economic climate despite being warned that it would be disastrous. Probably the most undemocratic move I’ve seen in this country in my lifetime and we’ll be paying the price for years to come.
I’m not saying that everything would be sorted by a change in government. I’m not that naive. But at least give the people the right to choose who governs the country and the policies they want to see in place. I don’t think that’s happening at the moment. |
"we’ll be paying the price for years to come"
So Kamikwasi and Blundertruss are politics's Hughes & Redknapp? [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 15:20]
|  |
| |
| The Pound on 15:24 - Oct 3 with 1807 views | Sakura |
| The Pound on 13:48 - Oct 3 by Hunterhoop |
You’re a boxing historian here.
I didn’t argue against any of what you’ve said. You asked how inflation was at 6% before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the increase in energy costs. I first challenged that inflation was at 6% and then explained why it was elevated prior to then.
I understand the impact of QE and pumping money into the system. But it didn’t magically suddenly have an impact after over a decade of huge QE globally with little to no inflation. It was, in my opinion, entirely down to the supply chain inflation seen (as described), which was predominantly pandemic related (sudden increase in demand, supply reduced/under pressure), certain companies with excellent leverage profiteering, e.g global shipping carriers, continued by the energy companies.
Basically, I agree (as I tried to explain) that there are/were a lot of macro factors outside the UK’s control driving inflation but a) we have been hit worse than some for being out of the EU, and b) the mini budget was pouring fuel onto the inflation fire. In my view, that was ludicrously stupid, all in the name of “hopefully” obtaining GDP growth in 5-10 years (supply side economic policies are entirely unproved), both economically and politically in the UK at this time.
My only contribution on this thread was with regard Kwarteng’s mini budget. I still think, in the current climate, with the macro factors at play, it is wrong.
EDIT: just looked at the ONS figures. Inflation (CPI) starts rapidly rising from March 2021 onwards. The reason for this is almost entirely global logistics (plus some other key commodities), as rates went from $2k per 40HC in Oct to $15k by Jan 2021 ( pre-CNY), and the goods affected would have been in store from March onwards. The Suez Canal blockage then caused a further escalation in rates.
However, logistics rates have cooled and dropped from April 2022 onwards, but inflation has continued to increase. This is because of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the subsequent increase in energy costs. The issue is why you would produce a mini budget that will drive further inflation. That’s why I think it’s stupid. It’s already caused a 1% jump in mortgage rates in a week, more than offsetting the money given the public through the energy price cap, so you’re making people poorer over the next 5 years, whilst also having to borrow more (as money becomes more expensive) to achieve that. Had they done nothing, people would have lower forecast rising living costs and the govt could have borrowed money more cheaply. Basically, what Kwarteng is giving back to earners stimulate growth is less than the cost of the inflation he’s causing for people in the UK, on top of what inflation was tracking at. That’s my reading off it. Economically and politically daft. [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 14:01]
|
CPI in US was 7.9% in US prior to the invasion
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/10/cpi-inflation-february-2022-.html
Money supply as I pointed out now came in direct stimulus. So that's why it made an effect this time as it went straight in to the real economy
You've explained why you think the others were important. If you can explain why you think an unprecedented expansion in the supply of money and this being direct stimulus into peoples bank accounts isn't relevant as so far you haven't done that.
Using Sahil Blooms explanation of the Cantillon effect to explain my point why money supply is and was relevant to inflation:
Let's use a (very) simple story to illustrate Cantillon's central point:
Imagine you live in a tiny, enclosed island society.
One morning, you wake up to find a package on your doorstep.
You open it up and see that it has $1 million in it.
Great! But now what?
No one else knows you received this package.
You now secretly have $1 million new dollars.
Naturally, you start spending it (and maybe investing it) quickly.
Prices are still low, because no one knows these new dollars exist yet!
Your standard of living improves rapidly
You buy yourself the nicest house, the most beautiful clothes, a bunch of land–and still have some money left over.
But now, people see and feel this new money flowing through the system.
Prices begin to rise as supply has yet to "catch up" to the new demand. It takes time
So while the money improved your life, it didn’t benefit others in the same way.
The sellers of the goods–who received your cash–now face rising prices when they consume.
Same with the workers who produced the goods.
There were distributional effects–the flow path mattered!
But if you can explain why it doesn't matter I would understand your opinion better | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| The Pound on 15:25 - Oct 3 with 1801 views | Sakura |
| The Pound on 12:43 - Oct 3 by JimmyR |
15.4 bn at the start of 2020, 19 bn by the end of it - https://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/20210107/
21.6 currently
Whats your point that the fed printed a load of money when coronavirus hit and now we have inflation? well no sh!t sherlock
"At the start of 2020, there was $4.0192 trillion in circulation." this is just simply not true
It's not really useful looking at the growth or reduction in the money supply without seeing what's happening to aggregate demand or supply (as i'm sure you know)
What does the youtuber say about that? The figures the BOE/FED/most central banks make public every week is all just a big conspiracy I expect. Does he offer advice about crypto too? |
That "YouTuber" 😂 is Ray Dalio the Chief Investment officer of the worlds largest hedge fund Bridgewater.
I believe you are referring to M1 money supply while I am referring to M2 money supply
So you are talking about something else to me | | | |
| The Pound on 16:19 - Oct 3 with 1718 views | Hunterhoop |
| The Pound on 15:24 - Oct 3 by Sakura |
CPI in US was 7.9% in US prior to the invasion
https://www.cnbc.com/2022/03/10/cpi-inflation-february-2022-.html
Money supply as I pointed out now came in direct stimulus. So that's why it made an effect this time as it went straight in to the real economy
You've explained why you think the others were important. If you can explain why you think an unprecedented expansion in the supply of money and this being direct stimulus into peoples bank accounts isn't relevant as so far you haven't done that.
Using Sahil Blooms explanation of the Cantillon effect to explain my point why money supply is and was relevant to inflation:
Let's use a (very) simple story to illustrate Cantillon's central point:
Imagine you live in a tiny, enclosed island society.
One morning, you wake up to find a package on your doorstep.
You open it up and see that it has $1 million in it.
Great! But now what?
No one else knows you received this package.
You now secretly have $1 million new dollars.
Naturally, you start spending it (and maybe investing it) quickly.
Prices are still low, because no one knows these new dollars exist yet!
Your standard of living improves rapidly
You buy yourself the nicest house, the most beautiful clothes, a bunch of land–and still have some money left over.
But now, people see and feel this new money flowing through the system.
Prices begin to rise as supply has yet to "catch up" to the new demand. It takes time
So while the money improved your life, it didn’t benefit others in the same way.
The sellers of the goods–who received your cash–now face rising prices when they consume.
Same with the workers who produced the goods.
There were distributional effects–the flow path mattered!
But if you can explain why it doesn't matter I would understand your opinion better |
You haven’t explained why QE which has taken place globally over a decade saw little to know inflation and then during 2021 suddenly resulted in an exceptional, alarming increase in inflation.
I have. I’ve pointed out it was a combination of post pandemic demand from the West jumping up coupled with huge increases in supply costs which started flowing into consumer prices from March 2021 onwards, which has been further exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting energy price increases (just as some other supply chain cost increases had started to plateau). Kwarteng’s budget is/was stupid for pouring fuel on this inflation fire.
On your QE point specifically though - not that it was what you originally asked me directly on - your condescending explanation is somewhat short sighted. QE was to service debt (first on the financial crash of 2008 and then more recently on the pandemic) and maintain financial stability. I agree it can’t be an answer forever. But it certainly didn’t transfer directly into disposable income for the whole population, which drove up demand and was the sole cause of inflation as you’re trying to make out.
If it was - which it palpably wasn’t - why was rampant inflation not seen through the 2010s?
But to reiterate, I agree QE is not a long term solution forever. | | | |
| The Pound on 16:20 - Oct 3 with 1714 views | QPR_John |
I wonder how many people thought that “the rich” were having their whole tax bill cut by 5% because of the spin put on the announcement [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 16:21]
| | | |
| The Pound on 16:23 - Oct 3 with 1709 views | Hunterhoop |
| The Pound on 13:59 - Oct 3 by Lblock |
I notice the caveat on the use of "economically" there.
I never mentioned higher taxes.
I'd like higher tax revenue by more people being in work.
Major (or minor) infrastructure projects I am all for - as long as they mean something and aren't stupid vanity projects.
Green energy... couldn't care if it's green, blue or pink with yellow dots - anything that reduces costs and makes us a bit more self sufficient will do for me. |
Well, unemployment is at a very low level relative to the UK’s history and other countries, so I presumed you must mean higher taxes to pay for this investment. Either that or you want significant migration into this country from abroad to become the tax paying workforce driving the higher tax take for the govt to fund this investment and for it to be these migrants undertaking these infrastructure projects, since the UK has so few unemployed to undertake it.
I’m cool with either. Both centre left, as you clearly are, L Block. I knew you were sensible. | | | |
| The Pound on 17:03 - Oct 3 with 1646 views | Sakura |
| The Pound on 16:19 - Oct 3 by Hunterhoop |
You haven’t explained why QE which has taken place globally over a decade saw little to know inflation and then during 2021 suddenly resulted in an exceptional, alarming increase in inflation.
I have. I’ve pointed out it was a combination of post pandemic demand from the West jumping up coupled with huge increases in supply costs which started flowing into consumer prices from March 2021 onwards, which has been further exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the resulting energy price increases (just as some other supply chain cost increases had started to plateau). Kwarteng’s budget is/was stupid for pouring fuel on this inflation fire.
On your QE point specifically though - not that it was what you originally asked me directly on - your condescending explanation is somewhat short sighted. QE was to service debt (first on the financial crash of 2008 and then more recently on the pandemic) and maintain financial stability. I agree it can’t be an answer forever. But it certainly didn’t transfer directly into disposable income for the whole population, which drove up demand and was the sole cause of inflation as you’re trying to make out.
If it was - which it palpably wasn’t - why was rampant inflation not seen through the 2010s?
But to reiterate, I agree QE is not a long term solution forever. |
Refer you to my earlier posts you responded to before where I said:
"Post 2008 people expected inflation but were wrong as much of it wasn't injected into the real economy. Our ageing population is also deflationary by nature
But when the West borrow money into existence and used it for direct stimulus cheques. When it's for furlough or soon to be for energy bills. That money goes into the real world system"
Would also add that technology is often acting as a deflationary force on the economy
So now as I said in my previous post we saw an "unprecedented expansion in the supply of money and this being direct stimulus into peoples bank accounts"
Like i said, "80% of all dollars in existence were created since 2020"
I have explained already why I think this type of expansion in the money supply which is different to 2008
So if you could explain why my Cantillon effect example isn't relevant that interested to here it. My opinion on this isn't fix and I am open to being convinced otherwise on what is a complex topic | | | |
| The Pound on 17:12 - Oct 3 with 1630 views | JimmyR |
| The Pound on 15:25 - Oct 3 by Sakura |
That "YouTuber" 😂 is Ray Dalio the Chief Investment officer of the worlds largest hedge fund Bridgewater.
I believe you are referring to M1 money supply while I am referring to M2 money supply
So you are talking about something else to me |
M2 is inclusive of M1 | | | |
| The Pound on 18:20 - Oct 3 with 1506 views | Sakura |
| The Pound on 17:12 - Oct 3 by JimmyR |
M2 is inclusive of M1 |
Yep M2 does include M1 but it's more than that.
I was talking about M2. You bringing up M1 wasn't relevant as I wasn't talking about that [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 18:22]
| | | |
| The Pound on 18:21 - Oct 3 with 1504 views | R_from_afar |
| The Pound on 11:27 - Oct 3 by Sakura |
Your response only took into account a very narrow part of the overall picture. You didn't address for example the relevance of the growth in the money supply
80% of all dollars in existence were created since 2020. That wasn't Ukraine related
"At the start of 2020, there was $4.0192 trillion in circulation. On January 4, 2021, the number increased to $6.7 trillion dollars. Then the Fed went into overdrive. By October 2021, that number climbed to $20.0831 trillion dollars in circulation"
To pretend 80% increase in supply of money isn't relevant to inflation I think is an odd position to have. That's why I didn't take your response seriously as I didn't see your narrow framing as credible
Post 2008 people expected inflation but were wrong as much of it wasn't injected into the real economy. Our ageing population is also deflationary by nature
But when the West borrow money into existence and used it for direct stimulus cheques. When it's for furlough or soon to be for energy bills. That money goes into the real world system. More money chasing same amount or less goods even and inflation occurred (along with the valid points you raised on shipping and supply chain interruptions)
I agree shipping costs are/ were part of the issue. But the change in money supply and it's expansion or now in some areas contraction in credit are also relevant. You can't isolate and minimise the issue as you wish to
Also Biden has been draining the countries SPR. Which are meant to be for emergencies. He's been doing this until the November mid terms. So that stopping after he has bought those votes will also be relevant
If Labour want to come in and take a risk with living standards with unproven and unreliable "green" energy then god help us
It's so naive it's untrue. They need to acknowledge this will be the first time in human history a society has voluntarily moved to a less dense energy source.
They are showing a worrying lack of awareness about the harm to the environment involved in creating a wind turbine and how it moves Europes reliance on Putin to a reliance on China [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 11:29]
|
"If Labour want to come in and take a risk with living standards with unproven and unreliable "green" energy then god help us".
That is a factually inaccurate description of Labour's plan.
As I said on here before, *they include nuclear in that plan*, including Sizewell C.
What neither Labour nor the Conservatives - nor the Planning Authority nor the local water company for that matter - have yet worked out is where the missing 2m (million) litres of fresh water the plant needs to function, every day, will come from.
I could launch into a long repeat of my previous diatribes on how non-renewable energy sources are not the always on, always reliable stalwarts you and others make them out to be but here are a few highlights, for the sake of brevity and to avoid an outbreak of narcolepsy on this message board, I'll keep it very short:
- Any power station which relies on imported fuel is by definition intermittent, whether it's a gas plant, a nuclear power station...
- Nuclear energy, historically, only ever goes up in price (source: Greenwich University)
- Nuclear plants are offline two days a month on average (source: Rocky Mountain Institute)
- The operation of nuclear plants has recently been affected by cooling problems (difficulties getting water which is cool enough to be effective, ironically, due to global warming). Then there's the water availability problem I mentioned earlier
- Jellyfish blooms have temporarily shut nuclear plants down, including in the UK
- You mention the life of a nuclear power station in California potentially being extended. That sounds sensible to me but just so everyone knows, one of the reasons why that plant needs to be kept going is that its sister plant (at San Onofre) has suffered a fault which has proved impossible to fix, such that the plant has been permanently shut down
- Half of France's nuclear fleet - 30 reactors - are offline, all at the same time, 12 of those due to pipe corrosion
- Power grids which consist of small numbers of huge power stations, like nuclear plants, can be challenging because it's difficult to provide back-up power for them. If 10 smaller power stations - whatever they run on, whether it's wind, gas or tidal - provide as much energy as one big plant, they are easier to accommodate because the likelihood of all 10 of them simultaneously breaking, having to be shut down for maintenance, or lacking "fuel" - wind, gas, water, whatever - is much lower than the one big guy having to be taken offline.
I’ll just end with a number: £131bn. What is that? That’s the estimated cost of cleaning up the nuclear energy we have used in the UK to date.
I think nuclear has a role to play but it is not the quick, simple, cheap and reliable panacea that a lot of people are glibly making it out to be. |  |
| "Things had started becoming increasingly desperate at Loftus Road but QPR have been handed a massive lifeline and the place has absolutely erupted. it's carnage. It's bedlam. It's 1-1." |
| |
| The Pound on 18:24 - Oct 3 with 1488 views | JimmyR |
| The Pound on 18:20 - Oct 3 by Sakura |
Yep M2 does include M1 but it's more than that.
I was talking about M2. You bringing up M1 wasn't relevant as I wasn't talking about that [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 18:22]
|
What figure does the FED give for dollars in circulation in 2020, 2021, 2022 or whenever you were talking about then?
80% of dollars were created last year - Have a good night mate x | | | |
| The Pound on 18:32 - Oct 3 with 1459 views | Hunterhoop |
| The Pound on 17:03 - Oct 3 by Sakura |
Refer you to my earlier posts you responded to before where I said:
"Post 2008 people expected inflation but were wrong as much of it wasn't injected into the real economy. Our ageing population is also deflationary by nature
But when the West borrow money into existence and used it for direct stimulus cheques. When it's for furlough or soon to be for energy bills. That money goes into the real world system"
Would also add that technology is often acting as a deflationary force on the economy
So now as I said in my previous post we saw an "unprecedented expansion in the supply of money and this being direct stimulus into peoples bank accounts"
Like i said, "80% of all dollars in existence were created since 2020"
I have explained already why I think this type of expansion in the money supply which is different to 2008
So if you could explain why my Cantillon effect example isn't relevant that interested to here it. My opinion on this isn't fix and I am open to being convinced otherwise on what is a complex topic |
Furlough money wasn’t “additional” or “surplus” money increasing the disposable income of those affected. It maintained incomes that business’s couldn’t afford to pay because demand for their goods and services dropped due to the Pandemic. Jobs would have been lost, unemployment up and govt tax take down significantly in the longer medium-long term.
Now, you could say “ah, but “chicken and egg”, they weren’t spending on luxury items (utilities, mortgages, etc, still needed paying), so they saved this furloughed income, giving them more disposal income in time. True, but only to a small degree. People still needed to eat and pay bills.
Demand certainly ramped up in 2021 post “lockdown” stage of the pandemic. But supply costs didn’t increase in line with demand (I.e. being QE led); supply chain costs far outstripped demand increases, because of two things:
- the major global shipping companies saw a once in a generational opportunity to profiteer. Their profits went up >4,000%!! This was down to a number of complex factors within logistics which I won’t bore you with, but basically the pandemic and availability (or lack of) of labour, plus unbalancing of the Just In Time model meant congestion at ports led to equipment in the wrong places which hugely reduced supply way below historical levels, enabling cost increases (basically auctioning). In a globalised economy, if 15-20% of an item’s sale price is related to logistics and your logistics costs went up >500%, you’re going to see consumer price inflation
- certain raw materials increased due to labour issues: in some areas this was China Covid restrictions reducing production capacity, in other areas like paper, it has been strikes at some of the largest mills, in others it was facilities requiring their regular refurbishments reducing manufacturing capacity when the above was going on too.
There are other factors as I explained in my first post.
It’s been a combination of a variety of bad supply chain issues driving inflation, in my opinion. The Cantillon Effect is way too simplistic and only applies to consumer inflation if the money is additional, which furlough money was not. It also doesn’t anywhere suggest that inflation can’t be supply chain driven rather than only demand led (assuming additional demand due to QE putting more money into people’s pockets).
I’m sorry, but I strongly believe this is supply chain led inflation issue, exacerbated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and will be further worsened for the Uk by Kwarteng’s policies, at a time where I could see things plateauing in the market. The rest of Europe and the US will fare better in 12 months time, IMO. I’ve been forecasting this inflation for some time given I have been seeing it build for the last 24 months in my line of work. Ironically, during peak lockdown/furlough period, there was deflation in the supply chain and at a consumer lever, in spite of the vast QE exercise underway. | | | |
| The Pound on 18:32 - Oct 3 with 1458 views | PunteR |
| The Pound on 12:38 - Oct 3 by traininvain |
I’m not looking to overthrow the government. I believe the electorate should be given the chance to decide given how much has changed over the past few years and the recent undemocratic attempt to reduce taxes for the wealthiest in the country.
It’ll never happen for obvious reasons but I don’t agree with your logic as we needn't bother with elections moving forward going by your rationale.
Edit.
Nadine Dorries suggesting that if Truss wants a whole new mandate (as seems to be the case), it should be taken to the country.
[Post edited 3 Oct 2022 13:21]
|
Overthrow was a poor choice if words from me but I take your point.
I don't even know what the alternatives are and if their economic plans.and I suspect a high percentage of the country dont either. Although I think judging by the bits of mainstream news, social media etc everyone thinks Truss is an idiot.
My hunch is she's been thrown to the wolves so to speak by her fellow tories.
Not that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to political issues.
Just casual observations.
If I were a Labour leader at this precise moment in time I would be bricking taking over the country right now. Maybe Gary Nevile is up for it..?  |  |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
| The Pound on 18:36 - Oct 3 with 1441 views | Esox_Lucius |
| The Pound on 11:27 - Oct 3 by Sakura |
Your response only took into account a very narrow part of the overall picture. You didn't address for example the relevance of the growth in the money supply
80% of all dollars in existence were created since 2020. That wasn't Ukraine related
"At the start of 2020, there was $4.0192 trillion in circulation. On January 4, 2021, the number increased to $6.7 trillion dollars. Then the Fed went into overdrive. By October 2021, that number climbed to $20.0831 trillion dollars in circulation"
To pretend 80% increase in supply of money isn't relevant to inflation I think is an odd position to have. That's why I didn't take your response seriously as I didn't see your narrow framing as credible
Post 2008 people expected inflation but were wrong as much of it wasn't injected into the real economy. Our ageing population is also deflationary by nature
But when the West borrow money into existence and used it for direct stimulus cheques. When it's for furlough or soon to be for energy bills. That money goes into the real world system. More money chasing same amount or less goods even and inflation occurred (along with the valid points you raised on shipping and supply chain interruptions)
I agree shipping costs are/ were part of the issue. But the change in money supply and it's expansion or now in some areas contraction in credit are also relevant. You can't isolate and minimise the issue as you wish to
Also Biden has been draining the countries SPR. Which are meant to be for emergencies. He's been doing this until the November mid terms. So that stopping after he has bought those votes will also be relevant
If Labour want to come in and take a risk with living standards with unproven and unreliable "green" energy then god help us
It's so naive it's untrue. They need to acknowledge this will be the first time in human history a society has voluntarily moved to a less dense energy source.
They are showing a worrying lack of awareness about the harm to the environment involved in creating a wind turbine and how it moves Europes reliance on Putin to a reliance on China [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 11:29]
|
You consistently disparage green energy sources so I am not surprised by this latest nonsense; Currently the biggest manufacturers of wind turbines are Denmark, Spain and the USA. China is only a section of the market, not the dominant force. It would also be a good platform to trigger manufacturing growth in this country too and we have the skill sets in the UK or BAE Systems wouldn't be so popular all over the world for their world beating killing technology/
We live on an island that could be entirely self sufficient in Wave, wind & solar power. The biggest pitfall I can see is that global cartels can't control nature and will push agendas such as yours to dissuade people from supporting something sensible. Calling green energy sources unproven and unreliable is beyond risible, it is a lie. |  |
| The grass is always greener. |
| |
| The Pound on 18:49 - Oct 3 with 1405 views | JimmyR |
| The Pound on 18:36 - Oct 3 by Esox_Lucius |
You consistently disparage green energy sources so I am not surprised by this latest nonsense; Currently the biggest manufacturers of wind turbines are Denmark, Spain and the USA. China is only a section of the market, not the dominant force. It would also be a good platform to trigger manufacturing growth in this country too and we have the skill sets in the UK or BAE Systems wouldn't be so popular all over the world for their world beating killing technology/
We live on an island that could be entirely self sufficient in Wave, wind & solar power. The biggest pitfall I can see is that global cartels can't control nature and will push agendas such as yours to dissuade people from supporting something sensible. Calling green energy sources unproven and unreliable is beyond risible, it is a lie. |
I suspect we have all just been talking to the densest energy source of them all. | | | |
| The Pound on 19:10 - Oct 3 with 1360 views | 222gers |
| The Pound on 16:20 - Oct 3 by QPR_John |
I wonder how many people thought that “the rich” were having their whole tax bill cut by 5% because of the spin put on the announcement [Post edited 3 Oct 2022 16:21]
|
Those of us familiar with the Laffer Curve would be inclined to agree with you. |  | | |
| The Pound on 19:16 - Oct 3 with 1338 views | BazzaInTheLoft |
| The Pound on 18:36 - Oct 3 by Esox_Lucius |
You consistently disparage green energy sources so I am not surprised by this latest nonsense; Currently the biggest manufacturers of wind turbines are Denmark, Spain and the USA. China is only a section of the market, not the dominant force. It would also be a good platform to trigger manufacturing growth in this country too and we have the skill sets in the UK or BAE Systems wouldn't be so popular all over the world for their world beating killing technology/
We live on an island that could be entirely self sufficient in Wave, wind & solar power. The biggest pitfall I can see is that global cartels can't control nature and will push agendas such as yours to dissuade people from supporting something sensible. Calling green energy sources unproven and unreliable is beyond risible, it is a lie. |
Yes, overthrowing the government would be terrible.
 |  | | |
| The Pound on 20:08 - Oct 3 with 1248 views | Superhoops2808 |
| The Pound on 07:44 - Oct 3 by Juzzie |
“We get it, and we have listened”
Well, you should have listened in the first place but the fact that Truss admitted that it wasn’t discussed with the Cabinet and Kwasi just did it by himself is staggering.
It’s a bit late now saying they ‘get it’ because they should never have done it in the first place.
A few weeks in and reputation torn to shreds already, how can anything else she/they do and say hold any merit. |
He was an awful Business/Energy secretary and I really dont now how he got the job
Cant think of a worse MP to be Chancellor
https://news.sky.com/story/business-secretary-kwasi-kwarteng-requests-treasury-s
Prime example when he was Business secretary and he got that wrong |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
