By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
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.
There's a lot of excitement about the MME (Moscow Metals Exchange) starting up next year.The Comex might actually fold sometime soon which will be great for spot prices. Apparently Turkey has applied to join BRICS,ditto Iran ,Argentina and the United Arab Emirates.The world is splitting into duality.
"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.
I agree we need to develop our own fossil fuel projects where possible. Truss' licensing round a good start
You have hit on a core point of the green lobby on some of your nuclear criticisms. Impose as many regulations as possible to make it expensive as possible or impose negatives on alternatives. Restrict their funding access while encouraging and subsiding alternatives as much as possible
Of course France did alter this when it was needed...Aug 8 (Reuters) - "France's nuclear power regulator has extended temporary waivers allowing five power stations to continue discharging hot water into rivers"
The last time UK built a reservoir was in 1991 so maybe it's about time we did that. Rain is not something we are short of
Labour say 70% will be wind and solar. But they will need to have ready 100% of energy at any one time from not being wind or solar in case it is dark or too windy or not windy enough then we have no wind power. If it's not sunny then we don't have solar power as the grid can't rely on battery power there. Not even remotely close
For Essox, Vestas are the largest wind turbine manufacturer in the world. They are a Danish company but they have huge operations in China. Production will occur where there is cheap energy. The subsidised coal powered plants of China are more appealing
Also to really think about energy security you need to think about the rare Earth minerals needed. Same when you consider environmental impacts as it's a massive impact in extracting those minerals
Copper has many uses for society. If we try to expand the need for it with wind power to that extent the prices will rocket. As will the other rare Earth minerals that must be sourced abroad. Like the tungsten carbide drill bits needed for the blast holes through hard rock. Predominately made in China where they will rely on coal power stations for such an energy intensive process.
Consider to the ammonium nitrate needed for blasting in copper mining is also needed through fossil fuels. So saying Denmark are the leader. Consider the chain and where the work is actually done. The copper is just one aspect
The out of sight out of mind of environmental damage related to solar and wind. The lack of understanding of the availability of the rare Earth minerals needed and what Can and will happen to their prices as the supply demand trend continues
Particularly useful is the Resolution mine in Arizona example. This being one of the largest undeveloped copper projects in the world and of course it's being protested to not be developed by Green movement. Pretty funny really. As over their that would make the green industry more viable and give more value to the energy security argument
Instead they are suppressing development in countries with more strict environmental controls and instead let it get mined in countries that don't have regulatory protections in place like the US does
This all links back into the pound as we don't have energy security in this country. The Lib Dems particularly to blame there for preventing fracking and stopping new nuclear that would be online by now. Also Tory's push to try and get green leaning voters. So we need to buy a product priced in dollars buy printing around £130 billion this year potentially. That increase in money supply for that purpose devalues our currency
The well intentioned confusion I see on here is because people mix this up with being an electricity crisis and it's not it's an energy crisis. Natural gas is used at cogeneration plants to at industrial chemcial facilities (look at Bayers problems in Germany), it's used to make fertiliser (our last plant in country recently shut down) it's used
Payback period of 6 weeks for nuclear and 4 years for solar. The Americans have just blown up Nordsteam 1 and 2 not that you see potentially the biggest story of the year getting coverage much over in our MSM
Also, why don't the environmentalists push for a hydrogen economy around nuclear. I have my suspicions around who discourages that.
We could use hydrogen combustion engines to power our vehicles. Start with water use the electriliser powered by a nuclear power plant and get rid of vehicle related CO2 emissions. The technology for this exists. We use internal combustion engines to burn that hydrogen back to water. So we don't need to extract all these precious metals out of the ground and the harmful processes that entails
But big business and aims of centralised control can't work if we do that
(BBC Panorma tonight on the topic of how green our renewable really are)
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.
You say the Furlough money wasn't "additional money"? as you term it/ newly created
We are so far apart I will leave that thread there
It's going to be interesting to see how a government running an expansionary fiscal policy is going to clash with the Bank of England primarily having an inflation target of 2-3%. We could well face the specter of running expansionary fiscal and contractionary monetary policy. Nuts but it looks like it's going to go that way.
Also back in 2008/9 with the global credit crunch it was interesting to see how the Fed running tool that target both GDP and inflation differed from the Bank of England's response based largely on inflation control. BofE was far slower to drop rates.
Agree that the Fed has been running a very expansionary monetary policy. I think they've been surprised by the inflationary impact and felt they could fine-tune the US economy better than the evidence suggests.
You say the Furlough money wasn't "additional money"? as you term it/ newly created
We are so far apart I will leave that thread there
It was additional govt spending, but not additional disposable income as per your simplistic Cantillon Effect analogy. You were using the latter to argue why this caused inflation. And, regarding furlough payments, I think, as I have explained that your argument is flawed. It’s not an additional lump of cash to an earner. It maintained (well, in most cases 80% of) their earnings. So I don’t believe it drive inflation. I believe risings costs in the supply change (which I’ve explained at length) drive inflation. And, as was immediately obvious upon the mini budget,that, in itself has further driven inflation. Mortgage rates being offered on a 5yr fixed from 3.7% to 5.4% in one week. Nothing to do with QE from 2020 that.
Well if I knew the figure I would not wonder what it was
It sounded as if you knew the real figure and it was not 5%.
Actually, it's not, providing I've got my sums right. The personal allowance is completely withdrawn for earners of £150k and above, and 40 is 88.89% of 45, so upper rate taxpayers would have had their income tax cut by 11.1%.
It sounded as if you knew the real figure and it was not 5%.
Actually, it's not, providing I've got my sums right. The personal allowance is completely withdrawn for earners of £150k and above, and 40 is 88.89% of 45, so upper rate taxpayers would have had their income tax cut by 11.1%.
Err…Kensal, I think John means the proposed tax break was only on money earnt over £150k p.a., as opposed to on your entire income. So it’s nothing like a 11% tax break. If you earn £200k p.a., you’d be paying 40% on that £50k over £250k, not 45%, so c. £2.5k tax saving. So, on the total income you’ve “saved” 1.25%. I think, coupled with the NI tax break and the basic rate dropping to 19%, the total saving reported by the BBC for someone on £200k was just over £3k, but that is from memory; I could be wrong and haven’t tried to calculate it.
660,000 people in the UK on over £150k, and this was forecast to deliver 2bn in tax take.
Morally, economically, and politically, i think it was wrong. But, it’s not material amongst Kwarteng’s wider budget which is giving money back to the public at a large scale (£43bn) at a time of high inflation and increasing costs of borrowing with no details on how this borrowing will be paid for.
As JimmyR has put better than me through this thread, it’s mad, and it’s release was so badly handled.
He's not me Hunter, I'm an old bloke and don't have the patience to spend hour upon hour on here arguing with Bazza. It's a futile exercise as Bazza is too blinkered to ever change his mind about anything.
Err…Kensal, I think John means the proposed tax break was only on money earnt over £150k p.a., as opposed to on your entire income. So it’s nothing like a 11% tax break. If you earn £200k p.a., you’d be paying 40% on that £50k over £250k, not 45%, so c. £2.5k tax saving. So, on the total income you’ve “saved” 1.25%. I think, coupled with the NI tax break and the basic rate dropping to 19%, the total saving reported by the BBC for someone on £200k was just over £3k, but that is from memory; I could be wrong and haven’t tried to calculate it.
660,000 people in the UK on over £150k, and this was forecast to deliver 2bn in tax take.
Morally, economically, and politically, i think it was wrong. But, it’s not material amongst Kwarteng’s wider budget which is giving money back to the public at a large scale (£43bn) at a time of high inflation and increasing costs of borrowing with no details on how this borrowing will be paid for.
As JimmyR has put better than me through this thread, it’s mad, and it’s release was so badly handled.
Depending on which behavioural analysis you read, it may actually have been cost neutral, but as you say, politically and morally was very wrong. My son is an economist, he's not against this budget per se, depending on the details on how it's all financed etc. He has a problem with the energy price cap, destroying price signals, enabling people - particularly affluent households who use the most energy/head - to carry on regardless,and making the spectre of black-outs more likely. He would have preferred targeted help for those most in need. An aside from me, we all need somewhere to live and the means to heat/light that place, why are high energy prices a cause for national concern and government bail-outs, but high house prices something to celebrate?
Fck knows mate. Would be nice to know you are engaging with these people in good faith for once though.
I'm with you Baz, pretty obvious Sakura is Russian Bot and whether he likes it or not I also think he's Sheffield in disguise.
If that's wrong its wrong but the writing styles and tone are virtually identical, and I'm yet to see Sakura post about QPR whilst Sheffield does quite a bit.
They may not like it, they may deny it, they may be right in not being the same, but thats the way it goes when you start to build a reputation for yourself, and unless I see definitive proof otherwise I also think the same as you that they are one and the same.
And its annoying, because I read these threads out of interest and curiosity, and I see some of the same posters popping up to agree with each other, or upvote each other, and can't be entirely sure that actually its not the same person trying to back themselves up, which makes the entire thing untrustworthy. Which I know has been done on here before so it immediately makes me cynical.
In other news my pensions and ISAs are still tanking so there's something to (not) enjoy.
Fck knows mate. Would be nice to know you are engaging with these people in good faith for once though.
I think you know all too well Bazza, I have long since given up trying to hold much of a conversation with you. Sakura has far more patience in debating with you and the left wingers here.
He also bloody good at putting his points across in a sequenced and coherent form. Must be very annoying for you to have to deal with someone who can pull your political nonsense apart so well.
I think you know all too well Bazza, I have long since given up trying to hold much of a conversation with you. Sakura has far more patience in debating with you and the left wingers here.
He also bloody good at putting his points across in a sequenced and coherent form. Must be very annoying for you to have to deal with someone who can pull your political nonsense apart so well.
I’m going to be honest mate, in regards to you not to engaging me in conversation, you aren’t trying very hard.
I'm with you Baz, pretty obvious Sakura is Russian Bot and whether he likes it or not I also think he's Sheffield in disguise.
If that's wrong its wrong but the writing styles and tone are virtually identical, and I'm yet to see Sakura post about QPR whilst Sheffield does quite a bit.
They may not like it, they may deny it, they may be right in not being the same, but thats the way it goes when you start to build a reputation for yourself, and unless I see definitive proof otherwise I also think the same as you that they are one and the same.
And its annoying, because I read these threads out of interest and curiosity, and I see some of the same posters popping up to agree with each other, or upvote each other, and can't be entirely sure that actually its not the same person trying to back themselves up, which makes the entire thing untrustworthy. Which I know has been done on here before so it immediately makes me cynical.
In other news my pensions and ISAs are still tanking so there's something to (not) enjoy.
[Post edited 4 Oct 2022 8:54]
Absolutely.
Plenty of people disagree here, and it sometimes turns obnoxious (I’m as guilty as any), but it’s dishonest / cowardly to do it with multiple accounts.
Sorry to hear about the pension situation. Life is wholly unfair.
I’m going to be honest mate, in regards to you not to engaging me in conversation, you aren’t trying very hard.
[Post edited 4 Oct 2022 9:35]
I'm not debating with you, just trying to get you and Hunter to stop implying that I might be posting under multiple names. I doubt you would be too happy if someone implied that you did similar.
Carry on like this and I will post a response to every politically contrived post of yours. The good old days eh?
Plenty of people disagree here, and it sometimes turns obnoxious (I’m as guilty as any), but it’s dishonest / cowardly to do it with multiple accounts.
Sorry to hear about the pension situation. Life is wholly unfair.
I'm still young enough for the pensions to recover, its people at my Dad's age that are really getting hammered that are much more worthy of sympathy! Its those its most unfair for.
I'm not debating with you, just trying to get you and Hunter to stop implying that I might be posting under multiple names. I doubt you would be too happy if someone implied that you did similar.
Carry on like this and I will post a response to every politically contrived post of yours. The good old days eh?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
