Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

TheUsualSuspect

New Members
  • Content Count

    132
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TheUsualSuspect

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. I notice a lot of the most twattish behaviour on the recent Student protests was from kids who attended Public Schools. Well rounded individuals do not come from a small subsection of the community. That is a definition of an elite. These places just breed the future leaders that they always were intended to. They create people who will do well financially in life but generally are part of the problem in this country, namely nepotism, elitism and 'who you know' culture rather than an egalitarian society where the brightest and best rise to the top.
  2. They'll hold. They're itching to just print money...sorry Quantitatively Ease, money into existence. Inflation is going to rocket. I'm sure there are more astute (or more interested) folks on here who can describe succinctly how M1 money introduced into a system causes inflation. I've read the technical details on this somewhere before, but can't quite recall how it works. I do recall that only the initial recipients of it gain the value from it and the average pleb gets stiffed with rocketing prices. Buy shares. Actually, buy anything rather than hold cash. Even when you have to wheelbarrow your money to buy a loaf of bread, the wheelbarrow will still have some value. Even Gold is not too bad an idea (mind you, make sure you can physically defend it. I wouldn't fancy flashing Gold around in a country pissed off and hungry). Oil to hit $200 by 2012 ? Woo.... that could be fun.
  3. As I put all my spare money into stocks, as did most people with any brains when the Fed announced QE2, there's no need. The FTSE is roaring and I've made about 30% gains. I earnt more than I did by going to work. Surely only mugs have money in banks when they can do better themselves ? Still, enjoy your gloating whilst you get less than inflation on your savings.
  4. Average class. Saturday night class. they amount to the same thing. But then I always love a braggart particularly as they make me realise it's a flaw I don't have. Perhaps we can cross swords again some time. I just wish you would come out of your shell. Your previous post has instructive detail, quality and something to digest. I may not agree with your consensus, but then I maybe work in a different part of the industry to you and actually do real work rather than speculation on the money markets ? Assumptions, my friend, are neither here nor there. 1am. Dark. Snowing... time to walk the dog and get some fresh air I feel.
  5. Face facts. You're a cyber bully who posts links to things you don't understand and then claim that because you've read them through you know what you're talking about. You don't impress anyone really, and I will state here and now, nobody bullies me into thinking in that way will fashion how I think. You are basically an average person, with an average outlook on life who thinks they can impress people by passing up links to 'sites of interest' and claiming you are somehow superior because the person you are debating it with 'hasn't understood the facts'. You aren't superior. You are a very average person sitting on a PC on a Friday night. So am I. Accept it. It is your life.
  6. I did read your link and it's immediate response is one that is of concern.(Although how you assume I'm a 'leftie' for arguing about energy supplies is a little strange - is this some obtuse abuse one can throw at someone to dismiss their arguments - Isn't that the actions of a bully ?) What I took away from it is an energy gap. The difference is either surmountable or it isn't yes ? You assume that LNG will fill that gap. I don't. There is too much demand from the far east for the UK to pay enough for the gas-fields to supply it. Basically, you are assuming a linear movement of gas demand being met with a linear gas-consumption. It won't happen. Why ? Because we're panning the pound through the floor to gain 'exports'. The pound is turning to mush and if I was a gas supplier - using your idea of economics - I wouldn't be compressing gas to be paid in worthless cash. I would be selling to someone who can be piped to using a conventional pipe and has a decent currency. Additionally, there is no infrastructure to support LNG. It will cost billions just to set it up. Why would anyone invest in the UK to get LNG when there are pipes to China who will pay the going rate ? Aside from the Physics attributes of your argument, I just don't basically agree that LNG will take off. It's too expensive and it's not commercially viable.
  7. Well on the basis of your constructive points and well thought through ability to debate an issue I throw my hands up in eulogy. You're correct in the same way that Stalin always was. Good night.
  8. Without sounding petulant, I would rather hear what you think. This is not an either/or situation. It's a debate and personally I find your lack of response to any questioning of your belief system rather stymied. I have the utmost respect for people who argue their corner, but thus far you're not really putting up any sort of fight from your blanket statement that "LNG is the future".. I personally do not know the LNG market, you're absolutely correct, but why am I being so naive to assume that it's an exploitative market rather than a fundamental reason to turn "LNG" ? What benefits would we have from it ? Why is it so costly to build LNG ports, etc. ? At least make your case.
  9. The longest sentence you have managed to string together and it is one that neither educates nor questions. It may not bother you, but it bothers me that faux science such as yours has any breathing room. It is not as your say "a difference of opinion", it is merely stating a physical fact. You cannot move a finite source of energy, using more energy than it produces unless you wish to turn a profit without any concern for its consequences. I was waiting really for your comment about me not "understanding" the 'LNG market' and you've not really failed. You have no real idea about value, consequence or facts. Merely a ponzi-scheme about how much one can earn from it. Enjoy your frozen gas scheme. I enjoy real value in food, community and wood. (I believe the liquefied Wood Market is up on the Dow-Jones)
  10. And I'm willing to be educated. Please explain to me in simple facts how your idiotic perpetual motion machine will work ?
  11. Gradually we're teasing out an answer. So. To get an energy source from A to B, that in your own words is plentiful it is a good idea to expend more energy in moving it ? It's like suggesting that charging up a lead battery in place A, , then moving said battery upstairs to point B using manual labour is the future. I'm sorry, but your monosyllabic answers are basically idiotic as far as I can see. It goes against the basic laws of thermodynamics. Maybe uttering stupidity as fact in snippets of sentences is the future and I'm missing the point of your post ?
  12. Well, as you suggested it as a "no-brainer" I'd be interested to know why you keep insisting on it being the future rather than just making a claim with no supporting facts ? All I've done is mention a few pertinent questions, namely, the fact it has been available as a technology for 50 years and is not commercially successful. Why liquify it, thus expending energy, if it's so available ? Anyone doing something so ridiculous would be classed as a "no-brainer" surely ?
  13. 50 years on and no-one is using it to any extent should suggest there are several reasons why it's not quite the "no-brainer" that you suggest. LNG being an energy carrier, not an energy source is my first thought on this and granted I don't know if it's advanced much since the 70's but a secondary concern is that it sounds very similar to Hydrogen with it's potential for apocalyptic explosions.
  14. I'm sorry, but stating that 'technically the answer is yes' is basically saying no we don't. We live in a representative Democracy as you allude to and it is no more democratic than a controlled state economy. We live in an age where there is actually no need for this. Being realistic there was perhaps a time when it made sense for MP's to garner votes from a selective area and then represent that sub-population at Westminster, Those days no longer exist in any shape or form. Predominantly because we are all, by expressing ourselves on the medium of the internet, demonstrating that Democracy can be achieved by online voting to any suggestion/motion that an MP takes to the House. I believe Switzerland has a mechanism approaching this.
  15. I don't think it's too far off really. You get scooped up fresh with your PhD in your hand, earn vast amounts of money at the start, then get sick of it by 30. By which time another lot have been scooped up anyway. They call it 'burnout' but I now think it's a way of keeping the vigour of the system going by getting academically bright people, but sociologically naive people to keep the system going.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.