TheUsualSuspect

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

And I'm willing to be educated. Please explain to me in simple facts how your idiotic perpetual motion machine will work ?

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 ?

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

How did your parent feel about you walking 3 miles ? Why can't your kids do it ? This is a rhetorical question rather than a criticism. There is a saying in Arabia, that I paraphrase.... "My grandfather rode a camel, my father rode a bicycle. I ride a car. My children will ride a bicycle and their children will ride a camel" We have lived through a golden age, are currently in a gilded age and many of us don't realise it is happening.

Well it was a minor part of my post, but I assumed people generally want things to be better. As I said in the earlier part of my post, most Americans are really great people to be around. I've met the beer-addled veterans, the quiet-retiring pensioners and the cut-and-thrust business types. They've all, without exception proved to be an interesting type of people who have an underlying sense of generosity and spirit. I just think that you can build a better society based around that cultural core. What is so wrong with that proposal ? If people are fed the downside of humanity and fed a mush of selfish acquisition rather than belonging to a community then firstly I feel sorrow secondly I believe people exposed to such things will gain a perception that things only get worse. The video above is, to me, an example of such downside reinforcement propaganda. As you mention fascism, I would agree that America is wandering into a fascist state, but isolation of oneself from community is no help in such situations. Western Russian peasants were self-reliant people until the war-machine rolled up on their doorsteps. No amount of self-reliance and individuality saved people from wanton violence perpetuated by a machine that had lost all sense of reason.

A delightful winter scene. Such beauty on display, contrasted with the harsh elements attempting to melt their innocent rose of youth. I remember when I lived in Newcastle it was regarded 'gay' to be seen to wear a coat. Nothing much has changed I see.

The pejorative term is just common-sense as far as I'm concerned. Particularly in winter, always having enough basic food in for a 2-3 week stretch in case the weather turns bad is something I've always done, but the 'tin-foil' hat accusers seem to think it's an odd thing to do even though it costs about 5 quid to buy rice and pasta in bulk amounts.

A fabulous post. Not a documentary series I had ever seen (or heard of before), but fascinating material. This really does deserve a much wider audience.

Man alive ! Some of those people are in delight at the chaos going on around them. Mind you, as other people have noted, the Yanks I've met are pretty sound, down to earth people who are so polite and generous it makes my cynicism just melt away. Lovely people on the whole. I suspect that there is some ulterior motive here though, because to my mind, watching that video, particularly towards the end there was a certain sense of 'We know more than you'... 'We are prepared', rather than a belief that they should help to build a better society. I suspect that this kind of video appeals to people with a superiority complex as it seems to judge people very harshly, rather than pitifully. In some respects, it reinforces the idea that they have of the 'bankers', as the makers of the film show the same contempt towards people buying $10 toasters as those they accuse of profiting from it.

I suggested this on here about a year ago, when everyone was stating that devaluing the pound and deflation meant that prices would not rise. Predictably for HPC, I got slated for it... I recall that idiot 'The Masked Tulip' who has said nothing of note, despite a million posts, being particularly vociferous that deflation meant things would be cheaper in the shops and claiming we could all be buying up already over-priced assets for a song, whilst petrol and food went through the roof... I'm no economics expert and even I saw it. Why is King still in charge of the BoE when he didn't ? (I actually have letters from my MP, dismissing my concerns after I wrote to him having mentioned this very fact) How many months is it now that he's failed to do his basic job, that is, keep inflation at 2% ?

You're certainly not being an arsehole. You make a much more thoughtful comment than some of the indoctrinated crap I read on here. I tend towards research to consider my points, but your comments cut through some muddled thinking more than a dryly worded document pronouncing 'findings'. I came from a piss-poor background and I object as strongly as you do to the shit we read on here no matter where I've ended up in life. I suspect my background is what makes me strive to prove my points through 'facts' rather than opinion. And yes, I didn't let my poverty stop me having kids. It was more important than anything.

I've not read through the replies, but the reason that your FTSE company is struggling is that they are the only companies that have 'slack' in them to cut costs and maintain profits. Small businesses don't have that luxury, but are tending to struggle on through cash/liquidity. The FTSE companies, on the whole, have hugely leveraged positions and are hugely bloated with micro-managers watching spreadsheets and graphs whilst sending anyone productive off to the cheapest place possible, Marx predicts this in his comments about the diminishing rate of profit. There is a link here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall) In summary, increased Capital investment tends to a diminishing return. Hence, to maintain profit...... well do the reading. I cannot precis seminal works as well as the masters.

My first job was in the carriage works in York. A huge factory that employed thousands. The Friday 'exit' with people leaving on bicycles meant the road would shut for 5-10 minutes as everyone spilled out. I could also reminisce about other factories in the city, with similar employment... Rowntree's, the site which has mostly been flattened, Terry's, which has been sent off to Sweden/Poland. The place shut down just after I left and is now derelict, with part of it a very successful Call Centre business. The problem with becoming a 'Service based'/'Knowledge economy' is that there is nothing underpinning it. When the UK went from an Agricultural society we didn't actually stop producing agriculture, it just employed less people. When we went to the utopia of knowledge, we just let the underpinning manufacturing industry go. Not that it just employed less people, not that it was impossible to achieve, it just disappeared. There is nothing underpinning the structure of our economy. Any money put into infrastructure now will not go to employ the thousands of underemployed UK citizens, it will be siphoned off by banks and foreign companies. Has nobody in this government ever read anything of history ? Of economics ? Of basic maths ? Keynes was a great supporter of impetus of this type, but he acknowledged that it couldn't be done until the debts had been written off or deleveraged. Why is the current mob attempting an experiment that is using dubious economics, without even using conventional wisdom as a starting point ? Follow the money......