Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
A snapshot of the Irish disaster
In their third-quarter survey of credit default swaps (insurance against debt default), CMA Datavision rate Venezuela the riskiest country by far (see first graph); but currently (Tuesday, 23 November 2010 16:30 BST) the sub-investment grade of Allied irish Banks (AIB) is much, much worse (second graph).
Some might say that supporters of the Euro currency system are throwing good money after bad. It is not a good thing to let the markets sense an emotional attachment to a position, and the bond traders may find a way to exploit this weakness, just as George Soros did when the UK attempted to preserve its link to the Exchange Rate Mechanism. The crisis of "Black Monday" (16 September 1992) merely made Soros a billion dollars and cost the UK Treasury £3 billion sterling.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.
Some might say that supporters of the Euro currency system are throwing good money after bad. It is not a good thing to let the markets sense an emotional attachment to a position, and the bond traders may find a way to exploit this weakness, just as George Soros did when the UK attempted to preserve its link to the Exchange Rate Mechanism. The crisis of "Black Monday" (16 September 1992) merely made Soros a billion dollars and cost the UK Treasury £3 billion sterling.DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.
Inequality, housing costs and resetting the economy
Previously published on the Broad Oak Blog:
____________________________________
Charles High Smith posts (as many times before) on the widening inequality of income and asset ownership in the USA. This time he uses it to explain the apparent recovery from recession: "The top 5% of Americans by income are responsible for 37% of all consumer spending-- about the same as the entire bottom 80% by income (39.5%)."
Among the useful links at the bottom of his post is one to an earlier article of his entitled "Why We Keep Getting Poorer: High-Cost Housing." Back in April, I took a graph (below, with some style additions by me) from Calculated Risk to illustrate that point.
It seems to me that if the USA (and the UK, and Europe generally) wants to get competitive with the Far East, our wages will have to drop. But they can't until our debts are reduced.
____________________________________
Charles High Smith posts (as many times before) on the widening inequality of income and asset ownership in the USA. This time he uses it to explain the apparent recovery from recession: "The top 5% of Americans by income are responsible for 37% of all consumer spending-- about the same as the entire bottom 80% by income (39.5%)."
Among the useful links at the bottom of his post is one to an earlier article of his entitled "Why We Keep Getting Poorer: High-Cost Housing." Back in April, I took a graph (below, with some style additions by me) from Calculated Risk to illustrate that point.
(adapted graph from Calculated Risk) - click on image to enlarge
It seems to me that if the USA (and the UK, and Europe generally) wants to get competitive with the Far East, our wages will have to drop. But they can't until our debts are reduced.
Debt default, or debt forgiveness, may be the only way out.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.Inequality, housing costs and resetting the economy
Charles High Smith posts (as many times before) on the widening inequality of income and asset ownership in the USA. This time he uses it to explain the apparent recovery from recession: "The top 5% of Americans by income are responsible for 37% of all consumer spending-- about the same as the entire bottom 80% by income (39.5%)."
Among the useful links at the bottom of his post is one to an earlier article of his entitled "Why We Keep Getting Poorer: High-Cost Housing." Back in April, I took a graph (below, with some style additions by me) from Calculated Risk to illustrate that point.
It seems to me that if the USA (and the UK, and Europe generally) wants to get competitive with the Far East, our wages will have to drop. But they can't until our debts are reduced.
Among the useful links at the bottom of his post is one to an earlier article of his entitled "Why We Keep Getting Poorer: High-Cost Housing." Back in April, I took a graph (below, with some style additions by me) from Calculated Risk to illustrate that point.
(adapted graph from Calculated Risk) - click on image to enlarge
It seems to me that if the USA (and the UK, and Europe generally) wants to get competitive with the Far East, our wages will have to drop. But they can't until our debts are reduced.
Debt default, or debt forgiveness, may be the only way out.
DISCLAIMER: Nothing here should be taken as personal advice, financial or otherwise. No liability is accepted for third-party content, whether incorporated in or linked to this blog.Monday, November 22, 2010
Will fusion power save us?
Forwarded to me by Paddington, an article that gives us hope for future energy production and the continuance of the civilisation we're used to:
A new approach to nuclear fusion means that in a few years time nuclear fusion will break even. Bearing in mind that our ‘preferred’ power choices of solar power, windmills etc. have to be heavily subsidised before people will even look at them and our electrickery bills will soon reflect our politician’s latest stealth tax.
Now it seems that we have had breakthroughs in nuclear fusion every few years without a reactor becoming available. However, I feel that we are finally getting there. The project is difficult but worthwhile to the whole human race. As it is so important to the human race I wonder why the money we are wasting on windmills and making coal stations more environmentally friendly is not being spent on making this become true.
Look at the benefits.
Electrickery at a cost that makes metering it unfeasible. Certainly not the case for anything we have now.Virtually pollution free. No waste and little environmental impact. Certainly less than coal, gas, windmills and hydropower.Safe power production. Negligible accidental risk and can be protected from nutters.
Of course from a politician’s perspective this is far from the Holy Grail. They won’t be able to tax us to death on the pretence of climate change, something they still push for tax reasons which have been debunked by all but a few climate nutters, plus they won’t be able to use climate change as a stick to beat us back to the Stone Age with. So even when a fusion reactor is available don’t expect our politicians to approve one being built any time soon.
A new approach to nuclear fusion means that in a few years time nuclear fusion will break even. Bearing in mind that our ‘preferred’ power choices of solar power, windmills etc. have to be heavily subsidised before people will even look at them and our electrickery bills will soon reflect our politician’s latest stealth tax.
Now it seems that we have had breakthroughs in nuclear fusion every few years without a reactor becoming available. However, I feel that we are finally getting there. The project is difficult but worthwhile to the whole human race. As it is so important to the human race I wonder why the money we are wasting on windmills and making coal stations more environmentally friendly is not being spent on making this become true.
Look at the benefits.
Electrickery at a cost that makes metering it unfeasible. Certainly not the case for anything we have now.Virtually pollution free. No waste and little environmental impact. Certainly less than coal, gas, windmills and hydropower.Safe power production. Negligible accidental risk and can be protected from nutters.
Of course from a politician’s perspective this is far from the Holy Grail. They won’t be able to tax us to death on the pretence of climate change, something they still push for tax reasons which have been debunked by all but a few climate nutters, plus they won’t be able to use climate change as a stick to beat us back to the Stone Age with. So even when a fusion reactor is available don’t expect our politicians to approve one being built any time soon.
Prince William, Kate Middleton and Bishop Broadbent
The death of deference cuts both ways...
Above, the man who put the "pric" in "bishopric" - Rt Rev "Pete" Broadbent (fashionably tieless - and somewhat unbuttoned - in the Sun's pic), Bishop of Willesden, who has now apologised for prognosticating the failure of a royal marriage that hasn't yet taken place. His wonderwall is on Facebook here - he seems to have time for such things. He has also put the "twit" in Twitter.
What else does he do? Does he curse infants at christenings, like the wicked fairy at Sleeping Beauty's? Or is his malevolence reserved only for his superiors? Did it occur to him that "Big Ears"'s mother is the Head of the Church of England, and William may one day be so?
Does he quite understand the difference between the C of E and the Labour Party? Perhaps not: "Formerly an Islington Councillor and Chair of its Development and Planning Committee, Peter Broadbent is a member of the Labour Party." ("Cranmer" had a bit of a go at this bien-pensant prelate last year.)
As a "good republican", perhaps he should consider his position, since Anglican bishops also "cost us an arm and a leg" - see "Bishops' office and working costs" and The Times' recent article on same. After all, those who have decamped to the Catholic Church are prepared to "make sacrifices, giving up salaries, additions to their pensions and accommodation." Would he be willing to turn his footsteps that way, like a previous incumbent (Graham Leonard)? Less likely, I suppose, since he seems to be an "evangelical", than the other direction; but in that case, perhaps, following Leonard's example, prudently after retirement and receiving his pension, so costing us an arm and a leg all the way.
As long ago as 2004 the Daily Telegraph revealed that "Newly appointed bishops are currently paid £33,930 a year in addition to which they receive a number of perks and allowances." "Pete" won 30Days' "Golden Mitre Suffragans Award" for his expenses in 2005, claiming £45,207. I don't know if he gets anything extra from his other position as the acting Bishop of Stepney - he has been riding both horses since July this year. King Athelstan must regret having given the parish ten manses.
Still, it's only the same sort of screw as a pole dancer. And, it would seem, for a similar degree of exhibitionism, if manifested in a slightly different way. Perhaps Willesden is his day job and he moonlights as Stepney.
UPDATE: He's been suspended "indefinitely". What price the "early retirement" solution ("Pete" is 58)? Of course, like the publicity-seeking, fast-gabbling controversialist David Jenkins, he may merely leave his episcopal post but continue with his priestly duties. At least Bishop Broadbent hasn't (so far as I know) sworn in sermons or had his church struck by lightning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)