Bilderberg, Max Keiser, Alex Jones and Nigel Farage

Some comments on Max Keiser's latest piece indicate discomfort with Alex Jones' performance on Andrew Neil's Daily Politics show. My two cents' worth:

Jones' performance has been described as in "meltdown" (e.g. by the normally shrewd Guido) - but that's a serious misreading. This wasn't John Sweeney exploding impotently at the Scientologists.

The British approach is that you can say what you like because it makes no difference, so you may as well be cool about it, too, maybe even ironic, and we expect the usual ending: "Thanks for your input, it'll be interesting to see what happens".

Jones was pushing through that in forthright American style and when he (in effect) accused Neil of supporting the status quo I heard a little bell ring. Neil's "loopy" hand gesture suggested some frustration that he hadn't been able to dominate and kebab his guest as he had with Chris Mounsey of the Libertarian Party.

Some say of cars, "Drive it like you stole it"; this was "Do politics like you mean it." We've had mealy-mouthed twisters up to here (gesture: hand parallel to chin); I think Keiser is right to suggest that we're ready for brash. Keiser himself acts gonzo but is nobody's fool, and when you see what he's criticising you begin to perceive that reality has become so bizarre that the Oxford common room debating style just isn't up to the challenge.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. 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; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Womanly care

 Heaven knows what taste the lieutenant could boast of, but even he noticed one characteristic peculiarity about the whole place, which no luxury or style could efface--a complete absence of all trace of womanly, careful hands, which, as we all know, give a warmth, poetry, and snugness to the furnishing of a room. There was a chilliness about it such as one finds in waiting-rooms at stations, in clubs, and foyers at the theatres.

 Anton Chekhov – Mire (1886)

Do we say such things today? Or if we do, is it with a hint of embarrassment or defiance? Or like the fabled file in a prisoner’s cake, is it better to slip them in as Chekhov quotes?

I’m sure nobody is unaware of what Chekhov meant by the chilliness of public spaces. As to why they are chilly - moderns are not so likely to borrow his domestic ideal as an evocative contrast.

Yet our homes are not the private and highly personal spaces they were in Chekhov’s day. Corporate and government interests have seen to that.

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. 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; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

Small Electricity Suppliers Have No Right To An Easy Life

Ofgem, whose uselessness over the past decade is a disgrace to the excellent work done by its predecessors Ofgas and Offer in the 1990's, is at it again.

Britain's big six energy companies will face fines unless they open up the electricity market to competition from smaller rivals, under proposals by the regulator designed to "break the stranglehold" of the biggest suppliers.  (DTel)

The details of this are less dramatic than one might imagine: they intend to 'force' the biggest 8 generators (not just the 'Big 6') to become market makers in the forward market out to 2 years.  Since liquidity in the 2-year energy forwards is pretty unsatisfactory - and since that, in turn, is pretty damaging - no one can be happy with the status quo.  Ofgem have been farting around worrying aimlessly about energy liquidity for 8 years now and the only positive development has been the advent of hedge fund and PE money since around 2006 - mostly in the gas sector because electricity trading is fiendishly difficult.  On the downside, banks have been progressively scaling back their commodities trading altogether.

Of course, the real issue is that in the '00s, Ofgem and the competition authorities (against their better judgement but under instruction from Gordon Brown) allowed dumb vertical integration to take hold once more in the electricity market, after the successful efforts of 15 years to break it up.  EDF being allowed to buy BE was the final straw in the structural undermining of liquidity, a point I made at the time. The European authorities, who ought to be a back-stop against this kind of thing, were equally supine.

What I don't understand is why anyone thinks small, under-capitalised electricity suppliers have a God-given right to thrive.  This is the most capital-intensive of industries - whether or not a player intends to back ts energy positions with physical assets (power plants, gas production or storage facilities etc).  Even if they intend to operate on a 'merchant' model - just buying wholesale to meet retail demand - huge quantities of risk capital are required to back the big, long-term deals that are required for that business model.  That is the lesson of 'asset-lite' Enron:  it's a game for big boys with a credit rating of at least A, preferably higher.

What's needed is real competition between ten or so properly-capitalised players. Boutique energy marketing outfits with no credit won't be able to transact 2-year hedges anyway - unless the new 'rules' force the Big 8 to take the credit risk, the merest featherbedding.  Along with the free ride that is currently given to windfarms in terms of not being charged the full cost of their intermittency, plus a heap of social obligations as regards 'poor' retail customers, and even more nonsense contained in the Energy Bill, the burdens being heaped on the big players will one day make some of them decide it's not worth the candle.  Obvious candidates for giving up in disgust are cash-strapped RWE of Germany (nPower) and Spanish Ibderdrola (Scottish Power).  It's not too much of a stretch to see E.ON having second thoughts as well.

See how we like it when Big 6 becomes Big 3, eh?  No amount of flaky, subsidised suppliers called 'Nice Clean Energy' or 'Friendly Power' will help us then.


This post first appeared on the Capitalists@Work blog

All original material is copyright of its author. Fair use permitted. Contact via comment. 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; or for unintentional error and inaccuracy. The blog author may have, or intend to change, a personal position in any stock or other kind of investment mentioned.

The PRISM Scandal: it gets worse

The ten o' clock news is full of distraction and non-denial denials from the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary. The PM is vapouring on about the importance of the role of the intelligence services; and the FS is denying that GCHQ is breaking the law without denying that we have all our telecommunications spied on, thus confirming that the law here already permits what the Americans are doing.

I am not surprised, but I am disgusted. Caught with their pants down and without the courage to tell it like it is.

If only libertarians could leave off their trivial consumer obsessions and tackle the subject of the full-scale tyranny in front of us.

Gedankenexperiment

Caveat: I am not an economist, I just like playing with numbers.

Consider an economy with 3 classes of people.

Class C: 50% of the population, earning an average of $50,000 per year, and spending all of it.

Class B: 49% of the population, earning an average of $100,000 per year, spending $95,000, and investing $5,000.

Class A: 1% of the population, earning an average of $1,000,000 per year, spending $300,000, and investing $700,000.

Assuming equal rates of return, class A will receive 74% of any gain in wealth.

Take modest growth of 3.03% per year for 60 years. The total wealth W has now grown to 6W.

Even if they started with nothing, class A now has 3.7W, almost 2/3 of the total wealth.

UK: Green slime

Reading SAS stories, I often come across the nickname "green slime" for the Army Intelligence Corps. I'd hazily thought it was a squaddie comeback at the alien, slightly threatening nature of the people who know more than they'll ever tell you.

It's a bit simpler than that. The Corps beret is a bright green, and so when massed on parade the soldiers will seem to be a moving, verdant carpet.

The kit was devised by its Colonel-in-Chief, the Duke of Edinburgh. The CIC came down to Regimental Headquarters for an inspection shortly after the new outfit had been issued, and asked the Sergeant-Major what he thought of it.

"Bloody horrible, Sir."

"Did you know that I designed the uniform myself?"

"Well then, we've both made a mistake, haven't we, Sir?"

Smoking: a question

Are we to give up smoking because it "causes fatal diseases", or welcome it because it provides much-needed tax revenue?

As Peter Cook said about his smoking, "I risk my life for my country on a daily basis." And it was liver disease that killed him.

Plain packaging for alcohol, anyone?