Member Info for Love_You

This is so obviously just a load of nonsense (the stocks and shares game) that is created to enable players to have choices. If there weren't different options available and decisions to make for better or for worse there would be no choice and therefore the game of life would not exist for its current players.

I figured this all out over seven years ago when I realised that it does not cost $300 million to drill about 5 wells in a water depth of less than 500 metres. Clearly the market was just feeding the players some information in order to give the players a choice to make. Anyone who takes this stuff seriously will wake up one day to find it didn't matter at all and every decision they faced was just a choice created by operatives in a higher dimension whose job it is to generate choices for players who are playing the game of life.

Has anyone else figured out more than this yet? Has anyone else figured out what the choice mechanism is whereby the higher dimensions can read our likely intentions? Does anyone know the hardware and software which creates the world we live in and the choices we are faced with as we progress through the game of life?

Clearly it does not cost $300 million to drill 5 wells in less than 500 metres water depth. The rig is just steel and a drill bit which floats - this can be made for a hundred million and can therefore be hired for a few months for less than $5 million for sure. Even if the rig took 30 full-time personnel to operate it and they were paid $70,000 each this would only amount to $2.1 million annually. Say if the right was needed for 6 months this would only be a cost of $1.1 million. The materials for drilling the 5 wells would at most costs $20 million (it's mainly just 12 inch steel pipe and cement that's needed). So add it all together and the costs for a 6 month drilling programme and 5 wells would definitely be less than $30 million.

Hence when I company I was invested in was asked by a contractor to pay $300 million for a 5 well drilling programme in a water depth of less than 450 metres I knew it made no sense at all. The company paid the money and the share price subsequently lost over 90% of its value. The value to me was that I realised the market was just one area of the game of life in which players face choices - and the choice to sell out of a company when the directors vastly overpay for services/contractors should be a very easy choice - please don't hang around invested in a company when the directors are frittering away the shareholders money paying far more to other companies (contractors/services) than what is fair value.

I mean there are valid reasons to stay invested in those circumstances - but the majority of people will not see it that way - and (i don't make up the rules in the game of life) but it seems that sometimes are actions are judged as though the majority view is "correct". Of course the majority view is often factually incorrect (see certain maths

Why are there posters on here debating what the share price should be?

Surely we should all be driving dumper trucks and operating huge drill bits to help tunnel down to 1.3 kms below the Yorkshire moors in order to reach this valuable polyhalite which, once mined, can be used as a fertiliser for arable crops globally.

To state that something which is useful to keeping us alive as "not an asset" is to my point of view ridiculous.

Polyhalite when fed to crops makes them produce bigger yields. We need to eat crops, and/or to feed them to animals, to stay alive as a species.

So, this deposit of polyhalite is most definitely an asset to our species.

By mining this deposit and using the polyhalite as fertiliser it will help keep our species alive, as well as making our lives easier and more abundant.

Until I hear the politicians want to fight poverty and to increase energy usage (lower energy prices) I shall think we are being mugged as citizens and that really the most important reason to wake up everyday is to try and improve our standard of living (not to worry about the climate which only rich people can afford to worry about on their private jets whilst ordinary people are struggling to heat their homes due to the current ridiculously high price of electricity, gas and petrol/diesel).

The extortionate duty on fuel (petrol and diesel) makes me so angry. A concerned citizen. Will be supporting any political group which is in favour of cutting taxes on oil companies and cutting fuel duty down to 10p per litre instead of the current level of 77p per litre. The price of fuel has been outrageous since the stupid Tony Blair tried to rob the oil companies and ended up with massive underinvestment in the North Sea (a perfectly predictable consequence of trying to shaft the people who were laying the golden eggs).

I laugh at the government - they are meant to be supporting the economy - the best way to support any economy is to make transportation as cheap as possible and the easiest way of doing that is to incentivise fuel production, fuel is so important it should be a zero tax industry. The people like Starbucks who charge £4 for a £0.40 cup of coffee should be the ones paying 65% tax.

The extortionate duty on fuel makes me so angry. A concerned citizen. Will be supporting any political group which is in favour of cutting taxes on oil companies and cutting fuel duty down to 10p per litre instead of the current level of 77p per litre.

The extortionate duty on fuel makes me so angry. A concerned citizen. Will be supporting any political group which is in favour of cutting taxes on oil companies and cutting fuel duty down to 10p per litre instead of the current level of 77p per litre.

The extortionate duty on fuel makes me so angry. A concerned citizen. Will be supporting any political group which is in favour of cutting taxes on oil companies and cutting fuel duty down to 10p per litre instead of the current level of 77p per litre.

The extortionate duty on fuel makes me so angry. A concerned citizen. Will be supporting any political group which is in favour of cutting taxes on oil companies and cutting fuel duty down to 10p per litre instead of the current level of 77p per litre.

The extortionate duty on fuel makes me so angry. A concerned citizen. Will be supporting any political group which is in favour of cutting taxes on oil companies and cutting fuel duty down to 10p per litre instead of the current level of 77p per litre.

The extortionate duty on fuel makes me so angry. A concerned citizen. Will be supporting any political group which is in favour of cutting taxes on oil companies and cutting fuel duty down to 10p per litre instead of the current level of 77p per litre.

The extortionate duty on fuel makes me so angry. A concerned citizen. Will be supporting any political group which is in favour of cutting taxes on oil companies and cutting fuel duty down to 10p per litre instead of the current level of 77p per litre.

The extortionate duty on fuel makes me so angry. A concerned citizen. Will be supporting any political group which is in favour of cutting taxes on oil companies and cutting fuel duty down to 10p per litre instead of the current level of 77p per litre.

Hi Jimjam,

You're fortunate to have some land .... can't help thinking we could be in for a semi-collapse of capitalism over the next few years and that the people hardest hit will be people living in apartments in the cities - they could grow some veg on the roof I suppose.

It depends on where you are located as to how keen I am to go into a joint venture, the size of the land and the quality of the climate/soil in your local area. If I am going to put time into a project of this sort I don't just want to grow enough to feed myself, yourself and our families. It needs to be commercial so it can pay for things like cars and a few holidays otherwise it would be like voluntarily going back to the stoneage.

In the future we could well return to the past. The citizens only embraced technology because it was meant to give them more free time and give them more opportunities for travel and leisure etc. It has completely failed to do this. So the citizens will eventually think I need to go back to community values and organising my business at a local level. I need to get together with some local farmers and use their waste crops to produce ethanol as the fuel price is currently too high. I need to get the unemployed and drug addicts and employ them in market gardening schemes. I need to make sure I use my local garage as I am not ready to go electric yet and actually I quite like the style of my car and wouldn't want a Tesla even if it sounded and smelt like a real car.

There will be a big renaissance in the economy as people realise we all need to get back to the fundamental values of tried and trusted technologies, slow but steady progress (certainly don't drive it at breakneck speed as it tends to have unintended consequences), and honest hard work, and treating other people who you would like to be treated yourself.

I can't help feeling the markets are sending out a message today that they don't trust the Conservative government in the UK as look at how many private investors have been done over by the shoddy financial practices in setting the market prices for SXX shares over the past few years. These shares were never worth 30p on a fundamental basis and one does need to question why the market can't set more sensible prices so that less private investors get burned. The ideal scenario for markets is slow but steady - just increase 90% plus of share prices by 6% per year for 20 years straight. This would catch a lot less private investors out and in the low risk government controlled economy the citizens have settled for I don't see why so many listed companies are going bankrupt every year?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49766418

But given that Donald's tweets never actually come to fruition I would of thought that CFD providers and their clients would of agreed that share prices should move on economic fundamentals (and balance sheet strength), not on twitter comments which in the long run have zero effect.

Why did they need to offer to pay interest at 9.5% on their £300 million bond when the Fed's official interest rate is currently <2.0% and their balance sheet is over £3,000,000,000,000 (£3 Trillion)?

Does not make any sense unless the FED are lying about trying to support the economy.

Also why is MetroBank so small in a financial sense? The amount of money they are raising (£300 million) is less than one sixth of the net debt of a smallish oil company such as Premier Oil.

Raising £300 million is like managing to get a single peanut when the debts within the global financial system as a whole correspond to the whole of Scotland covered in peanuts to a depth of 3 metres.

Most debt will never be repaid. Look out for inflation or haircuts to your investments. Impossible to repay all debt with current policies of governments - ergo protests around the globe in Hong Kong, France, China etc. etc. Only way to repay all debt would be to finance cheap energy production such as increasing the mix of fossil fuels within the global energy supply and transportation networks. However, governments are saying they wish to do the opposite - to cut down the use of fossil fuels. I can't see how governments can pay off their debts unless they deflate these debts away or renege on a large portion of them. They have tried inflation and it hasn't really worked as the debts now are higher than in 2007. They have tried haircuts and it hasn't really worked because if you think of Greece as a test case the amount of money saved wasn't worth the social unrest it caused. So both options don't work - what do governments do next?

In case people think I'm in favour of continuing to use fossil fuels just for the sake of it that's not the case. But relying on windpower to generate all of society's electricity needs doesn't seem realistic. Even with solar it still doesn't seem realistic.

Where is the funding for technologies like using tidal power?

And even if by 2040 fossil fuels can be removed entirely from electricity generation there are still over six billion humans on the planet wanting to move around for social, leisure, work and domestic purposes.

It just doesn't seem realistic to me that the world economy can produce over 1 billion electric vehicles by 2040 when the current global output is a few million per year and a lot of these are either hybrids or cheap models made in China which lack range and comfort. At the current rate of electric vehicle production it would take about 500 years to produce a billion electric vehicles - and how many of those produced would need to have been replaced by then.

On the other hand technologies like hydrogen fuel cells for powering vehicles seem more within grasp if only they could get the funding.

Why did they need to offer to pay interest at 9.5% on their £300 million bond when the Fed's official interest rate is currently <2.0% and their balance sheet is over £3,000,000,000,000 (£3 Trillion)?

Does not make any sense unless the FED are lying about trying to support the economy.

Also why is MetroBank so small in a financial sense? The amount of money they are raising (£300 million) is less than one sixth of the net debt of a smallish oil company such as Premier Oil.

Raising £300 million is like managing to get a single peanut when the debts within the global financial system as a whole correspond to the whole of Scotland covered in peanuts to a depth of 3 metres.

Most debt will never be repaid. Look out for inflation or haircuts to your investments. Impossible to repay all debt with current policies of governments - ergo protests around the globe in Hong Kong, France, China etc. etc. Only way to repay all debt would be to finance cheap energy production such as increasing the mix of fossil fuels within the global energy supply and transportation networks. However, governments are saying they wish to do the opposite - to cut down the use of fossil fuels. I can't see how governments can pay off their debts unless they deflate these debts away or renege on a large portion of them. They have tried inflation and it hasn't really worked as the debts now are higher than in 2007. They have tried haircuts and it hasn't really worked because if you think of Greece as a test case the amount of money saved wasn't worth the social unrest it caused. So both options don't work - what do governments do next?

Why did they need to offer to pay interest at 9.5% on their £300 million bond when the Fed's official interest rate is currently <2.0% and their balance sheet is over £3,000,000,000,000 (£3 Trillion)?

Does not make any sense unless the FED are lying about trying to support the economy.

Hi ADrunkenMarcus,

See my reasoning below as to why I believe this share price is definitely in a massively over-inflated bubble currently.

No - Unilever is a terrible investment, they are trying to make money from downgrading UK food culture by filling up the shops with products containing palm oil. Palm oil is a very unhealthy fat and they only use it because it is cheap. No chef would voluntarily add palm oil to the vast majority of their food. This company is putting profit before people - will end up with a massive backlash against it like tobacco companies and investment banks.