Member Info for Love_You

How is the FED's balance sheet of $4.4 Trillion, US national debt at $21.5 Trillion, and consumer credit being flushed out into the economy at about $12.5 Billion per month, not causing oil to get close to the 2007/2008 highs - or at least to touch the lows of the last trading range from 2011-2014, being $95 per barrel.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/m/3de20055-99d4-3009-be84-3cd0071a45e7/u.s.-consumer-credit-grows.html

How can oil be stuck at $62 per barrel when the US government is increasing spending every year and increasing their national debt every year?

How is the FED's balance sheet of $4.4 Trillion, US national debt at $21.5 Trillion, and consumer credit being flushed out into the economy at about $12.5 Billion per month, not causing oil to get close to the 2007/2008 highs - or at least to touch the lows of the last trading range from 2011-2014, being $95 per barrel.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/m/3de20055-99d4-3009-be84-3cd0071a45e7/u.s.-consumer-credit-grows.html

How can oil be stuck at $62 per barrel when the US government is increasing spending every year and increasing their national debt every year?

I don't actually think I'm putting my life in any politician's hands - we all get on with our own lives and the more we do for ourselves the better in my opinion.

However, I was trying to make the point that I do believe the cons have done atrociously at growing the UK economy in a way that the citizens want - or perhaps I'm wrong that people would prefer an economy based around activities, better food, cheaper energy, more free time - rather than more taxes, more expensive energy, more expensive food, and the main activities being stuck at a LCD/VDU screen or the screen of a phone, or talking on the phone. I sort of feel most people probably just want a house, a car, cheap fuel, cheap energy, a few holidays, more free time, and more time to go to the cinema, shopping, for arts and crafts, hobbies, and outdoor pursuits.

If one thinks about it, it's not hard to achieve really except that some people want to own 500 houses and to call themselves "property moguls" - however these sorts of riches doesn't necessarily grant one happiness, nor peace of mind, nor being able to honestly reflect and consider that one led a "good" life - after all other people do need houses to live and I think wanting to amass a large portfolio of rental properties just shows an inferiority complex or something - in that you struggle to develop relationships with others which aren't based on commercial transactions or needing some kind of status differential in terms of material ownership. Of course after we die we own nothing and if our life flashes before our eyes in slow-motion at the point of death then would we regret a life lived based only on the pursuit of material things such as houses (not hard to build, doesn't take any great skill) or money (again it's not hard to print money and doesn't take any great skill).

Probability of making it onto Dragon's Den is pretty low - just being rational - I don't mind putting effort into things which I've frequently done in my life: but neither am I one for going on fool's errands. And I just think that if to get some capital in the UK you have to go on Dragon's Den then the system is not functioning as it should - in a healthy economy of 62 million people it should be pretty easy to start up a business and/or to sell a business on. If not then how on earth does the government expect the economy to adapt to the future whilst maintaining the UK as a relatively prosperous country on the whole (which it isn't really as there are huge areas of poverty - some of the worst social deprivation in the whole of Western Europe).

Indeed LeeRex, it certainly doesn't make life an easy game to play - because even if one applies one's own logic it may be that the decision-maker responsible for an investment decision is not applying their own reasoning (hence they could perhaps be taken-in by supposed experts who are in fact being paid by other people to present a false view of the best evidence). And we are meant to invest in the best ideas when often the best ideas don't even make it past a first-round meeting because perhaps they weren't presented in the right tone of voice of using the right "buzz words"? What a system this is ……..!

Tubs,

The thing is you can only get people to work with you if you give them some of what they want …. hence why the UK is in such a mess because it spends most of the wealth on enabling the 1% to have what they want (which costs a fortune as they have expensive tastes) and yet if that same amount of money was divided up between more people with more moderate tastes it could perhaps enable 50% of UK citizens to have most of what they want.

And in a democracy it is a lot easier to win an election after you have delivered on your economic promises to 50% of the electorate than it is to win an election after only delivering economic prosperity to 1% of the electorate.

However, I find it hard to believe the UK electorate will trust any politician anymore. Hence even if Labour promised to grow the economy, and to not put 1% of people's aspirations as way more important than the other 99%'s, I don't think people would believe them. However, if Labour won the next election and after delivered a huge swage of economic reforms which really got the UK economy delivering more of what the majority wanted then they would win the election after with an enormous landslide in my opinion.

Facebook promotes travel and the sharing of "in-person" experiences through their social tool WhatsApp - hence I could see why Facebook could justify investing in the Oil and Gas sector - as WhatsApp is used by people to share experiences. Hence if I post to my friends that I have been to New Zealand, Borneo, Singapore, Japan and Greenland this year then it makes my friends more like to want to go skiing, hiking, and sightseeing in those locations also. Likewise I've got a friend who posted he had 18 holidays last year and that definitely made me want to travel more and to think the eco-warriors are nuts because the guy who had 18 holidays says that he supports the eco-warriors (I didn't even bother asking him whether he thought his own carbon footprint might just be a tad larger than the average person's). Anyway, him posting that he had 18 holidays definitely made me want to travel more and to have more experiences of seeing places further away than my usual haunts.

Hence if Facebook has access to some spare capital it might decide a foray into supporting the oil-and-gas business would help to keep prices lower for travelling/holidays and hence have the knock-on effect of increasing the volume of messages on its WhatsApp tool.

Also it would be nice to see people able to diversify in their investments - hence if Facebook want to pay half in cash and half in Facebook shares, then as long as the takeover price was reasonable (say $4 per PMP share) then I imagine they might find quite a bit of support amongst the long-suffering PMO shareholders who have invested in a company which has grown production only to see the share price decline over the past 4 years by 75%.

If all Joe Public can think of doing is putting their money in a cash ISA then one could say Joe Public isn't planning very well for the future - hence once could ask Joe Public what would you do if natural gas and petrol/diesel doubled in price because you wouldn't invest in the companies which produce these commodities?

But does Joe Public have the intelligence to know why PMO is worth 275p per share by the end of 2020 as a fair price for a sale to a major such as Statoil, ONGC, Conoco, Eni, Total, or even Tullow (if they can afford to buy us for $3 Billion as well as taking on the debt - they can probably just about afford it seeing it will double their production and more than triple their 2P reserves as well as diversifying them and adding the all important "scale" - as often companies in natural resources succeed through economies of scale.

* I meant ONGC (not ONG) in my previous post. However the Indians have a population of 1.1 billion and realistically the only way for them to increase the number experiencing a "middle-class lifestyle" is to grow their economy and transport/infrastructure sectors - which will require them to at least maintain (or slightly increase) their oil-and-gas consumption because although vehicles may become slightly more efficient the number of journeys/miles will need to increase year-upon-year if they are to expand the middle-class lifestyle to a greater proportion of Indians.

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/top-10-largest-oil-gas-companies-india-john-kingsley

If you're going to wait until 2020 then why not be honest and say by then a fair value for this would probably be 250p per share (based on all known information such as the impact of the Tolumount development coming on-stream), and by 2022 with SeaLion and Big-P producing this would probably be worth 450p per share as a bargain price to CNOOC ONG, Suncor Energy, or even Repsol or Pertamina.

Companies like Debenhams go bust because they are locked into twenty-year property agreements, or they completely mis-assessed the value of UK commercial property when agreeing rents previously - or didn't look to improve their supply chain soon enough hence meaning it became impossible to compete with other retailers on price. Also what valuable assets did they have - they had a customer base, but this customer based was gradually squeezed by austerity and Debenhams was no longer the best-value home-retail store (although stupidly I held some of their shares thinking management would get a CVA through and the shares would recover similar to the situations at Mothercare and Carpetright). Anyway I think the issues with some companies, like Debenhams, is that they don't have multiple assets, and certainly not asses which are globally valued/desired. In essence Debenhams had a customer base and it was quickly eroded by price increases of the goods they were selling - as well as daft decisions such as selling tiny boxes of chocolates or spices for £15 at Christmas - that was a complete rip off and showed the person in charge of that idea had no vision for a healthier UK society (what good to the UK is a load of people stuffing themselves with overpriced sugary confectionary or overpriced spices which could be bought from any supermarket except for the fancy bottles which Debenhams packaged them in - not exactly much "added value").

Anyway, I think Patisserie Valerie were the same - the purported to offer a "high-end" product yet it was all spin/marketing and thinking the British public were gastronomical fools. The quality and range of their cakes wasn't anywhere near what you can get in France or Germany. Also, there are still a lot of shops in France and Germany which make/bake everything on site which is why the quality is so high - Patisserie Valerie was trying to sell mass-produced cakes at top prices - well I don't mind paying top prices but only if the cakes are made within 5 miles of the shop, are fresh every morning, and are made by a pâtissière who has studied their craft under a master for at least 8 years before being allowed to run their own shop.

Anyway, I think the advantage of PMO is that I can't see the world not finding oil and gas economically useful for at least the next 15-20 years as a minimum. Hence PMO have multiple assets which will appeal to global investors. Hence if the Americans won't offer a fair price then they could be sold to the Indians, Chinese or Europeans. In essence the global economy requires global oil production to be maintained at current levels for the foreseeable future as at the current rate of production it will take 50 years to replace even 50% of the cars in the world with electric versions. Hence I find it fairly positive that we trade in products which are globally desired and hence we can either sell the asset, or the produced oil, to the highest bidder.

http://www.lse.co.uk/sharecast-news-article.asp?shareprice=&ArticleCode=28994251&ArticleHeadline=Zombie_firms_dragging_down_UK_economy__KPMG

Is there any chance of HSBC increasing the amount of lending to entrepreneurs in the UK - and making it easier for good ideas to receive funding without having to go through some completely inane online sequence of forms which are analysed by an algorithm and therefore what hope is there of good ideas getting funding (surely the people who understand the algorithm that HSBC is using can just siphon off all the capital to their mates?) Banking needs to go back to common sense - it'll be an awful economy if more-and-more lending decisions become algorithm controlled - because whoever writes the code will know exactly what the applicants need to enter into the system to receive an offer of funding - hence it will just result in massive crony-ism because the people who write the code will obviously help out their mates who may be in need of capital but may not have a very good business idea.

Oh well - I guess if there were no algorithms then people would just do their mate's favours anyway in terms of access to capital. Hence it's hard to see that either way is best - therefore probably the middle ground is the best to aim for.

Is there any chance of HSBC increasing the amount of lending to entrepreneurs in the UK - and making it easier for good ideas to receive funding without having to go through some completely inane online sequence of forms which are analysed by an algorithm and therefore what hope is there of good ideas getting funding (surely the people who understand the algorithm that HSBC is using can just siphon off all the capital to their mates?) Banking needs to go back to common sense - it'll be an awful economy if more-and-more lending decisions become algorithm controlled - because whoever writes the code will know exactly what the applicants need to enter into the system to receive an offer of funding - hence it will just result in massive crony-ism because the people who write the code will obviously help out their mates who may be in need of capital but may not have a very good business idea.

What do investment bankers do for the real economy? Why can't their be a focus on people who grow food, make nice things, and treat people with respect - would be nice to see people like this being rewarded by Barclays with million pound pay and bonuses.

http://www.lse.co.uk/sharecast-news-article.asp?shareprice=&ArticleCode=28994251&ArticleHeadline=Zombie_firms_dragging_down_UK_economy__KPMG

Also, basically by Tesco's buying booker it will enable them to increase the wholesale prices to local shops and hence enable themselves to also increase prices without any competitive disadvantage - can't believe the CMA allowed this deal through as it is definitely to the consumer's detriment.

Morrison's have invested in UK supply chain - very smart - definitely to UK consumer's advantage and didn't even require buying anything that might require the CMA's opinion.

Sainsbury's bought Argos just when they have seen Amazon expanding and Tesco's non-food arm struggling - not very smart really as Argos/Homebase will continue to be squeezed by Amazon and will also suffer from the general decline in high-street spending in the UK - and the general economic stagnation/malaise.

However, Sainsbury's and ASDA merging would have allowed the unprofitable Argos stores to be made into food stores, increasing consumer choice and convenience - hence definitely good for consumers. Such a merger would also have enabled Sainsbury's and ASDA to combine back office and supply chains which would have allowed them to lower prices across the board by 10% - something which they premised to do and to maintain for the next 5 years - so again definitely good for consumers - yet this deal was blocked by the CMA, corrupt anyone? Or just plain stupid and run by people who can't see that the ASDA/Sainsbury's merger would have been good for consumers in numerous ways.

http://www.lse.co.uk/sharecast-news-article.asp?shareprice=&ArticleCode=28994251&ArticleHeadline=Zombie_firms_dragging_down_UK_economy__KPMG

Also, basically by Tesco's buying booker it will enable them to increase the wholesale prices to local shops and hence enable themselves to also increase prices without any competitive disadvantage - can't believe the CMA allowed this deal through as it is definitely to the consumer's detriment.

Morrison's have invested in UK supply chain - very smart - definitely to UK consumer's advantage and didn't even require buying anything that might require the CMA's opinion.

Sainsbury's bought Argos just when they have seen Amazon expanding and Tesco's non-food arm struggling - not very smart really as Argos/Homebase will continue to be squeezed by Amazon and will also suffer from the general decline in high-street spending in the UK - and the general economic stagnation/malaise.

However, Sainsbury's and ASDA merging would have allowed the unprofitable Argos stores to be made into food stores, increasing consumer choice and convenience - hence definitely good for consumers. Such a merger would also have enabled Sainsbury's and ASDA to combine back office and supply chains which would have allowed them to lower prices across the board by 10% - something which they premised to do and to maintain for the next 5 years - so again definitely good for consumers - yet this deal was blocked by the CMA, corrupt anyone? Or just plain stupid and run by people who can't see that the ASDA/Sainsbury's merger would have been good for consumers in numerous ways.

http://www.lse.co.uk/sharecast-news-article.asp?shareprice=&ArticleCode=28994251&ArticleHeadline=Zombie_firms_dragging_down_UK_economy__KPMG

Als basically by Tesco's buying booker it will enable them to increase the wholesale prices to local shops and hence enable themselves to also increase prices without any competitive disadvantage - can't believe the CMA allowed this deal through as it is definitely to the consumer's detriment.

Morrison's have invested in UK supply chain - very smart - definitely to UK consumer's advantage and didn't even require buying anything that might require the CMA's opinion.

Sainsbury's bought Argos just when they have seen Amazon expanding and Tesco's non-food arm struggling - not very smart really as Argos/Homebase will continue to be squeezed by Amazon and will also suffer from the general decline in high-street spending in the UK - and the general economic stagnation/malaise.

However, Sainsbury's and ASDA merging would have allowed the unprofitable Argos stores to be made into food stores, increasing consumer choice and convenience - hence definitely good for consumers. Such a merger would also have enabled Sainsbury's and ASDA to combine back office and supply chains which would have allowed them to lower prices across the board by 10% - something which they premised to do and to maintain for the next 5 years - so again definitely good for consumers - yet this deal was blocked by the CMA, corrupt anyone? Or just plain stupid and run by people who can't see that the ASDA/Sainsbury's merger would have been good for consumers in numerous ways.

So basically by Tesco's buying booker it will enable them to increase the wholesale prices to local shops and hence enable themselves to also increase prices without any competitive disadvantage - can't believe the CMA allowed this deal through as it is definitely to the consumer's detriment.

Morrison's have invested in UK supply chain - very smart - definitely to UK consumer's advantage and didn't even require buying anything that might require the CMA's opinion.

Sainsbury's bought Argos just when they have seen Amazon expanding and Tesco's non-food arm struggling - not very smart really as Argos/Homebase will continue to be squeezed by Amazon and will also suffer from the general decline in high-street spending in the UK - and the general economic stagnation/malaise.

However, Sainsbury's and ASDA merging would have allowed the unprofitable Argos stores to be made into food stores, increasing consumer choice and convenience - hence definitely good for consumers. Such a merger would also have enabled Sainsbury's and ASDA to combine back office and supply chains which would have allowed them to lower prices across the board by 10% - something which they premised to do and to maintain for the next 5 years - so again definitely good for consumers - yet this deal was blocked by the CMA, corrupt anyone? Or just plain stupid and run by people who can't see that the ASDA/Sainsbury's merger would have been good for consumers in numerous ways. Also if Sainsbury's/ASDA were required to see off say 150 supermarket sites between them, then by doing this is areas of store overlap, they could have benefitted other parts of the UK economy as these 150 stores could have been made into enterprise zones/start-up zones/business parks/educational centres/technology centres/urban parks or conservation areas in the suburbs.

So basically by Tesco's buying booker it will enable them to increase the wholesale prices to local shops and hence enable themselves to also increase prices without any competitive disadvantage - can't believe the CMA allowed this deal through as it is definitely to the consumer's detriment.

Morrison's have invested in UK supply chain - very smart - definitely to UK consumer's advantage and didn't even require buying anything that might require the CMA's opinion.

Sainsbury's bought Argos just when they have seen Amazon expanding and Tesco's non-food arm struggling - not very smart really as Argos/Homebase will continue to be squeezed by Amazon and will also suffer from the general decline in high-street spending in the UK - and the general economic stagnation/malaise.

However, Sainsbury's and ASDA merging would have allowed the unprofitable Argos stores to be made into food stores, increasing consumer choice and convenience - hence definitely good for consumers. Such a merger would also have enabled Sainsbury's and ASDA to combine back office and supply chains which would have allowed them to lower prices across the board by 10% - something which they premised to do and to maintain for the next 5 years - so again definitely good for consumers - yet this deal was blocked by the CMA, corrupt anyone? Or just plain stupid and run by people who can't see that the ASDA/Sainsbury's merger would have been good for consumers in

numerous ways.

Probability of making it onto Dragon's Den is pretty low - just being rational - I don't mind putting effort into things which I've frequently done in my life: but neither am I one for going on fool's errands. And I just think that if to get some capital in the UK you have to go on Dragon's Den then the system is not functioning as it should - in a healthy economy of 62 million people it should be pretty easy to start up a business and/or to sell a business on. If not then how on earth does the government expect the economy to adapt to the future whilst maintaining the UK as a relatively prosperous country on the whole (which it isn't really as there are huge areas of poverty - some of the worst social deprivation in the whole of Western Europe).