Member Info for Love_You

What will be left in the UK in the future - I already feel late in realising that I am very late in realising I should have left the UK probably in 1987 or 1994, or at the very latest in 2002.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/job-loss-fears-reignited-analysts-warn-debenhams-closures-inevitable-053823895.html - Debenhams to close at least 50 stores in all likelihood.

Europe is a more socially responsible society, with better ethics/morals, and a better climate.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tesco-axe-15000-jobs-across-15738225 - Tesco to axe 15,000 jobs

What will be left in the UK in the future - I already feel late in realising that I am very late in realising I should have left the UK probably in 1987 or 1994, or at the very latest in 2002.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/job-loss-fears-reignited-analysts-warn-debenhams-closures-inevitable-053823895.html - Debenhams to close at least 50 stores in all likelihood.

Europe is a more socially responsible society, with better ethics/morals, and a better climate.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tesco-axe-15000-jobs-across-15738225 - Tesco to axe 15,000 jobs

What will be left in the UK in the future - I already feel late in realising that I am very late in realising I should have left the UK probably in 1987 or 1991, or at the very latest in 2002.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/job-loss-fears-reignited-analysts-warn-debenhams-closures-inevitable-053823895.html - Debenhams to close at least 50 stores in all likelihood.

Europe is a more socially responsible society, with better ethics/morals, and a better climate.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/tesco-axe-15000-jobs-across-15738225 - Tesco to axe 15,000 jobs

Anyway, I don't see many tourists from Italy, Spain, France, Germany in my local area in the UK - we are not getting much foreign currency coming into the part of the UK. Yet many people here complain about everything essential such as utility bills and the price of good-quality local food, and what do they want to spend the money on that they won't use to pay for their essential services with - they want to spend it on foreign holidays to France, Spain, Italy, Greece.

Hence I think the UK has a huge financial problem - for five decades the currency has been weakening against the dollar, and it's weakened 40% against the Euro from what was a stable exchange rate for the first few years after the UK joined.

So the UK has a long-term policy of weakening Sterling, or allowing Sterling to weaken - basically a long-term policy of not bothering to address the trade imbalance/currency imbalance in the balance of payments. Make of it what you will but I would certainly find it a very large warning sign if I held foreign currency and was considering an investment into the UK.

In my opinion people complain about the wrong things in the UK - utility bills are not bad value for money and it's only reasonable to pay a fair price for good-quality locally produced food. Perhaps people need to look at their priorities and to ask themselves is Sky TV good value, are cigarettes good value, is spending your day in a office doing a "non-job" good value when you could instead be helping to create a more vibrant and healthy local economy based around agriculture, leisure, and agri-tourism here in the UK?

Anyway, I don't see many tourists from Italy, Spain, France, Germany in my local area in the UK - we are not getting much foreign currency coming into the part of the UK. Yet many people here complain about everything essential such as utility bills and the price of good-quality local food, and what do they want to spend the money on that they won't use to pay for their essential services with - they want to spend it on foreign holidays to France, Spain, Italy, Greece.

Hence I think the UK has a huge financial problem - for five decades the currency has been weakening against the dollar, and it's weakened 40% against the Euro from what was a stable exchange rate for the first few years after the UK joined.

So the UK has a long-term policy of weakening Sterling, or allowing Sterling to weaken - basically a long-term policy of not bothering to address the trade imbalance/currency imbalance in the balance of payments. Make of it what you will but I would certainly find it a very large warning sign if I held foreign currency and was considering an investment into the UK.

In my opinion people complain about the wrong things in the UK - utility bills are not bad value for money and it's only reasonable to pay a fair price for good-quality locally produced food. Perhaps people need to look at their priorities and to ask themselves is Sky TV good value, are cigarettes good value, is spending your day in a office doing a "non-job" good value when you could instead be helping to create a more vibrant and healthy local economy based around agriculture, leisure, and agri-tourism here in the UK?

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/rbs-aims-wind-down-one-070401874.html

RBS aims to wind down one billion pounds in local council loans

What's fraudulent is the banks having changed from how they caused the 2008/09 crisis - they are still telling one set of clients erroneous information about the most likely trajectory of the economy which facilitates arranging bets by these clients against other clients who they are giving the more accurate information to - information based on better policy knowledge and more high-quality assessments of the most likely future economic trajectory in the UK. That amounts to fraud in my book - when a bank doesn't give all clients access to the best information that is has.

The fact bankers never looked into how Debenhams got saddled with 20 years of upwards only rent revisions on commercial UK property, whilst in reality the global financial crisis was designed (or did without design) to bring about a fall in commercial property values around the globe - as it happened the UK was one of the worst countries hit with a 40% fall in the value of commercial property in 2008/09.

So what was fraudulent was the bankers allowing one part of their business to lock clients into 20 years of upwards only rent increases whilst another part of the bank was betting money that commercial property values would fall (and this was how that part of the bank would make their money).

The fact bankers never looked into how Debenhams got saddled with 20 years of upwards only rent revisions on commercial UK property, whilst in reality the global financial crisis was designed (or did without design) to bring about a fall in commercial property values around the globe - as it happened the UK was one of the worst countries hit with a 40% fall in the value of commercial property in 2008/09.

So what was fraudulent was the bankers allowing one part of their business to lock clients into 20 years of upwards only rent increases whilst another part of the bank was betting money that commercial property values would fall (and this was how that part of the bank would make their money).

Hi all,

You have to ask yourselves how did the Indian tax authorities end up with the shares in their possession, which rightfully belonged to Cairn equity investors (or at the very least Cairn plc.), to sell to their cronies?

If Tax is a soverign thing and Cairn plc. had held (within the UK) their shares in their overseas subsidiary (Cairn India) then these shares could never have come into the posession of the Indian tax authorities to sell off to their cronies on the cheap.

The people at fault here are not the lawyers or the Indian tax authorities - it's the Board of Directors of this company. They let one of the companies most valuable assets (the shares in Cairn India, a subsidiary) become held by entities outside of UK jurisidction - this was a huge mistake and instead of blaming everyone else if I was a shareholder here I would firmly be blaming the Board of Directors for letting this asset into the hands of people who were outside of Uk jurisidiction.

It's perfectly possible, but need TD to focus on just four projects and one revamp, SeaLion, Zama, Tolumount and Big-P, revamping Solan - and to do nothing else with cashflows except for paying down debts and paying a dividend to long-suffering shareholders as soon as possible.

This could be really bad for shareholders in the future …. all companies go through times when they writedown assets but often the market comes back in their favour in the future and the business

However, if TCG limit net borrowings to two times the adjusted capital and reserves then the next time TCG have a non-cash write-down on the balance sheet it could mean the equity becoming worthless … yet the banks could do a debt-for-equity swap knowing that over the long-term TCG will likely be a cash-generative business ...and maybe some of the assets could even be written back up in value in the future. Normally the shareholders would benefit from such write ups...but if they have already had the assets manipulated out of their control by the banks then it would be only the banks that would gain ...the shareholders already having lost everything.

There's been a lot of this going on in the UK recently … banks taking ownership of companies and leaving shareholders with nothing … such as at Interserve, FlyBe and Debenhams … but there's been a long list recently of this happening on the London markets, and those three examples are just the tip of a large iceberg.

I don't think the City of London is doing itself any favours …. it's basically saying all equity is as good as worthless because the new policy seems to be to give the bankers whatever they want if any cunning scheme can be found to take it off the equity holders way below fair value, or at a low point in the business cycles (which traditionally equity holders have known would be followed by better times in the future generally the economy does have ups and downs).

Anyway …. you don't need to extract the equity value and give it to the banksters in all companies to make equity untouchable in London …. do it to even 15% of companies and I think equity holders will have seen enough to know they had better move their capital to the USA/China/Europe … anywhere where the banksters are not intent on stealing the business created by the equity investments of others … to cover-up their own losses and their own lack of ability to create reasonably stable and useful businesses.

This could be really bad for shareholders in the future …. all companies go through times when they writedown assets but often the market comes back in their favour in the future and the business generates healthy cash flows.

However, if TCG limit net borrowings to two times the adjusted capital and reserves then the next time TCG have a non-cash write-down on the balance sheet it could mean the equity becoming worthless … yet the banks could do a debt-for-equity swap knowing that over the long-term TCG will likely be a cash-generative business ...and maybe some of the assets could even be written back up in value in the future. Normally the shareholders would benefit from such write ups...but if they have already had the assets manipulated out of their control by the banks then it would be only the banks that would gain ...the shareholders already having lost everything.

There's been a lot of this going on in the UK recently … banks taking ownership of companies and leaving shareholders with nothing … such as at Interserve, FlyBe and Debenhams … but there's been a long list recently of this happening on the London markets, and those three examples are just the tip of a large iceberg.

I don't think the City of London is doing itself any favours …. it's basically saying all equity is as good as worthless because the new policy seems to be to give the bankers whatever they want if any cunning scheme can be found to take it off the equity holders way below fair value, or at a low point in the business cycles (which traditionally equity holders have known would be followed by better times in the future generally the economy does have ups and downs).

Anyway …. you don't need to extract the equity value and give it to the banksters in all companies to make equity untouchable in London …. do it to even 15% of companies and I think equity holders will have seen enough to know they had better move their capital to the USA/China/Europe … anywhere where the banksters are not intent on stealing the business created by the equity investments of others … to cover-up their own losses and their own lack of ability to create reasonably stable and useful businesses.

Hi James,

What do you think of this line of reasoning below:

Because the national debt has tripled since 2007 it is going to make it far more expensive in future for the government to achieve any policy objectives it may have through financial incentives - because financial incentives are less appealing to individual citizens the greater the amount of private wealth within an economy (on average).

What do you think ... is this broadly like to be true or not?

And if this is broadly true then what does it mean for the most likely trajectory of inflation in the UK in the future?

Hi Jamesroo,

Indeed you have to feel sorry for people in smaller communities and more outlying areas, as well as in poorer inner city areas, for the financial cuts seem to have disproportionally impacted them. However the already wealthier areas, the better quality suburbs, and the large landowners all seem to have disproportionally benefitted under the Conservative spending plans.

I don't think the Conservatives have done any better with the economy than Labour personally. The Conservatives have just done it different, with different winners and losers. However, is the overall economy in aggregate any better now than in 2007 - it seems to be either no better in aggregate or even perhaps a fair bit worse?

The one thing that is apparent to me is that you can't change people very easily and this is the root cause of many of the social problems in the UK. The government has spent quite a bit of money, that is for sure since 2010. Yet the quality of many services is becoming worse in my opinion - especially cafes and smaller restaurants - why can't they use local ingredients which are fresh and offer some healthy alternatives on their menus made with local ingredients? Generally the only healthy alternatives are overpriced, maybe because a lot of them have avocado in.

Also cafes seem to think it's acceptable to offer all manner of cakes, brownies, and ice creams for dessert without considering things like fruit salads or perhaps even vegetable-based desserts. Most cakes are mostly sugar, butter, flour and egg - it's not exactly very healthy. Yet the cafe owner seems to think they are offering a selection/choice if they offer since different types of cakes - well to me that is just six different, but very similar, combinations of sugar, butter, flour, egg and chocolate. So it's not really offering a choice at all in terms of the nutritional content, or the likely health effects, from the desserts on offer.

Also chocolate isn't even chocolate these days - the number one ingredient on most milk chocolate is sugar, and also palm oil (/sheer butter) is usually the number three ingredient. Eating these types of foods regularly is equivalent to putting raw crude oil into the petrol tank of a Ferrari engine - it will foul the thing up pretty quickly with too much cholesterol and batter the body with rapid glucose spikes without any actual long-term fuel such as carbohydrates with a low glycaemic index, proteins, and healthy fats (such as the natural oils in fish).

And do you believe the official figures anymore .... if the national debt has tripled then surely the government has lost control of the economy because there would be enough private wealth in existence to thwart any major plans by central government now that the government has bestowed so much private wealth from the public into private hands .... making it more difficult for the government to achieve any policy aims it might have through financial incentives in fut

You have to relate things together in the world of finance, unless you can't see the big picture, the market says Amazon is worth about 1800 times as much as Thomas Cook. A good exercise to try at home is to put one pea on one side of a table, and then on the other side of the table count out 1800 peas.

Considering that Amazon still accounts for less than 5% of retail sales in the USA, is it really worth 1800 times more than a company such as Thomas Cook. Do you prefer buying stuff off Amazon, or do you prefer to go on holiday?

Also, surely the demand will eventually dry up for buying domestic items from Amazon? I mean if one buys good quality goods then they probably don't need replacing for twenty years. Hence I can't really see Amazon being able to keep sales growing unless people are not smart enough to make good quality purchases that will save them replacing the item in the near future.

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/climate-cash-young-norwegians-call-104911493.html

I don't think the oil industry ever considered the Lofoten area as being particularly promising for large/giant oil and gas fields.

However, it does show that PVR could do with looking sharpish about getting the oil out and delivering a healthy return on shareholders' capital - if PVR don't get the oil flowing before 2028 it may well be that there is too much opposition to it to ever proceed with the project - as by then there will have been another decade's worth of production from some of the world's largest fields in Canada, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Texas, and the South China Sea. Hence who knows what people will feel in 2028 - but it could well be that Ireland will be financially owned by then by the countries who were smart/bright enough to make use of their oil resources at the current time, i.e. USA/Texas, Brazil, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Nigeria, Venezuela, China, Russia, Iran, Canada, etc.

* It hardly seems reasonable that the equity value of oil companies have fallen so much - (and bankruptcy rates have been relatively high in the sector) - whilst equity investors in psychologically damaging products such as Facebook/Apple/SkyTV/Netflix have seen returns of over 1,000% (one thousand percent) since 2010.

* it hardly seem reasonable that share prices of oil
ADVERTISEMENT

* It hardly seems reasonable that the equity value of oil companies have fallen so much - (and bankruptcy rates have been relatively high in the sector) - whilst equity investors in psychologically damaging products such as Facebook/Apple/SkyTV/Netflix have seen returns of over 1,000% (one thousand percent) since 2010.

* it hardly seem reasonable that share prices of oil companies have fallen so much/bankruptcy rates so high in the sector - whilst investors in psychologically damaging products such as Facebook/Apple/SkyTV/Netflix have seen returns of over 1,000% (one thousand percent) since 2010.

Unless the oil industry keeps spending there will be fewer people about who can afford Aston Martins, Ferraris, Lamborghinis, Bentleys, Porsches, and Rolls-Royces. But perhaps these companies also need to spend a bit more on paying their staff - it hardly seems reasonable that share prices within the oil industry/bankruptcies have been so high whilst investors in psychologically damaging products such as Facebook/Sky TV/Netflix/Apple have seen returns on their investments of over 1,000% (one thousand percent) since 2010.